This Alabama abortion law

[IUFG]

If you’re a Christian, I guess it’s kind of hard to get past that whole ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ thing.

[Pokster]

If you’re a Christian, I guess it’s kind of hard to get past that whole ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ thing.

hmmmmm, these are the same Christians that quite happily go off bombing places and also have the death penalty?

[Burney]

That's basically because you're a bog dwelling mick b. Most of my Irish colleagues, who are largely educated, liberal and decidedly non-religious have a deep distaste for abortion. Usually based on the spectacle of promiscuous females using it as a contraceptive solution.

I simply take the view that, given a choice between the grown adult who has made informed choices and the voiceless, defenceless child being threatened with death merely for the crime of existing inconveniently, it ought to be the law’s job to prioritise defence of the latter rather than the former.

[WES]

I simply take the view that, given a choice between the grown adult who has made informed choices and the voiceless, defenceless child being threatened with death merely for the crime of existing inconveniently, it ought to be the law’s job to prioritise defence of the latter rather than the former.

A mass of cells that cannot exist outside the womb is a defenceless child, is it?

Anyway, we know where this is going so there's no point.

[Sir C]

I simply take the view that, given a choice between the grown adult who has made informed choices and the voiceless, defenceless child being threatened with death merely for the crime of existing inconveniently, it ought to be the law’s job to prioritise defence of the latter rather than the former.

Giving children 'rights' has led us to this world of 'autism' and 'peanut allergies' and Greta Thunberg haranguing politicos.

Think on.

And consider how much better the world would be had Mrs Jones looked at baby Owen and opted for the post-labour abortion option.

[Burney]

Not that hard, the large majority of them will also support the death penalty. And I'm not too sure Christianity ever stopped anyone going to war.

And of course, there is nothing in the bible that says that life begins at conception, not to my knowledge anyway. I believe that to have been the judgement of the child abusers in Rome. Mortal men, as such.

Well if they do, I’d agree that is hypocritical. And the concept of the ‘Just War’ as it relates to Christianity was outlined by St Thomas Aquinas about 800 years ago, but I’ve no interest in defending Christianity.

And life obviously begins at conception. Any other conclusion is arbitrary, illogical and wholly unscientific.

[WES]

Well if they do, I’d agree that is hypocritical. And the concept of the ‘Just War’ as it relates to Christianity was outlined by St Thomas Aquinas about 800 years ago, but I’ve no interest in defending Christianity.

And life obviously begins at conception. Any other conclusion is arbitrary, illogical and wholly unscientific.

No, it doesn't *obviously* begin at conception. I could argue that human life begins when the foetus is viable outside of the womb.

If I did you would have no logical counter argument other than 'no it doesn't'. Hence why this is such a difficult issue to resolve.

[eastgermanautos]

Well if they do, I’d agree that is hypocritical. And the concept of the ‘Just War’ as it relates to Christianity was outlined by St Thomas Aquinas about 800 years ago, but I’ve no interest in defending Christianity.

And life obviously begins at conception. Any other conclusion is arbitrary, illogical and wholly unscientific.

Great, what about a tumor dumbsh!t

[Burney]

A mass of cells that cannot exist outside the womb is a defenceless child, is it?

Anyway, we know where this is going so there's no point.

You might as well argue that a child is not fully human because it hasn’t yet grown to adulthood and cannot survive without adult protection and therefore should not be afforded the same protections in law.

Instead we take the view thatbthat vulnerability is exactly why the law protects children even more than it does adults.

It therefore seems bizarre to me that we abandon this rationale when it comes to children at their most vulnerable - ie when they’re in the womb. It’s simply nonsensical.

Oh, and we’re all just ‘a mass of cells’, btw.

[WES]

You might as well argue that a child is not fully human because it hasn’t yet grown to adulthood and cannot survive without adult protection and therefore should not be afforded the same protections in law.

Instead we take the view thatbthat vulnerability is exactly why the law protects children even more than it does adults.

It therefore seems bizarre to me that we abandon this rationale when it comes to children at their most vulnerable - ie when they’re in the womb. It’s simply nonsensical.

Oh, and we’re all just ‘a mass of cells’, btw.

You have conveniently left off 'that cannot exist outside the womb'.

Christ, this is like arguing with AFC East.