Men's rights on Abortion?

notjustsweet wrote: »

Where did I say anything about religion?

Where did I say remove emotions?

I said I don't see any reason to put up scan photos, do it if you want I don't really care. To me it's a tactic used when you don't have any logical argument to make so you go to the cute babies photos.

I said it was about letting women have choices.

What's your plan for making men take responsibility?

I used religion as an example as something that was fair enough to remove, so not sure what the problem is, but I don't agree with removing emotions.

You said "There's simply no need try and pull on people's emotions", to me thats trying to remove emotions from the debate? Also it's okay to talk about it on the other side of the debate which I have no problem with. Memories and stories of what women currently go though. Perfectly fine with me.

There are not cute babies they are what is the reality, let's not hide the facts. If you've seen them before then what's the problem

If you think they are not at the life stage what's the problem.

Are there will be many young people who have not seen them, should they not be informed of all the facts of development of life to decide where it begins.

As I said previously everyone should look up all the facts of week by week development, not just the pictures, to understand the full development and what is and is not active at each stage.

Also just to add, I am likley to vote repeal, but I have some concerns about how it is been done.

Would be more comfortable to see something to replace it about unborn rights, except in certain cases...yes

Would I be more comfortable if the replaced it with 8 weeks in constitution....yes

For 12 weeks, and to place it in the governments hands , I need to consider it more carefully, and for that I want to see all the facts, listen to all sides and challenge all sides.

And it may seem like i challenge the repeal side more , but that is due to the fact, that if I am voting repeal I need to clearly understand this side more.

notjustsweet wrote: »

Like I also said if someone wants to see something they can look it up. What makes you think you have the right to shove photos in people's faces that they may not want to see?

The right to freedom of expression in Irish law gives people a certain degree of latitude to expose other people to things they may not want to see. There are limitations placed on that right, which is why when I and my child were exposed to images we did not want to see when we were out in public, I made a complaint in the nearest Garda station, and half an hour later the people who were displaying the offensive images had disappeared.

Have you thought about the people who may find scan photos upsetting because they can't get pregnant or have miscarried recently? Have a bit of awareness please. It's not your place to decide what people should see!

Using that same rationale would also curb your own ability to argue using any examples or hypothetical scenarios as you may upset people who do not wish to be exposed to anything which invariably may provoke an emotional response. It's not your place either to decide what people should or shouldn't see. Your whole argument is based upon allowing people to make choices for themselves, but it appears when it comes down to brass tacks, you want people to make choices for themselves which you already agree with. That's not the same thing as allowing people to make choices for themselves. That's you imposing your choices on other people, for other people, other than yourself. Your double standards are showing.

Now, you said you wanted reasoned debate. You're not interested in a discussion you want to force your point of view down people's throats so I'm out.

In expressing your opinion, are you not doing the very same thing you're accusing others of doing?

notjustsweet wrote: »

Eh?
I'm actually baffled.
I haven't used any examples or hypothetical situations in my posts so your point is moot. Even if I did and can't remember it's very different to photos which is why he and the *pro life brigade use them.

Not particularly no, I'm more than willing to discuss things with anyone but this poster wasn't discussing or presenting any of his own points.
He stated he wanted reasoned discussion and then went on to argue and make no points of his own. That's not reasonable or discussing.

If someone, anyone, can have a reasonable conversation about why they think the 8th amendment should be kept without shouting emotive language like "murder" "killings" and the ickle babies I'm willing to listen.
Generally though they repeat the same things and switch to the above when challenged.

Seriously, do you not find it the least bit ironic that you were the one that brought the photos back into the conversation?

You called it propaganda due to the 3 day difference.

I only presented more information to counter this and prsented the correct info in the form of links only.

I would not be talking about photos only for your initial post on it tonight.

notjustsweet wrote: »

Seriously.... Did you read anything around the post or did you just jump on my post as an excuse to bring up some more photos.
Yes it was propaganda, using photos of unborn babies is propaganda and one the birth pushers are well known for.

Edit. I'm not talking about this anymore. I really can't say the same thing in any more variations.

I'm sorry if you think no one is allowed to counter any part of your posts. I'll leave it there. Good night.

doolox wrote: »

In my opinion any one too old to be pregnant, or a man who can never be pregnant and children too young to be pregnant should not have a say in any abortion laws.

They are not on the front-line of risk in any connection between government and medical intervention which may be deemed necessary and has been deemed necessary for various reasons by most advanced countries regarding womens ability to bear children.

All too often religious zealots of advanced age and hence not at risk of becoming pregnant try to impose the limits of a bygone age on modern women, restricting their course of action in the face of a crisis pregnancy. We all know what happens if and when the baby is born, everyone disappears and the woman is literally left holding the baby.

Many women caught up in this predicament go to England to seek a solution.

Years later we find out that the main protagonists of our present limitations on choice have themselves been engaging in acts and cover ups of an extremely ruinous and destructive nature, not only against women but also against other men and children while being protected by their supervisors and the whole thing being kept secret across the world for decades.

It is my opinion that compulsory clerical celibacy and then exclusion of women from the priesthood is the root cause of a fundamental misunderstanding among clerical people and their supporters of the nature of human reproduction and the need in modern societies of an accommodation which needs to made to women caught up in a crisis pregnancy.

Otherwise society needs to pay in full for every unplanned baby that arises from a lack of accommodation and flexibility which forces some women to give birth to babies that they cannot support on their own and also need not to begrudge these women the full means for that support. This is the true price of a pro life stance.

This does not happen as family supports and money to support children born in straitened circumstances is begrudged by our so-called "betters" in society. Many times it is the same people who profess to be pro life who are also against social welfare increases and improvements and against any form of expanded and universal child welfare programs covering accommodation, nutrition, education and training needed to fully endorse and make logical a pro-life stance in this country.

I suspect that the churches stance on the control of family size and the fertility of women stems from a base need to deny people an element of power over their own lives, thus injecting a large element of uncertainty and chaos in their lives in the hope, increasingly vain, that they will turn to a divine presence for an answer to their problems. It would seem not to be in the churches interest to allow people an element of control or order in their lives. We all know how desperate people cling to religious beliefs and observances when faced with dire poverty and want, witness such practices in the Bible Belt of the US and in South America where the churches flourish in the midst of great poverty and want....religion is the opium of the people.

We have seen in the past where women in crisis pregnancies have been denied their freedom in slavery in laundries, their children incarcerated in orphanages and denied a proper education or formation due to lack money or care.

first of all your opinion that certain people who's views you may disagree with should be excluded from voting is an undemocratic viewpoint and thankfully such a viewpoint is insured to be invalid by our constitution which would mean such exclusion is unconstitutional and against democracy.
secondly, the issue of unborn rights is nothing ultimately to do with religion, even though many religious people share the view that the unborn should have rights and that abortion outside medical reasons isn't required.
thirdly, given that many non-religious people disagree with abortion on demand, it is not a lack of understanding of reproduction that has shaped their view that abortion on demand isn't required, but, as i mentioned above, the viewpoint that the unborn have rights.
fourthly, as a pro-life person, i completely agree that society must implement all the supports necessary and possible to insure that children are supported and are able to avail of all the possible opportunities availible in society.

doolox wrote: »

In my opinion any one too old to be pregnant, or a man who can never be pregnant and children too young to be pregnant should not have a say in any abortion laws.

They are not on the front-line of risk in any connection between government and medical intervention which may be deemed necessary and has been deemed necessary for various reasons by most advanced countries regarding womens ability to bear children.

Well if that isn't a two-finger salute to all the male medical professionals working in obstetrics and gynaecology, to give but two examples of men working in the front line of risk of any connection between government and medical intervention which may be deemed necessary and has been deemed necessary for various reasons by most advanced countries regarding women's ability to bear children.

All too often religious zealots of advanced age and hence not at risk of becoming pregnant try to impose the limits of a bygone age on modern women, restricting their course of action in the face of a crisis pregnancy. We all know what happens if and when the baby is born, everyone disappears and the woman is literally left holding the baby.

Except if it wasn't for whom you call those same religious zealots of an advanced age, women and children would be in an even worse position in society due to the lack of services provided for them by the State, services such as education and healthcare which were historically provided by, and continue to be provided by the same religious zealots of an advanced age.

Many women caught up in this predicament go to England to seek a solution.

Years later we find out that the main protagonists of our present limitations on choice have themselves been engaging in acts and cover ups of an extremely ruinous and destructive nature, not only against women but also against other men and children while being protected by their supervisors and the whole thing being kept secret across the world for decades.

They weren't the main protagonists of limitations on anyone's choices. I think you'll find it was the State, through it's laws, were historically the main protagonists of limitations on anyone's choices. Up until recently in Irish history, Catholics didn't even have a vote.

It is my opinion that compulsory clerical celibacy and then exclusion of women from the priesthood is the root cause of a fundamental misunderstanding among clerical people and their supporters of the nature of human reproduction and the need in modern societies of an accommodation which needs to made to women caught up in a crisis pregnancy.

I'm not sure how you imagine compulsory clerical celibacy and the exclusion of women from the priesthood could impede a clerical persons understanding of the nature of human reproduction, let alone the need in modern societies of an accommodation which needs to be made to women caught up in a crisis pregnancy. In your previous paragraph you appeared to be giving off the distinct impression that they had a very good understanding of it!

Otherwise society needs to pay in full for every unplanned baby that arises from a lack of accommodation and flexibility which forces some women to give birth to babies that they cannot support on their own and also need not to begrudge these women the full means for that support. This is the true price of a pro life stance.

It's actually more true of people in this thread who support the notion that a man should be able to absent himself from the childs life completely and pretend that child does not exist so does not need to be provided for by their father.

This does not happen as family supports and money to support children born in straitened circumstances is begrudged by our so-called "betters" in society. Many times it is the same people who profess to be pro life who are also against social welfare increases and improvements and against any form of expanded and universal child welfare programs covering accommodation, nutrition, education and training needed to fully endorse and make logical a pro-life stance in this country.

Not for one minute do I view anyone who would support the denial of support to a child as my better. They are indeed the very definition of a begrudger, and more often they profess to be pro-choice, because coercing a woman into an abortion means they won't have to fulfil any obligation towards a child should they ever find themselves in such a position.

I'm against any sort of State aid being provided as all that does is generally conditions and sustains people who on a meagre and miserable existence, rather than motivating people to actually make a life for themselves and their children.

I suspect that the churches stance on the control of family size and the fertility of women stems from a base need to deny people an element of power over their own lives, thus injecting a large element of uncertainty and chaos in their lives in the hope, increasingly vain, that they will turn to a divine presence for an answer to their problems. It would seem not to be in the churches interest to allow people an element of control or order in their lives. We all know how desperate people cling to religious beliefs and observances when faced with dire poverty and want, witness such practices in the Bible Belt of the US and in South America where the churches flourish in the midst of great poverty and want....religion is the opium of the people.

Quoting Marx in that context only shows your misunderstanding of the quote. It's actually a commentary on the ills of capitalism and less of a criticism of religion.

We have seen in the past where women in crisis pregnancies have been denied their freedom in slavery in laundries, their children incarcerated in orphanages and denied a proper education or formation due to lack money or care.

Yes, and that was shìt, but that was society at the time, and it's the State which outsourced services such as education and health to religious organisations then, and it still does so today, and even without the influence of religious organisations, society hasn't changed all that much, an indication of that being given in this very thread by people who argue that men should have the right to absent themselves from their children's lives and never have anything to do with them. That would certainly suit a certain type of man, not the type of man I would ever consider better though, because it's a shìt thing to do, and would be a regressive step for Irish society rather than a progressive idea.

While I support abortion, I find it a little sad that the overwhelming volume of posts is for it to be 100% a woman's choice, with few posts supporting the opposing argument.

40% of the votes and that side represents a tiny amount of the posts here.

The leftie echo chamber is real.


Personally, I'd be fine with women having a 100% choice over their body. But with the caveat that men shouldn't be forced to support a child they did not want.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're conflating two different points of view there to put forward an argument which supports your opinion. Scientists have many different opinions and points of view on what constitutes life, but the one thing they do acknowledge as inarguable is the fact that in the context of human development, the entity in the womb is human, as distinct from being classed as any other type of species.

The source of conflation here is you, not them.

We have one word "human" but it does not mean one single thing in every context. And the conflation of those different meanings is why posts from yourself and EOTR are opinion, not logic as you claim.

NO ONE I have met is denying the fetus is "human" in terms of biological taxonomy. IF anyone has, I simply have never seen it happen. Anywhere. Ever.

What I have seen is people claim that "human" in terms of an individual, in terms of personhood, in terms of being a sentient conscious agent of humanity......... is not what the fetus is.

And just because we have the same word "human" for two very different things, does not allow us pretend the two are the same thing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It actually is a human being, there's no technicalities about that, and as I've previously mentioned it's about the only thing that the majority of scientists can agree on - that human life begins at conception.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The second point at which your opinion is at odds with reality is that human rights and sentient rights are two completely distinct and separate philosophical concepts. Human rights are not determined by sentience, they are determined by the one sole shared trait of being human.

Borders do not determine what it means to own land. But the land in your ownership IS determined by borders. Borders are the tool used to identify what qualifies for that ownership. It does not define ownership.

Similarly in taxonomy words like "Human" are borders. They do not define what rights are, or why anything gets them. They are just the vague tool (like borders) for mediating something else. And that something else IS sentience despite your denials. Rights and morals come from sentience. They are mediated by sentience. And they are in the business of modifying the actions and well being OF sentience. You simply can not divorce the two, because you need to to feed an agenda.

Another example is DNA. DNA does not define what rights you get. DNA does not give you rights. But, in something like inheritance for example, DNA can be used as the "borders" between certain rights. Or DNA can be used to remove them if it is, for example, found inside a raped women or at the scene of a murder. But it is not DNA Itself that is the source of rights or what they are applied to.

The "trait of being human" tells us nothing. Why is "human" important. This is top down thinking. Conclusion first, thinking second. "Human" is nothing special, nothing relevant, and not a foundation. Bottom up thinking, where you start with the thinking first and accept the conclusion it leads you to starts with sentience and you get up to "Human" as being the most relevant entity we so far know of in this regard. And will likely continue to be until such time as aliens, of gAI come along.

But merely declaring "Human" to be relevant or important is basically choosing your biased agenda driven conclusion first, and working backwards from there.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Their opinions with regard to human development vary greatly

On some things sure. But the "opinion" that sentience and consciousness are not just slightly but ENTIRELY absent (along with many of it's prerequisites too) at 0-16 weeks is simply not in all that much scientific contention AT ALL. It is pretty much a completely universal consensus.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is the basis of empathy, a concept which human beings are generally capable of, and our expressions of empathy towards others are based upon beliefs and experiences

Ah yes empathy, the very thing you have denied people capable of in other contexts, such as when you were triggered by the idea that someone who is not, and has never been, homeless can never empathize or "put themselves in the position of" a person who has been. Your discussion of empathy at all I find somewhat suspect given people very much CAN do what you seem to think they can not.

But let us define it all the same. "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.". Ah yes. And the ability to HAVE feelings is something a fetus at 0-16 weeks does not and CAN not do. So certainly anyone feeling empathy is THAT case is less feeling empathy, and more projecting their OWN feelings onto something that does not warrant it.

The only utility for empathy in a discussion on abortion therefore should really be restricted to that of a woman pregnant who does not want to be, and for us to give her FREE CHOICES at all stages we morally can to ensure she has every chance morally possible not to be pregnant. Which of course is a position you partially understand given that until the prospect of abortion became real in Ireland you were entirely pro-choice on it at ANY time for ANY reason until you suddenly flipped to the exact opposite end of the spectrum.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you want to have a discussion where emotion is removed from the discussion, then you wouldn't be part of that discussion

Not sure anyone actually wants that. But it would be nice to remove from the discussion A) Consideration for things which have no emotion and can not have it and situations where emotion overrides reason entirely. Both of which are common red herrings in all discussions I have ever had on abortion.

Emotion HAS to be in the discussion as rights and morals are basically in the business of mediating the well being of sentient entities. That is what they do. That is what they are for. And emotion is inextricable from well being. So emotion is at the CORE of the debate of rights and morals whether anyone likes it or not.

But those who do not want it to be an "emotional debate" likely mean that they do not want people to be let get away from purely emotive moves. Pictures showing the little fingers and toes for example are EXACTLY that. Moves like "I notice all the people for abortion, have been born" are EXACTLY that. And they should be called out for the crass, cheap, intellectually bankrupt little canard moves they actually are.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It sure as hell doesn't present any difficulty for me because your argument is simply invalid, and has more logic holes in it than a swiss cheese.

Alas, for you given it is something of a standard MO for you, merely DECLARING someones argument to be illogical does not make it so. One is meant to then explain the failures in logic. One should explore the argument as a whole, highlight the failures in it AND explain how and why they are failures in the first place. The above sentence from you is just an empty and entirely unsubstantiated assertion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your logic is flawed, and I suspect your non-sequitur is due to the fact that you imagine human rights are based upon sentience. They aren't, and they never were. Whether or not an entity is regarded as having human rights is not based upon sentience, it is determined by the characteristic of being human.

Again conflating two things very wrongly. The attributes of having rights AT ALL is based on sentience. The attribute of having specifically HUMAN rights is based on being human and the attributes of having animal/cow rights is based on being an animal or a cow.. Because.... borders. It is a defining term of convenience, not the defining term of the concept.

When a sentience comes online, it should be given the rights that befit it as an instance of it's species. You would not give animal rights to a human, you would give it human rights. But when AND why we assign those rights is key to knowing when AND why it is morally not ok to terminate a life form.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Human rights are effected by the law in any given jurisdiction, and in Ireland, the unborn has a right to life

Yes thanks for reminding everyone, none of them who actually required it, what the CURRENT situation is. Just because not that long ago you used to claim it had not rights until it popped out of the vagina does not mean anyone else requires a law or history lesson. But the focus of the abortion debate is not THAT it has legal rights, it is whether or not it SHOULD be getting it. And no one, least of all yourself, is presenting any arguments suggesting it should.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's actually more true of people in this thread who support the notion that a man should be able to absent himself from the childs life completely and pretend that child does not exist so does not need to be provided for by their father.

The debate you ran away from and could not negate the ideas and motivations behind you mean. That "notion"? Yeah there are some people who think it is worth exploring the idea that in SOME contexts with SOME restrictions it might be useful to allow a window in which the man can decide not to become a parent of a child, in such a way as to allow the woman to decide to become a parent alone.

And despite your pretense that women in such a situation can not be trusted to make choices for the welfare of her own child without the help of the man or "The Man" in legal terms........ and you think a woman in such a situation has to choose between poverty or abortion and could not POSSIBLY actually make it on her own without a male to help her walk through life........ it happens all the time. And you yourself know this in examples that upset you in the past, such as the journalist who entirely decided by herself to become a single pregnant woman and subsequent parent through the use of a willing one time sexual partner.

A sexual partner.... a man.... who.... wait for the kicker here.......... was and is "able to absent himself from the childs life completely and pretend that child does not exist so does not need to be provided for by their father."

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm against any sort of State aid being provided as all that does is generally conditions and sustains people who on a meagre and miserable existence, rather than motivating people to actually make a life for themselves and their children.

Yeah the whole horrific Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu style of thinking around the maintenance of suffering to imagine it makes people excel is not that impressive really. You simply do not trust people and women to do the best they can for their own children. But out here in the real world outside your navel they do exactly that all the time in many places around our lovely land.

There are people MORE than motivated to make a life for themselves and their children thanks very much. And MANY of them need our help via the State to do it. That you want to disinfranchise such people based on pure imagination of their (lack of) motivations really just isolates you in a very small pretty much non-existent group of begrudgers.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't say you were a victim. I said you were playing the victim, which is a common tactic to resort to when you don't have any reasonable counter-point to make.

What, you mean like when you claim to be stalked when no one is actually stalking you, in order to have something to post about when you can not rebut points. Like THAT you mean? Yeah I have certainly met posters who do stuff like that, alas.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's almost as common as pretending you misunderstood what a person said and pretending they said something they didn't, the Cathy Newman style of argument if you will.

Ah yes, this one too. Very common. Not in terms of the number of people doing it common. More in terms of the small number of users who do it doing it REMARKABLY often common.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is not in play here. Nothing the 55% are doing is stopping the 36% from posting or voicing their side. THEY are choosing that themselves. And for that reason I am not entirely convinced the "echo chamber" label can apply.

People are not posting their real opinions for the same reason that a man can no longer walk up to a crying child without appearing/being accused of being a paedo. Social vilification is so rampant now that people check their views.

I find it all the time. I'll get halfway through typing a post and then, "sigh", i couldn't be bothered with the screeching backlash and i just abandon it.

This is the society people wanted.

I voted for men to have some control as the caveat of having control over my own wallet does not exist.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Great. Then you must rejoice in the fact that I made no such thing. What I AM making is an appeal to the common denonimator. As I said, if many people were failing to understand all my posts, the common denominator would be me. If ONE person is failing to understand a lot of my posts, then the common denominator is them. Simples.

Oh dear me - I do hate to call your bluff - but yes you did. When I said you were making an appeal to longevity - I was clearly referring to the repeated nugget quoted below. And please note just because I may have pointed out issues with your posts - does not mean that I do not 'understand' them btw :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

...As I said in MONTHS and even YEARS of debating this issue

(Note: shouty bits are your own)

Of course what you are implying above is that everyone else thinks your arguments are wonderfull. Is that true because you say it is? Hate to burst your bubble - but no one is in a position to judge themselves no matter how wonderful they think they might be.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

Oh people have issues with my arguments a lot. That is not the issue. But the people with issues generally UNDERSTAND The arguments and do not get confused or demonstrably lost. And the few who do, we can usually clean up their misunerstanding with a few more attempts.
With yourself, for some reason, I have not managed to attain that. And as I said, this is not a slight on you OR me. It happens. Some people, for whatever reason, fail to communicate well. This is just a fact.
What they do with that, keep trying, or give up and get personal, is what defines their quality as a person and as a debater.

^^^ lol and you say that is me getting personal? Pot - kettle - black. You're very funny. Trust me I have definitly not got lost and I think I understand you only to well. Thanks all the same.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

Unfortunately, as I demonstrated in those posts, most of the logic fails you have exposed were in points I never ever made. In fact in at least two cases I could link you back to, you claimed my position was not just different to the real one, but the exact 100% mirror opposite. This is a cause for concern.
But no I am not trying to shut the debate down or feeding anyone who is. What I try to do is eliminate bad arguments in my own camp because when the OTHER camp expose those bad arguments..... we lose face, we lose voters and we lose ground.
And whatever you think of ME, you have to admit neither of us wants THAT.

Deny the evident whatever you like - however I have already pointed out several flaws in your logic. For example when you went on about rape been a crap argument for "pro choice"

- you gave this as just one of a number of (imo) frankly daft reasons why (according to you) that would be the case ...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

One would either have to have the woman secure a conviction for rape (which takes too long, and he might be found innocent anyway)

And I replied pointing out the flaws with that argument

A conviction is not necessarily required to ascertain that a rape has taken place. On a balance of evidence and probability Inc Witnesses/ medical proof etc etc. In the case of an underage child who is pregnant that is statutory rape. Therefore a conviction will determine who if any has broken the law but
is not necessarily required to ascertain a woman has been rapped.

For your information - I really don't think anything about you one way or another. But if the criticisms of your arguments hurt so badly - I of course apologise - as no offence was ever meant or implied.

gozunda wrote: »

Oh dear me - I do hate to call your bluff - but yes you did. When I said you were making an appeal to longevity - I was clearly referring to this repeated nugget. (Note: shouty bits are your own) Of course what you are implying is that everyone else thinks your arguments are wonderful. Is that true because you say it is? Hate to burst your bubble - but no one is in a position to judge themselves no matter how wonderful they think they might be.

You are of course free to tell me I said things I know I did not, and tell me I made implications I know I did not. When you are finished spreading falsehoods though you might consider asking me what my position on things is, rather than telling me what they are.

Again though: What I AM making is an appeal to the common denominator. As I said, if many people were failing to understand all my posts, the common denominator would be me. If ONE person is failing to understand a lot of my posts, then the common denominator is them.

It really is that simple. I never ONCE said or indicated that people think my arguments are wonderful. I simply never said it. You made this up. What I DID say is that so far in all the time I have been debating this issue mos people UNDERSTAND the arguments I am offering. A very different thing to what you are putting in my mouth ENTIRELY.

gozunda wrote: »

^^^ lol and you say that is me getting personal? Pot - kettle - black. You're very funny. Trust me I have definitly not got lost and I think I understand you only to well. Thanks all the same.

Yep, the only one getting personal so far has been you. So you can keep your old pots. You have not understood my arguments at all, and if you think you have then remember you just said yourself " no one is in a position to judge themselves no matter how wonderful they think they might be.". But I can quote, and have quoted, points where you have painted my argument EXACTLY opposite to how I presented them. Such as when you claimed I assign rights to the fetus I very clearly on many occasions said I think have no rights.

gozunda wrote: »

Deny the evident whatever you like - however I have already pointed out several flaws in your logic. For example when you went on about rape been a crap argument for "pro choice" - you gave this as just one of a number of (imo) frankly daft reasons why (according to you) that would be the case ... And I replied pointing out the flaws with that argument For your information - I really don't think anything about you one way or another. But if the criticisms of your arguments hurt so badly - I of course apologise - as no offence was ever meant or implied.

Hard to hurt with you just imagining you rebutted my argument when you simply did not. Nor are you capable of offending me. This is not a comment about you, but about me. I can not BE offended by a nameless faceless stranger on an internet forum. You could try, but you would fail. It just can not be done.

The argument still stands unrebutted in that if we afford abortion in cases of rape we have to establish whether a woman has actually been raped or not. And this is very hard to do. The three main ways we can do it is if she gets someone convicted of rape, if she merely accuses someone of rape, or if we merely take her word for it.

What part of that do you imagine you have found a flaw in? Because you certainly have not shown a flaw in it on THIS thread. If you have no methodology by which to ascertain who was raped, then how do you imagine we can afford raped women abortion while witholding it from not raped women?

At least both of us agree that we think ALL women should have access to it. So the rape angle is not an issue for you OR for me. But what you think the flaw in it is not clear to me or, I somewhat suspect, to you.