Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

1…3739414243

Comments

  • #1142
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Why do they bother? What does it matter to them if a fetus..... which is little more than a self building blue print for creating a child..... is used to produce a child with DS or not?

    it matters to them as they believe having ds isn't a good enough reason to allow the taking of the life of an unborn baby. a "fetus....." is way way more then a "blueprint"
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    They want to ask "What is your beef with DS" but I would ask why would they want MORE people with DS around? What is their agenda to increase the number of such children. What is their need that blue prints for such children are actualized into real actual people?

    there agenda is to insure that babies aren't aborted just for having ds. nothing more nothing less. they believe that simply having ds is not a reason for abortion.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    We are essentially talking about parents with blue prints here, who can choose using modern technology to go with a blue print for a "normal" child or a blue print for a child with a disability. On what possible set of arguments do they think the latter option is the best one to go with?

    they believe that the unborn with ds have a right to life. it's as simple as that. they believe that a parent has a duty to love it's child whether it's "normal" or not, that living a child is what any right thinking parent would do.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    What some people (like me) want is that we have the capability to look at the blue print for the NEW people we are about to create and not go about creating MORE people in need.

    so am i correct in saying, you want to wipe out disability and have only "normal" children? the problem with that idea, is it has the potential to extend further to living disabled people.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Just for the sake of having people in need so we can all glory in the nobility of suffering, and the celebration of diversity, and pat ourselves on the back for how wonderful we are to do so and what an enlightened and accepting society we must be.

    no it's because a modern functioning society recognises that the disabled unborn have as much of a right to life as so-called "normal" unborn. one of the ways to judge society is how it treats the disabled among other groups.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #1143
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,735 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    But it is nothing of the sort. It is a very basic concept. And rather than being in the small print, it is what I lead with as my opening Headliner. It is not PART of my position on abortion, let alone a small print part. Is IS my position on abortion.

    Forget abortion, forget the debate here. Go back to the baseball bat.

    You do understand that you can swing a baseball bat pretty much around as you want. Almost full choice. But the moment doing so affects another being with rights........ lets say their head or their property..... your rights become instantly curtailed.

    So you understand, forgetting abortion, the basic concept being brought into play here right? That GENERALLY in life your freedom of choice is curtailed the moment another moral entity comes into play.

    So why does it confuse you when the SAME principle is applied to THIS context? That's exactly what baffles me!


    You want to forget what we're actually talking about, which is abortion, and you want to make analogies about swinging baseball bats instead? They're two completely unrelated circumstances, unless one has the intent of killing the unborn by hitting a pregnant woman with such force that they succeed in their efforts.

    No, I don't understand your analogy, because it's stupid.


  • #1144
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    GreeBo wrote: »
    you are causing all this poverty and heartache because of some ancient Catholic guilt nonsense.

    we are not causing poverty, and not everyone's anti-abortion on demand stance is based on religion, never mind some mythical "catholic guilt"

    GreeBo wrote: »
    Yeah, that would be a wonderful point if it wasnt for the fact that only the pro-lifers are posting images an videos of happy little children.

    whereas the pro-choicers are just making out those who don't agree with them to be bogeymen and horrible wicked people. you see, 2 can play that game. the point of posting the video was to remind us all that having ds doesn't always mean one barely being able to function. it's a reminder we all can do with now and again.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Well, to be frank, those issues would all eventually go away if we had the right to choose and people choose to terminate the pregnancy, wouldn't it?

    no . they wouldn't go away. people can terminate the pregnancy currently if they wish.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Why doesnt your "need to do more for people in charity" extend to allowing them to choose *not* to bring another hungry mouth into the world?

    because that's not charity. it's allowing the taking of life, which this state does not believe to be acceptible.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Irrespective of the child having special needs. It should be a basic human right to decide to have a child or not

    that human right is and always has been upheld. it's not a human right to be able to have abortion on demand however and nor should it be. abortion for medical reasons is availible in ireland and that is necessary.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #1145
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,735 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    ....... wrote: »
    Yes:


    If this is speaking out of both sides of your mouth I dont know what is.


    You forgot the last part of what you selectively quoted where I said you could draw what conclusions you want from that, and it appears you did. You still can't say I ever claimed to be pro-choice, because I didn't.


  • #1146
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,048 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #1147
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,048 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1148
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    GreeBo wrote: »
    you have somehow convinced yourself that its perfectly ok for *you* to hold the power over someone elses body.

    this is made up nonsense with no basis in reality. nobody has the power over anyone, you just cannot have abortion on demand in ireland. that's nothing to do with power, that's to do with the state recognising the right to life of the unborn, and insuring as much as it can, protection for such life.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    The simple fact is that people should be allowed to choose, for themselves, if they want to take the risk of a life of potential misery or not.

    but they are already allowed to choose. they can and do choose to have abortions. they are not being prevented via any legal means from having an abortion on demand.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    For the umpteenth time, the argument presented to you here is that this choice should be available before birth. Before there is a person for you to post happy pictures of. Before it all become impossible for anyone to have a logical, ethical discussion about it. Once a person is born, thats it, its too late. Hence these tests and the right to do something about the results of these test, *before* its too late.

    the choice, and the right, are availible. they have been since abortions became legal in the uk.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    So why on earth are you trying to take the responsibility of the decision regarding abortion?
    Its not your pregnancy, you were never involved, you should have no control over it.

    Basically, whats it got to do with you?

    it has everything to do with us when it is being made our business, via a campaign to repeal the 8th. if you don't want it to be our business, then you can continue just going to the uk to have abortion on demand, for which it will then be none of our business.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #1149
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    it matters to them as they believe having ds isn't a good enough reason to allow the taking of the life of an unborn baby. a "fetus....." is way way more then a "blueprint"

    So they can choose not terminate their own DS pregnancy, when/if they have one, if they feel it isn't a good enough reason.
    there agenda is to insure that babies aren't aborted just for having ds. nothing more nothing less. they believe that simply having ds is not a reason for abortion.
    They are entitled to hold that belief. Other people are entitled to believe the opposite, or somewhere in the middle.
    they believe that the unborn with ds have a right to life. it's as simple as that. they believe that a parent has a duty to love it's child whether it's "normal" or not, that living a child is what any right thinking parent would do.

    Who are you to dictate what a right thinking parent would do? Really?
    no it's because a modern functioning society recognises that the disabled unborn have as much of a right to life as so-called "normal" unborn. one of the ways to judge society is how it treats the disabled among other groups.

    Well then in that case, our society is the pits, because it doesn't treat disabled people well at all and offers little to no support to families. Even taking the issue of abortion out of the question, it cannot be denied that services in this country are abysmal. Marginally better than the institutions disabled people were left in, in the past, but still a long way to go.
    Opposing abortion for that reason is ridiculous when society has very little to offer disabled people and their families anyway.


  • #1150
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,048 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1151
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    this is made up nonsense with no basis in reality. nobody has the power over anyone, you just cannot have abortion on demand in ireland. that's nothing to do with power, that's to do with the state recognising the right to life of the unborn, and insuring as much as it can, protection for such life.



    but they are already allowed to choose. they can and do choose to have abortions. they are not being prevented via any legal means from having an abortion on demand.



    the choice, and the right, are availible. they have been since abortions became legal in the uk.



    it has everything to do with us when it is being made our business, via a campaign to repeal the 8th. if you don't want it to be our business, then you can continue just going to the uk to have abortion on demand, for which it will then be none of our business.

    The issue at hand is legalising abortion in Ireland. The UK is totally irrelevant as it is not where the referendum is happening. It doesn't matter whether or not its available over there, because this is an Irish issue about Irish law and Irish Women and Irish rights, affecting Irish citizens.
    Pawning it off with the "she can go to the UK, its legal in the UK" is both a moot point and a cop out.


  • Advertisement
  • #1152
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I am really confused by your policy of ignoring the posts where I am talking to you, skipping over and dodging them, then replying later to posts I wrote to someone else.
    end of the road wrote: »
    it matters to them as they believe having ds isn't a good enough reason to allow the taking of the life of an unborn baby. a "fetus....." is way way more then a "blueprint" there agenda is to insure that babies aren't aborted just for having ds. nothing more nothing less. they believe that simply having ds is not a reason for abortion. they believe that the unborn with ds have a right to life. it's as simple as that. they believe that a parent has a duty to love it's child whether it's "normal" or not, that living a child is what any right thinking parent would do.

    But since you have not shown a SINGLE reason why abortion is a bad thing, other than this "it is wrong because it is wrong" approach you take..... their reasons for having an abortion should be no one's business but their own.

    We are not talking about a child here, we are talking about a fetus which is little more than a machine and a blue print that is in the process of building a child. BEFORE it is a child, I do not understand the basis of your ethical concerns.
    end of the road wrote: »
    so am i correct in saying, you want to wipe out disability and have only "normal" children? the problem with that idea, is it has the potential to extend further to living disabled people.

    Not the way I argue it, it does not. Your slippery slope argument, which is all it is, is already pre-empted because my entire position distinguishes between entities with sentience, and entities that lack it entirely.

    Since my position is predicated on sentience, it has no potential to "extend further to living disabled people".

    But I am glad at least are distinguishing now between the fetus and.... your own words now.... "living disables people" and acknowledging therefore that the fetus is NOT one. I would call that progress.


  • #1153
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    You want to forget what we're actually talking about, which is abortion

    Eh no I do not, that is a wanton complete dodge from you now.

    I wanted you to MOMENTARILY step out of the abortion debate and consider the GENERAL point I am making.

    Then, having understood the GENERAL point to then step back into the abortion debate and apply that general point there.

    The GENERAL point being that you do not have 100% choice anywhere in life. The moment your rights to do some X impact the rights of another entity for whom we have moral and ethical concerns, your rights get curtailed.

    So, specifically in the context of abortion, I feel similarly a woman's rights to do what she wants with a fetus inside her stop being 100% the moment that fetus becomes a sentient entity to whom we similarly have moral and ethical concerns.

    Nothing "stupid" about that.


  • #1154
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    But we are.

    In the X case, The Attorney General successfully applied to the courts for an injunction to protect the life of the unborn being taken to the UK for an abortion, and we were appalled, and held a referendum, and amended the Constitution to prevent him ever doing that again. And we voted to allow information about UK abortion to be legally circulated here.

    The pro-lifers today let on that these were simply us allowing that we cannot control what happens on unholy foreign ground, but not at the time. They campaigned against the right to travel for abortion and against abortion information, and wanted to remove suicidality as a legal reason for abortion. 37.5% voted against the right to travel amendment. 34.5% voted to exclude suicidality. 40% voted against legalising abortion information.

    They lost. We voted to make UK abortion and information about it legal here in Ireland.

    we are not outsourcing abortion. never have been.
    The Attorney General had to enforce the law at the time as the state had a duty to protect the life of the unborn at any cost.
    however, the law did need to change to reflect the fact people were traveling for abortions, and it wasn't ultimately practical to stop them from doing so.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    So you are actively trying to stop Irish women travelling to the UK to murder children? Campaigning to repeal the 13th? Picketing the Ryanair desks?

    Nope. We (including you) are perfectly OK with women having a right to choose abortion on demand, as long as they do the walk of shame to Britain for it.

    there is no walk of shame. why would there be . if someone wants to have an abortion on demand they are hardly going to ultimately be ashamed of it. this is more strawmen to make others feel guilt they will correctly not have because they are not responsible.
    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    The issue at hand is legalising abortion in Ireland. The UK is totally irrelevant as it is not where the referendum is happening. It doesn't matter whether or not its available over there, because this is an Irish issue about Irish law and Irish Women and Irish rights, affecting Irish citizens.
    Pawning it off with the "she can go to the UK, its legal in the UK" is both a moot point and a cop out.

    but the thing is it's not really anything to do with rights as abortion on demand isn't a right. you don't have a human right to an abortion on demand. you have a right to an abortion if your life is under threat in this country and i agree with that, but you don't have a right to an abortion on demand, and i agree that should be the case. i would agree that the current abortion laws that allow abortion in certain circumstances may have some room to be extended but once those issues are taken care of then i believe that it is enough to meet ireland's abortion needs.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #1155
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.


    sure, however. it's not our job to feel shame for the fact there is no abortion on demand in ireland. i and many others do not, and will feel no shame for that fact. in fact, i will feel no shame for things i'm not responsible for.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    yes, duty. right thinking parents. do you not believe that it is your duty to love your child? i certainly do believe it's your duty to love and look after your child. they did not ask to be conceived or born.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    not really. unfortunately the world is becoming a little bit to liberal as times go on, and we have to be careful not to allow things to go to far. i'm a very liberal person myself, but there does have to be boundaries, and for me the right to life is that boundary.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    the unborn have a right to life as they are human life and by not allowing them to have a right to life, there is a small risk of that right being removed from the living. by protecting the life of the unborn, in my view, we make it less likely to remove the right from the living.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    i agree. and we need to buck up sharpish and start improving.
    however that does not justify abortion on demand.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #1156
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    end of the road wrote: »
    it has everything to do with us when it is being made our business, via a campaign to repeal the 8th. if you don't want it to be our business, then you can continue just going to the uk to have abortion on demand, for which it will then be none of our business.

    Again repealing the 8th will not make abortion legal AND the desire to repeal the 8th is not just about abortion.


  • #1157
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    end of the road wrote: »
    i believe that it is enough to meet ireland's abortion needs.

    You can believe whatever you want about the need for abortion in Ireland, just like you can believe Santa is real if you want, but the very fact that there are thousands of women in Ireland seeking abortions means the need exists.


  • #1158
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »

    but the thing is it's not really anything to do with rights as abortion on demand isn't a right. you don't have a human right to an abortion on demand. you have a right to an abortion if your life is under threat in this country and i agree with that, but you don't have a right to an abortion on demand, and i agree that should be the case. i would agree that the current abortion laws that allow abortion in certain circumstances may have some room to be extended but once those issues are taken care of then i believe that it is enough to meet ireland's abortion needs.

    The 8th isn't just about abortion, which has been explained to you about 278191 times now. Its about womens rights during maternity care as well.
    Its everything to do with rights because this referendum, if its passed, will legislate NEW rights to women, some of which may refer to abortion.

    I am aware that "abortion on demand" as you like to so eloquently put it, isn't a right at the moment. That is what the whole debate is about, for goodness sake.
    So shutting down the very valid points I'm making by saying its not a right and its not legal is just ignorant. Its not a right and not a legal currently. This will most likely change after the referendum. Which we are currently debating. How don't you understand how this works?


  • #1159
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I am really confused by your policy of ignoring the posts where I am talking to you, skipping over and dodging them, then replying later to posts I wrote to someone else.



    But since you have not shown a SINGLE reason why abortion is a bad thing, other than this "it is wrong because it is wrong" approach you take..... their reasons for having an abortion should be no one's business but their own.

    We are not talking about a child here, we are talking about a fetus which is little more than a machine and a blue print that is in the process of building a child. BEFORE it is a child, I do not understand the basis of your ethical concerns.



    Not the way I argue it, it does not. Your slippery slope argument, which is all it is, is already pre-empted because my entire position distinguishes between entities with sentience, and entities that lack it entirely.

    Since my position is predicated on sentience, it has no potential to "extend further to living disabled people".

    But I am glad at least are distinguishing now between the fetus and.... your own words now.... "living disables people" and acknowledging therefore that the fetus is NOT one. I would call that progress.


    an unborn life is not little more then a machine or blueprint. a blueprint is an idea. a machine is something that caries out a job or function. an unborn life grows into a human being. there is absolutely no comparison at all and your dismissing of that fact shows you have no argument what soever. your nonsense about sentience is just that, nonsense. it doesn't change the fact that an unborn life is a life, and will bar certain circumstances grow, and that we don't simply value life based on sentience alone. the unborn is living.
    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    You can believe whatever you want about the need for abortion in Ireland, just like you can believe Santa is real if you want, but the very fact that there are thousands of women in Ireland seeking abortions means the need exists.


    and their needs are being met.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #1160
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,048 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1161
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,048 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #1162
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,048 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1163
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »


    and their needs are being met.

    Their needs are most certainly NOT being met. Not at all.

    You should have said that in your OPINION, they are being met. The thousands of women and men in this country currently campaigning to repeal would completely disagree with you.


  • #1164
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    end of the road wrote: »

    and their needs are being met.

    no they are not, the state has a responsibility to it's citizens and, in the current hypocritical system whereby you can have an abortion as long as you don't do it in our country, it is failing a portion of it's citizens.

    Why don't you go and speak to some couples or women who've had to travel for abortion and ask if their needs were met.


  • #1165
    maxsmum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 521 ✭✭✭maxsmum


    This thread is really derailing...


  • #1166
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cmon folks

    End of the thread is attempting to shut down relevant discussion. Play smart


  • #1167
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    end of the road wrote: »
    an unborn life is not little more then a machine or blueprint. a blueprint is an idea. a machine is something that caries out a job or function. an unborn life grows into a human being.

    Yes. Thank you. It grows INTO a human being. So therefore, by your own wording here, we agree it is NOT ONE NOW.

    Thank you for making my point for me.
    end of the road wrote: »
    it doesn't change the fact that an unborn life is a life

    Then it seems not that my argument is wrong, but your understanding of it is. Because my argument is not and never has been that the life is not a life.

    My argument is that the life of a fetus, which is a life, is not a "human life" in terms of personhood. And you acknowledge that yourself when you clearly say "an unborn life grows into a human being.". Ex. Act. Ly. You got it now!


  • #1168
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    end of the road wrote: »




    but the thing is it's not really anything to do with rights as abortion on demand isn't a right. you don't have a human right to an abortion on demand. you have a right to an abortion if your life is under threat in this country and i agree with that, but you don't have a right to an abortion on demand, and i agree that should be the case. .

    I do have a right to bodily autonomy. A right which is currently voided at the moment of conception.


  • #1169
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    i can be against how that society behaves, as i have been on many issues. i am not responsible for it however, as i don't operate in the same way that society as a whole, may operate on the issue.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    i'm well aware of that. they are in the wrong.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Yes. Thank you. It grows INTO a human being. So therefore, by your own wording here, we agree it is NOT ONE NOW.

    Thank you for making my point for me.

    i didn't make your point for you. a human life is a human life, and it is entitled to as much protection as a fully developed human being.

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    My argument is that the life of a fetus, which is a life, is not a "human life" in terms of personhood. And you acknowledge that yourself when you clearly say "an unborn life grows into a human being.". Ex. Act. Ly. You got it now!

    in terms of the abortion on demand debate it doesn't matter. the reality is the unborn have a right to life and the right to have that right protected.
    kylith wrote: »
    I do have a right to bodily autonomy. A right which is currently voided at the moment of conception.


    it's not being voided as you can ultimately change that situation. but the state does ultimately have a duty to try and protect the life of the unborn so a balance will be struck, that has to happen for the greater good. if there are other unforseen issues then they can be dealt with but we don't need abortion on demand to strike a better fairer balance for those who feel the current balance is unfair.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #1170
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    end of the road wrote: »
    i didn't make your point for you.

    Well yes, you did, your words were my position/point exactly. How is that NOT making my point for me? "an unborn life grows into a human being." is exactly my position on this subject!!! The inference there though is that if it grows into one, then that means it is not one now. Simples.
    end of the road wrote: »
    in terms of the abortion on demand debate it doesn't matter. the reality is the unborn have a right to life and the right to have that right protected.

    Sure, I am happy to acknowledge what the current laws and situations are, or are not.

    But that is different to the conversation I have been having which is about what I feel the situation SHOULD be. Not what it currently IS.

    The latter conversation is one boards.ie has better speakers on. I shall defer to them.


  • Advertisement
  • #1171
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    i can be against how that society behaves, as i have been on many issues. i am not responsible for it however, as i don't operate in the same way that society as a whole, may operate on the issue.

    You can't make the point of abortion not being ok because we judge a society on how we treat out disabled citizens, therefore it is wrong, and then in your next post say you are not responsible for and don't agree with how society behaves.

    You also just acknowledged that you don't operate in the same way as society, as a whole, may operate on an issue.
    That is exactly the argument the choice side is making. We appreciate that we don't all operate the same on an issue, and have different opinions and circumstances, therefore we want to allow women of this country to make their own choice.

    You don't half continuously contradict yourself.


Advertisement