The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Nobody mentioned segregation because the women are nasty. What a childish comeback. I just think it's odd that one wing might be dedicated to bringing babies into the world and the other would be dedicated to ending their lives. For me, oddness does come into it.

Subjectively it might be odd to you, but what is odd to an individual really is irrelevant to the over all debate on abortion. I think that is what the user means when saying something like "oddness does not come into it". There are lots of things that are odd to me, and likely you too, that people have, and SHOULD have, every right to do.

We are after all an odd species. Some people are paying money to get tattoos on, while some people are painfully getting them removed. Some people are seeking medical assistance to put weight on, while others seeking it to get some off. In one room we might have someone getting breast enlargements, while in the other breast reductions. In one wing people are getting fertility treatments to get pregnant, while in another wing people are getting vasectomies to help ensure they never do. Hell most of us would do all we can to save one of our limbs....... yet there are people in this world who actively seek to have one removed and would likely be much happier if it was, and not because they are insane, but for genuine underlying conditions and reasons.

That, other than your own subjective reaction to it, does the oddness you experience....... but others do not...... actually have to do with anything I wonder?

OldNotWIse wrote: »

But the "pro-choice" lot are obsessed with bringing up hard cases such as rape and FFA at every opportunity as if these form the majority of reasons for the millions of terminations each year.

Not sure that is a generous summary of their position at all. I do not see them bringing it up that often, let alone "at every opportunity". Rather they only bring it up when confronted with very specific anti abortion arguments for which such things like rape and FFA are the exception.

In fact I, as a rather loud pro-choice advocate, think appeals to rape are a terrible argument and I never make them and have in fact explained why I would ideally like to see everyone stop making them on my "side". I think it is a poor argument, even though I know when and why it is often made.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I must have been unfortunate in the exposure to mantras that I have experienced because rape and FFA is pretty much all I have heard from the pro choice side.

People do tend to hear only what they want to hear sometimes I guess. When one is convinced that people in a certain group only do or say X, then they will be hyper-sensitive to noticing when they do X.

It is called Selection Bias and we see it all the time, such as when people think Taxi Drivers are arrogant and aggressive drivers on the road. They self-confirm this by noticing the occasional Taxi driver who is, and entirely failing to notice the 100s of incidents around them where they are not.

However your selection biases aside, the majority of arguments I hear from the pro-choice side are either about bodily autonomy and the personal rights of the mother, or about the fetus and whether there is any valid basis to consider it an entity to which we should afford rights or hold moral and ethical concern.

That you ignore, or fail to notice, such arguments certainly does not mean they are not there.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

And "will" implies that it is a certainty. If parents to a baby born at 23 weeks want to care for and nurture their child and love it "despite" it's disabilities - who are you to determine that that childs life is not worthy of love?

you do realise that nobody is suggesting that abortions become mandatory?

Murrisk wrote: »

What are you talking about? Seriously, reading comprehension fail. You said you don't want your tax going towards funding abortion as you don't agree with it. People pointed out that you are likley already paying for things you don't agree with. Someone gave the example of methadone clinics. You said you don't agree with those. I then pointed out that that is an example of you contributing towards something you don't agree with. I... didn't say a methadone clinic kills anyone. Why do you think I did?

And the grounds of my opposition to both scenarios are different. I oppose methadone clinics because they're still highly addictive substances and the efficiency of using them to wean people off heroin is questionable. I oppose abortion because it involves the killing of what I believe to be a human life.

Simply seeing opposition to something and thinking it's the same grounds for both highlights a complete lack of nuance.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

christian compassion at its finest.

Why do people act as if Jesus was a nice guy who never did anything? Jesus once attacked a load of money lenders with a whip.

Attacking anything you find "not nice" as "unchristian" is kinda ridiculous.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is compassion not a christian value?

Was Jesus compassionate about the money lenders who had families to feed and bills to pay?

AnGaelach wrote: »

Was Jesus compassionate about the money lenders who had families to feed and bills to pay?

you are comparing pregnant women and money lenders? Just call the women sluts and be done with it.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are comparing pregnant women and money lenders? Just call the women sluts and be done with it.

I'm comparing women who want to murder their baby to money lenders in that they don't deserve compassion, sure.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know right, imagine deliberately trying to obfuscate someone's point and misrepresenting it to make it seem like they hate all women.

AnGaelach wrote: »

I know right, imagine deliberately trying to obfuscate someone's point and misrepresenting it to make it seem like they hate all women.

nobody said you hate all women. Just the ones who are pregnant and dont want to be.