The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Percy Judd wrote: »

Can any pro-abortion people (I'm using that term since I've been labelled the provocative 'anti-choice') so why not fight fire with fire

Well because one is accurate and the other is not, that is why. In the context of abortion you ARE anti choice. However I am not "pro abortion". As I said in the post you seemingly decided to ignore..... people on BOTH sides of this issue want little or no abortions to be happening ideally. That is the opposite of pro abortion.

So no you are not fighting fire with fire. You are flailing at an accurate term with an inaccurate one. A difference worth learning.

Percy Judd wrote: »

Like not wanting to see what a 12-week old fetus looks like, another inconvenient detail the pro-abortion side conveniently ignore/divert attention away from.

Except again in the post you seemingly have decided to duck, dodge, and ignore I told you how the OPPOSITE is in fact true and I not only know what it superficially looks like, but I know all the intricate details of the entire gestation process.

I wonder if part of the reason you have decided to ignore and dodge my post is that I do not fit the straw man mould of a pro-choice voter that you have invented in your own imagination.

Or is it that you can not answer the questions I asked about that fetus, and what aspect of it you feel should be triggering our moral and ethical concerns about it's supposed right to life?

Percy Judd wrote: »

If she's that adamant about not wanting any more children, then the pill or coil combined with male contraception (and her age) will ensure no unplanned pregnancy.

Except no contraception, even multiple ones, "ensure" any such thing. Each contraception, especially used in combination, cause massive decreases in the % probability of becoming pregnant. But even combining the pill with condoms for example does NOT push that % to zero.

Percy Judd wrote: »

But no, that's too much effort. Abortion is the answer. Right?

That is a crass distortion of the reality of the pro choice narrative I am afraid. The reality is that pro-choice people, myself included, campaign for contraception use, cheaper and better access to it, and more education about it. But again you would know that if you had not decided to simply ignore my last post.

No abortion is not "the answer" to "effort". Abortion is a CHOICE people can make when, despite the effort, women find themselves pregnant against their will. And choice is all it is or is being sold as by anyone except YOUR ilk with phrases like "pro abortion" that pretend otherwise.

Percy Judd wrote: »

I know the contraception pill is 99% effective when used correctly. I know condoms are 98% effective when used correctly.
Combined gives close to 100% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy.

And how many people do you think are having sex? How many times do you think they do it? "Close to 100%" means not 100%. What is it then? 99%?

1% of a large number is still a large number. Even a 99% effective contraception regime will STILL result in many unplanned and often unwanted pregnancies.

Do the math.

Percy Judd wrote: »

Pro-life posters are ganged up on, shouted down and told to leave because they disagree with the heavily pro-abortion contingent on this website.

And yet I did NONE of that myself and what did you do? You simply dodged and ignored my post. Which tells me you simply see what you want to see, and pick up on only the posts and posters you imagine fit the profile you have invented. Ignore those who do not fit it, because they will not fill out your agenda and profiling.

Percy Judd wrote: »

To me that's a tiny human being and most certainly a person.

"To me" being the important words in that sentence, because what you certainly have not done is offered a single piece of argument, evidence, data OR reasoning to establish a 12 week gestated fetus as a "person". So "To me it is a person" means nothing more to me than "To me Elvis is still alive". Fantasy is as fantasy does.

Now if you want to actually present any of the above as part of debate rather than preaching I am more than all ears.

Percy Judd wrote: »

At what point do we 'care' about humans then?
What stage of mental or cognitive development? What stage of physical development?

Glad you asked. There is no reason in science or philosophy on offer to "care" (or as I put it, to have moral and ethical concern for) an entity that not just slightly but ENTIRELY lacks the faculty of consciousness or sentience.

The fetus when it is generally aborted (the near totality of choice based abortions happen before week 16 almost consistently in EVERY country that has choice based abortion) not just slightly, but ENTIRELY lacks the faculty of consciousness and sentience. In fact it also lacks many of the pre-requisites for it too.

What point do we, or at least should we, start to care about it? At the point when ANY significant level of doubt comes into play that that faculty may have formed.

Spoiler alert: There is not a shred of concern at 0-16 weeks.

Percy Judd wrote: »

I have posted what stage of development a 12-week fetus is at regarding heartbeat, responding to stimulus, hands, feet, arms, legs, brain synapses, etc. And yet you can't be straight and say you don't consider that a human life.

It is alive. It is human. In taxonomy. It is not a Human Person. And it has no attributes upon which to afford it moral and ethical concern. And this is demonstrable because all the attributes you just listed ALSO exist in other "Life" we kill all the time.

The last burger you or someone you know ate? Yep it had a heartbeat, response to stimulus, limbs, brain synapses and the whole lot. And yet to happily kill it by the millions. That last anti bacterial you took? Yes even a bacteria can respond to stimulus.

So when you write "I think I have caught you lot out on this point" the reality is you have caught YOURSELF out. Because you have just listed a string of attributes that DEMONSTRABLY do not mediate a "right to life" in our general ethics and morality.

So having shot yourself in the foot, limp over to the armchair and sit down and listen to the simple next step in that mental process. Ask yourself if those attributes DO NOT mediate our moral and ethical concerns, what attributes actually do.

And you will then, like me, likely find that the answer you come up with for that question is PRECISELY the attributes the fetus being aborted lacks. Not just partially lacks, but ENTIRELY lacks.

And having had that revelation you will then suddenly, and completely, understand one clear and concise pro choice position. Yay you!

But if you need further introspection on the matter then have a little thought experiment. Imagine our technology..... and there are people who believe we are not too many generations from this...... reaches the point that we can map your consciousness into a computer and keep you alive after your body is dead. Imagine then I do this and install your consciousness into the equivalent of a toaster. No limbs. No heart beat. No flesh and blood. Just silicon and software.

Should I be allowed torture you, kill you, or have my way with you because you have NONE of the attributes you just listed a 12 week old fetus having. OR would your awareness sitting inside this toaster like box have something to which I should show moral and ethical concern. If so..... why do you think that is. What does that toaster have that should concern me? And do you notice your answer to that question is PERCISELY what the fetus does not have, never has had, and is a way off having.

Percy Judd wrote: »

So should we turn comatose patients life support off? There are lots of human lives which cannot survive without support. How is that a justification for killing them?

Percy Judd wrote: »

So if that's what defines a 'separate human being' to you, should we legalize killing of unconscious people? Comatose patients?

We turn life support off all the time. So I am not sure what your point here is. In fact I am not even convinced at this moment that YOU know what your point here is.

But the distinction you are missing here is that a coma patient HAS the faculty of consciousness and sentience. It might not be operating entirely, but it still has it. This is distinct from the fetus which A) Does not have it and Never has had it.

This is no small distinction. You would do well to mark it and note it. And while you are at it note the difference between HAVING that faculty and current USE OF that faulty. Unconscious people and coma patients HAVE the faculty. THAT is what makes them not just biologically human, but a human person.

Percy Judd wrote: »

If it's so simple, why don't you logically defeat my arguments instead of the lazy 'oh someone else has already defeated them, somewhere, I can't be bothered'.? Because you can't.

Glad I arrived to do it for you. If you feel you still have any arguments left I did not address in this post, or the one you simply ignored before this one, then please ask questions. I am here all year. But right now, despite you congratulating yourself at your own brilliance..... it genuinely appears you got nuttin.

It’s the 12 weeks that’s going to save the 8th.

Percy, you still haven’t answered questions one and two. I’m not letting you avoid them.

pilly wrote: »

And neither has Splinter

What questions did I not answer pilly . I’m pro life. I fail to see how abortion anywhere in the world has improved the lives of women. I don’t think it’s the answer to anything.
You’ve shown terrific contempt for anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
I think that the referendum will possibly not be carried because of the 12 weeks being bandied around.
Of course I may very well be wrong.
I see terribly judge mental statements on both sides of the arguments.
What did you want to try to trip me up with...sorry, I mean ask me?

To be fair my questions weren’t directed at splinter. He may have missed them. Click on my profile and my long post is about five posts back. Feel free to answer any time you like.

splinter65 wrote: »

Of my maternal grannies 14 grandchildren all married. The only divorce is the only cousin living abroad.

Technically my parents are still married, because the cost of divorce is too high...they live in different countys with their respective partners...stats would have them in the successful marriage column