Bob_Marley wrote: » When the mother chooses to kill her child, what choice was given to the child in the ending of their life ?
J C wrote: » Why this fixation with sentience and brain development?
J C wrote: » I'm not telling you what your opinion is ... just drawing the logical conclusion that everybody who is pro-choice for abortion is pro-abortion. My faith is one of love ... no ramming of beliefs anywhere. I'm also in favour of people having control over their lives ... but such control cannot be achieved by killing other Human Beings.
smacl wrote: » Glad to see you have a grasp of basic biology.
smacl wrote: » So by your definition above, the humans life begins at fertilization which is in accordance with the Vatican stance. As such the morning after pill constitutes abortion, and assuming all human life shares the same worth, taking the morning after pill is thus no better or worse than say having a third trimester abortion or murdering an infant for that matter. Is this what you believe? If so, yikes! If not, at what stage in gestation do you say that 'a human life' suddenly gets the same right to life as a pregnant woman?
end of the road wrote: » nope wrong, it has absolutely everything to do with their will, end of the road doesn't deflect under any circumstances. abortion on demand has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. a woman is not entitled to kill the unborn outside extreme circumstances. preventing the woman from killing the unborn is not controling her life. we don't have a right to kill outside extreme circumstances. as a human being, you have a duty to have both compassion and respect for both woman and baby.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I don’t see it as a child before the development of sentience. I don’t feel the child should have a choice while it depends on the mother for survival and viability.
J C wrote: » Pro-life people are pro-the-life of both the mother and her unborn child ... whereas so-called pro-choice people seem to be pro-abortion on demand. Do you really think that people will agree with you and vote to repeal the 8th if you keep maintaining that you are pro-choice ... but not really pro-repeal of the 8th or pro-abortion on demand up to 12 weeks? People will begin to wonder why you are asking them to take the blood of unborn children on their hands by voting for the repeal of the 8th and follow-on abortion on demand ... while you continue to coyly describe yourself as pro-choice but not pro-abortion. It sounds like you have serious reservations about abortion, just like pro-life people have.
end of the road wrote: » sentients isn't a viable basis on which to decide when a child becomes a child. the child has a right to live regardless of it depending on the mother for survival and viability, something that takes place for a while after the child leaves the womb. unfortunately your logic doesn't stand up to scruteny or corelate with reality, given we don't allow the killing of newborns dispite them depending on the mother for survival and viability.
Bob_Marley wrote: » It is the taking of another human life without their choice.
Bob_Marley wrote: » As for the morning after pill strawman, no one is being asked to vote on that, it's already freely available, and is designed to be an emergency contraceptive.
A Cork woman was denied the morning-after pill after being accused of lying about being raped by a high street pharmacy. The 24-year-old was asked a series of invasive questions following the incident before being denied the emergency contraception. In harrowing turn of events, the young woman discovered that she was pregnant with his child and she was forced to travel to the UK to abort the baby.Source
WhiteRoses wrote: » We can’t ask the unborn what they want. How do you know what their choice would be?
WhiteRoses wrote: » Why are you referring to yourself in third person? Can I just say how EXTREMELY frustrating it is that you are still saying abortion has nothing to do with bodily autonomy when it has been explained to you multiple times across many threads in more than one forum why it DOES affect bodily autonomy? Can you not read?
WhiteRoses wrote: » Hopefully the referendum will change all of that. I realize what the current position is, you don’t need to keep repeating it to me.
Bob_Marley wrote: » Since when was that to be considered consent to take their life? Even if someone says they are suicidal, or not in a position to be able to answer, that does not mean you have the right to kill them.
Delirium wrote: » Not entirely accurate. A pharmacist can refuse to dispense the pill.
end of the road wrote: » i can read, hence i read people's opinions, not facts, on why they believe abortion on demand not being availible effects bodily autonomy. however their opinion is just that, and it doesn't stand up to scruteny given the fact there are 2 human beings in the equation. it's not the current position i'm telling you about, it's the facts and reality in relation to how your logic doesn't stand up to scruteny or corelate with reality given both the unborn and the mother are human beings with equal rights.
end of the road wrote: » i can read, hence i read people's opinions, not facts, on why they believe abortion on demand not being availible effects bodily autonomy. however their opinion is just that, and it doesn't stand up to scruteny given the fact there are 2 human beings in the equation.
WhiteRoses wrote: » It isn’t considered, but you can’t say that the unborns lives are taken against their will/choice when we don’t know what their choice is or what it would be. If I thought I was causing distress/emotional trauma/health issues while she was carrying me I would 100% her having an abortion.
J C wrote: » We all depend on others at various times in our lives, sometimes totally ... and somebody exploiting this dependence to kill us would be grossly immoral. Somebody could equally say they don't believe a newborn baby is a child, because it cannot speak or walk ... or any other self-defined aribtrary reason ... but this still wouldn't allow them to morally or legally kill her.
Bob_Marley wrote: » So you're saying that if someone is suicidal that gives you the right to kill them. Hmmm. The baby was suicidal, so I had to kill them your honour, twas the kind thing to do.
Delirium wrote: » What is the punishment for being convicted of attempted suicide?
Bob_Marley wrote: » Reading endless strawman questions and posts ?
end of the road wrote: » because i do. their will is not to be killed.
WhiteRoses wrote: » A newborn and a mere weeks old fetus are incomparable.
J C wrote: » ... so if you have broke your mothers heart since you were born by your behaviour ... should she also be allowed to kill you ... eh???
