This Alabama abortion law

[PSRB]

Some prick on Twitter trying to tell me that it's nothing to do with religion!!

[Luis Anaconda]

Some prick on Twitter trying to tell me that it's nothing to do with religion!!

God made them say that

[IUFG]

Some prick on Twitter trying to tell me that it's nothing to do with religion!!

hang on, couldn't a redneck female simply go to Washington or New York and request an abortion?

[Burney]

Some prick on Twitter trying to tell me that it's nothing to do with religion!!

To be fair, it’s perfectly possible to hold serious objections to abortion on ethical grounds while having no religious faith whatsoever. I do. :shrug:

[WES]

Some prick on Twitter trying to tell me that it's nothing to do with religion!!

They have to say that because they couldn't ever admit that they were forcing their religious views on others as that is about as unconstitutional as it gets.

So they dress it up as a moral issue despite the fact that if you polled those people who claim to be Christian about 90% of them would be anti-choice.

BTW, a personal irritation is the use of pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Everyone is anti-abortion, everyone would prefer that there was no need for them. Regardless of how you feel on the subject, basic logic tells you that the correct terms are pro-choice and anti-choice.

[Burney]

They have to say that because they couldn't ever admit that they were forcing their religious views on others as that is about as unconstitutional as it gets.

So they dress it up as a moral issue despite the fact that if you polled those people who claim to be Christian about 90% of them would be anti-choice.

BTW, a personal irritation is the use of pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Everyone is anti-abortion, everyone would prefer that there was no need for them. Regardless of how you feel on the subject, basic logic tells you that the correct terms are pro-choice and anti-choice.

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

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

To be fair, it’s perfectly possible to hold serious objections to abortion on ethical grounds while having no religious faith whatsoever. I do. :shrug:

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.

[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. :shrug:

[WES]

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

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. :hehe:

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.

[IUFG]

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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

[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. :shrug:

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.

[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. :hehe:

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.

[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. :shrug:

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]

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. :shrug:

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.

[Tony C]

Is this the thing where the women are doing a sex ban?

But they can still take it up the bum or use a vibrator :shrug:

[PSRB]

To be fair, it’s perfectly possible to hold serious objections to abortion on ethical grounds while having no religious faith whatsoever. I do. :shrug:

I do as well but not to outlaw it completely, the current UK law is perfectly reasonable at 24 weeks (i.e. when the embryo is viable)

[Burney]

I do as well but not to outlaw it completely, the current UK law is perfectly reasonable at 24 weeks (i.e. when the embryo is viable)

Yes, although I have issues with the concept of viability as a measure of whether or not we have the right to end a human life.
There are plenty of people who aren't 'viable' without the support and care of others, but we tend not to use that as an excuse for killing them.

[IUFG]

There are plenty of people who aren't 'viable' without the support and care of others, but we tend not to use that as an excuse for killing them.

oh, people are often effectively euthanised during palliative care in the UK .
increasing amounts of morphine for pain relief, anyone?

[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.

[Burney]

oh, people are often effectively euthanised during palliative care in the UK .
increasing amounts of morphine for pain relief, anyone?

Sure. The key difference there , though, would be that they are at the end of their lives rather than the beginning.

[IUFG]

Sure. The key difference there , though, would be that they are at the end of their lives rather than the beginning.

Beginning. End.

Still a life. Or is it, merely, an existence?

[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. :shrug:

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.

[Burney]

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.

The meeting of gametes and the creation of a zygote is the sine qua non of life. Life is impossible without it. It is the start point whose usual end point is the birth of a human baby. To try and pretend there is any other point at which life begins is just silly, I'm afraid.

[WES]

The meeting of gametes and the creation of a zygote is the sine qua non of life. Life is impossible without it. It is the start point whose usual end point is the birth of a human baby. To try and pretend there is any other point at which life begins is just silly, I'm afraid.

A mass of cells that cannot breathe, think or exist in its own right is not human life. It may or may not one day become a human life.

And as I predicted, your response was nothing more than 'yes it does'. And mine was nothing more than 'no it doesn't'.

That's why it's pointless.

The valid point would be that there clearly is no consensus on access to abortion, there is no threat to our society or way of life from it and therefore it should be made legal and people can choose to do what is consistent with their personal values. Any one who thinks other than that is an appalling c*nt, I'm afraid.

[Burney]

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

Christ, this is like arguing with AFC East.

That's because the fact that it cannot survive outside the womb is completely irrelevant. The point at which children can survive outside the womb has transformed dramatically due to medical science. So was it OK to kill those foetuses before those advances, but it isn't now? Nothing has changed ethically, after all.
And presumably, by that logic, were medical science to advance to the point where a child can be kept alive at any point after conception, you would be forced to concede that all abortion would have to be made illegal?
That argument is nonsensical.

[Burney]

A mass of cells that cannot breathe, think or exist in its own right is not human life. It may or may not one day become a human life.

And as I predicted, your response was nothing more than 'yes it does'. And mine was nothing more than 'no it doesn't'.

That's why it's pointless.

The valid point would be that there clearly is no consensus on access to abortion, there is no threat to our society or way of life from it and therefore it should be made legal and people can choose to do what is consistent with their personal values. Any one who thinks other than that is an appalling c*nt, I'm afraid.

No, I have produced a logical, scientific rationale for my conclusion that life begins at conception. You have produced none for your hypothesis whatsoever.
And then you have simply assumed moral superiority and reverted to calling anyone who disagrees with you a cûnt.
Pretty pïsspoor argument.

[IUFG]

That's because the fact that it cannot survive outside the womb is completely irrelevant. The point at which children can survive outside the womb has transformed dramatically due to medical science. So was it OK to kill those foetuses before those advances, but it isn't now? Nothing has changed ethically, after all.
And presumably, by that logic, were medical science to advance to the point where a child can be kept alive at any point after conception, you would be forced to concede that all abortion would have to be made illegal?
That argument is nonsensical.

Well, this could make things a whole lot more complicated

https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/14/human-babies-born-using-an-artificial-womb-possible-in-a-decade-8156458/

The Metro, I know, but...

[WES]

That's because the fact that it cannot survive outside the womb is completely irrelevant. The point at which children can survive outside the womb has transformed dramatically due to medical science. So was it OK to kill those foetuses before those advances, but it isn't now? Nothing has changed ethically, after all.
And presumably, by that logic, were medical science to advance to the point where a child can be kept alive at any point after conception, you would be forced to concede that all abortion would have to be made illegal?
That argument is nonsensical.

If you don't consider it to be relevant then respond saying that, rather than selecting part of the sentence and coming back with a glib reply.

Medical science can't make a mass of cells that has not formed a brain think. Your point is absurd.

[WES]

No, I have produced a logical, scientific rationale for my conclusion that life begins at conception. You have produced none for your hypothesis whatsoever.
And then you have simply assumed moral superiority and reverted to calling anyone who disagrees with you a cûnt.
Pretty pïsspoor argument.

Rubbish. We both came up with a position that it is entirely subjective, there is no clear and obvious definition of human life. Yours wasn't anymore scientific than mine.

And I haven't assumed moral superiority at all, I have pointed out that anyone that thinks that they have the right to impose their moral values on others is a c*nt. I stand by that statement. I have no issue with people objecting to abortion, I have a serious issue with people controlling what others are able to do because of their moral values.

[eastgermanautos]

To be fair, it’s perfectly possible to hold serious objections to abortion on ethical grounds while having no religious faith whatsoever. I do. :shrug:

That's an interesting, and somewhat doubtful, point.

(Excepting your point of view, which is based on I know not what. Too much cider.)

[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

[eastgermanautos]

No, I have produced a logical, scientific rationale for my conclusion that life begins at conception. You have produced none for your hypothesis whatsoever.
And then you have simply assumed moral superiority and reverted to calling anyone who disagrees with you a cûnt.
Pretty pïsspoor argument.

The weakness in your argument is in the term, "life." Which is, ineluctably, a moral concept. A more valid term would have been "organism." But hey, I understand, you want to keep chicks down. And I hear where you're coming from to some extent. They are indeed uppity. Now, do I want to live in Alabama? No.

[Pokster]

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

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

[redgunamo]

Women's problems, innit. Best steer clear.



Some prick on Twitter trying to tell me that it's nothing to do with religion!!