Bob_Marley wrote: » Are there many other pro abortion people that genuinely don't know the difference between a human organ and human life ? .... that would indeed explain a lot.http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
....... wrote: » So are my kidneys, liver and other internal organs. And theyve got the same level of sentience as a 12 week old fetus.
WhiteRoses wrote: » No one here is pro abortion. We are pro choice. Not one post here (or anywhere) has advocated that forced abortions be carried out on all female pregnant citizens against their will. Rather the opposite - we would like them to have a choice regarding their own personal pregnancy. No one will be forced into abortions they don’t want to have. There is a massive difference.
smacl wrote: » Which would be fine, except that the post was in response to the phrase "it's alive" not "its a life". Organs inside our body are alive. Do you ever wonder why we use words like sperm, ovum, zygote, embryo, and foetus? You seem to think they're all babies, but really, they're not.
ABC101 wrote: » I’m coming to the opinion that some desire abortion as pregnancy interferes with lifestyle choices. Nothing to do with health.
smacl wrote: » Pregnancy certainly could interfere with lifestyle choices, but that does not suggest that abortion be used as a form of routine birth control. Why on earth would any woman choose to have an abortion when there are so many forms of contraception and emergency contraception easily available? Yes, you'll get the occasional abortion where a contraceptive may have failed, but thanks in part to a Catholic ethos that prohibits contraception, you're far more likely to get abortion through contraception not being used. Of course one also wonders whether the pro-life concerns are entirely about the unborn, or is this an excuse used by religious conservatives to restrain woman to their traditional roles? One obvious lifestyle choice for anyone is to have a career and not become a parent. Do you think of this as unreasonable?
Bob_Marley wrote: » We all have a choice when it comes to who we decide to kill and not kill, this isn't a valid reason for legalising something illegal. When you choose abortion it abortion forces the killing of an unborn child.
end of the road wrote: » i completely agree. it's about birth control and contraception IMO. as i explained in another post, it's not used instead of other forms of contraception but along with. it's a fallback option/fail safe option for when the other contraceptions fail in my view. the concern for the vast majority of the pro-life side are about the unborn, but i cannot guarantee there aren't extreme elements who are more concerned about restraining woman to their traditional roles. i would condemn those people and disagree with their view. i have no issue with someone wanting a career and not becoming a parent, but they should not be able to kill the unborn in an aim to achieve that goal. i completely agree. comparing the unborn to other species and human organs is one of many invalid and unviable arguments put forward by people in the pro-choice side, dispite those arguments being constantly debunked and failing to bring anything to the discussion as they don't stand up to scruteny. the unborn will be forcibly killed against their will however.
Katie Full Leak wrote: » Of course they're not the same. Remove your kidneys or liver and you'll die. You won't die if a 12 week old fetus is removed. It will die. Some of us consider that 12 week old fetus as a separate entity and a separate life that's worthy of living what will eventually be a life independent of the bearer of that life.
end of the road wrote: » as i explained in another post, it's not used instead of other forms of contraception but along with. it's a fallback option/fail safe option for when the other contraceptions fail in my view.
the concern for the vast majority of the pro-life side are about the unborn, but i cannot guarantee there aren't extreme elements who are more concerned about restraining woman to their traditional roles. i would condemn those people and disagree with their view. i have no issue with someone wanting a career and not becoming a parent, but they should not be able to kill the unborn in an aim to achieve that goal.
Bob_Marley wrote: » Do you not understand the difference between human life and a human organ either ? Or the difference between a sperm, and ovum, and zygote ? A sperm or an ovum is not human life, this is very basic biology. The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote.http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
ABC101 wrote: » Not all forms of contraception are 100% reliable. So in the event of a unwanted pregnancy where contraception has clearly failed then abortion can be seen as the final solution.
WhiteRoses wrote: » How do you know what their will is?
volchitsa wrote: » No actually. Remove a kidney and you won't die, but it will. Same as a foetus. The fact that the foetus, unlike a kidney, only takes and doesn't give, so doesn't help the woman inside whom it is located is not necessarily a reason to force her to continue making ne organs available for it.
smacl wrote: » No disagreement there and I don't doubt this happens in exceptional circumstances, but abortion will always be the option of last resort. While I have no problem with a woman choosing abortion in this instance, I do feel the rate at which it is needed in this instance would be significantly reduced with better sex education and promotion of contraception. Having the church that represents the majority of the people in this country prohibiting contraception no doubt leads to many more unwanted pregnancies than would otherwise be the case which in turn leads to main abortions that could otherwise be avoided.
smacl wrote: » I don't doubt your own sincerity at all there, but when I see hard-line conservative advocacy groups like the Iona Institute spending a lot of time and money in the pro-life campaign, I certainly don't trust their motives.
end of the road wrote: » they have a right to live, and i have a duty to vote against anything that would put that right at risk. .
WhiteRoses wrote: » You didn’t answer my question at all. How do you know what the will of the unborn is?
end of the road wrote: » because i do. their will is not to be killed.
WhiteRoses wrote: » You just made that up. Pure speculation. You can’t and don’t know what the will of the unborn is. None of us do. Pure lies on your part.
end of the road wrote: » the unborn have a right to life unless medical necessity requires otherwise. they have a right not to be killed unless medical necessity requires it.
WhiteRoses wrote: » No one here is pro abortion. We are pro choice.
J C wrote: » Please face up to the truth about your position ... you are pro-abortion ... that is why you and like-minded people are asking us to vote to remove the anti-abortion 8th amendment ... and to introduce abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. Your position is like somebody saying that they are not pro-tax evasion ... just pro-choice in that regard. I think that everyone would 'join the dots' very quickly.
smacl wrote: » Surely in the absence of religious belief, to have a will demands a mind and to have a mind involves having brain capable of producing a certain amount of brainwaves? Could you explain how something that does not have a functional brain can have a will? At what stage of gestation to you believe the unborn is capable of thought?
J C wrote: » If you're asleep, your will (and conscious mind) are not functioning ... but nobody has a right to kill you because of this. Ditto with unborn children, where the working assumption should be that they wouldn't want to be kiiled, no more than a new born baby ... who equally cannot verbalise this wish either, but nonetheless should have their lives protected as well.
WhiteRoses wrote: » No, sorry, I will not let you, a stranger on the internet, tell me what MY opinion is. I have made my position clear. I am pro choice. I will not let you tell me otherwise.
WhiteRoses wrote: » You might be used to your religion allowing you to ram your beliefs down other people’s throats for the last couple of centuries, but that won’t work with me. Or with most of modern society.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I am in favour of women having full bodily autonomy. I am in favour of a woman choosing abortion if she so wishes. I am in favour of a woman choosing to progress with her pregnancy, if she wants to. I have compassion and respect for my fellow women and they have my full trust.I am pro people having control over their lives.
WhiteRoses wrote: » That has absolutely nothing to do with their will, you just totally deflected there again.
WhiteRoses wrote: » No, sorry, I will not let you, a stranger on the internet, tell me what MY opinion is. I have made my position clear. I am pro choice. I will not let you tell me otherwise. You might be used to your religion allowing you to ram your beliefs down other people’s throats for the last couple of centuries, but that won’t work with me. Or with most of modern society. I am in favour of women having full bodily autonomy. I am in favour of a woman choosing abortion if she so wishes. I am in favour of a woman choosing to progress with her pregnancy, if she wants to. I have compassion and respect for my fellow women and they have my full trust. I am pro people having control over their lives. I am not the triggered femanazi baby killer you and yours would like to make me out to me, and luckily I am so confident in my beliefs, that your posts neither bother me nor make me question my position.
WhiteRoses wrote: » What you just posted has nothing to do with your original said, or my reply. You said we were pro abortion, I explained we are pro choice. No one is or will be forcing women to have abortions against their will.
J C wrote: » Please face up to the truth about your position ... you are pro-abortion ... that is why you and like-minded people are asking us to vote to remove the anti-abortion 8th amendment ... and to introduce abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. Your position is like somebody saying that they are not pro-drink driving ... just pro-choice in that regard. I think that everyone would 'join the dots' very quickly, especially if you were campaigning to remove the laws on drink driving, like pro-abortion people are doing with the 8th.
smacl wrote: » Nonsense. Ever heard of an EEG? Your brain is still active even when you are asleep. If you go back to early stages of gestation, there is no brain. Bob_Marlay has suggested that human life begins at fertilization. Where would you place it on the time line and why?
Delirium wrote: » By that line of reasoning, everyone who has posted on this thread (even you, JC) is pro-abortion. What I mean by that is I've not seen anyone propose an absolute ban on abortion, even in cases where the womans life is in jeopardy.
