D
Doc_Keele
Guest
I never advocated unlimited autonomy
Autonomy like so many other rights cannot be unlimited because one person’s exercise of their rights may infringe on someone else’s rights.
- Status
Autonomy like so many other rights cannot be unlimited because one person’s exercise of their rights may infringe on someone else’s rights.
O
o_mlly
Guest
It appears we agree on the priniciple of limited personal autonomy. And we agree, I think, that the law is that limiter. Do we agree, in the main, that some children in the womb ought to be protected by the law? For instance, in the U.S., the murder of a pregnant women is a double homicide in federal law.I never advocated unlimited autonomy
Autonomy like so many other rights cannot be unlimited because one person’s exercise of their rights may infringe on someone else’s rights.
*The Unborn Victims of Violence Act *recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills both her and her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims. The bill would establish that if a “child in utero” is injured or killed during the commission of certain federal crimes of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child. … The House of Representatives approved the bill on February 26, 2004 (254-163) and the Senate approved it on March 25, 2004 (61-38).
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Well that’s a totally dfferent situation. Legalisation of abortion has never meant that the child is not protected at all, no matter what the “Pro-Life” lobby might say.
J
jmcrae
Guest
She had only missed two periods. I’m not sure how much earlier she could have had it.Well I’m sure that one thing we can agree on, no matter which side of the fence we each are on, is that it wasn’t very prudent of her to have an abortion that late in the pregnancy - to be quite charitable …
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Doc Keele
- Legalisation of abortion has never meant that the child is not protected at all, no matter what the “Pro-Life” lobby might say.*
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
jmcrae
*According to Quentin Tarentino, (Kill Bill Volume 2) Clark Kent is Superman’s opinion of the human race. It occurs to me that, using the same logic, Jesus of Nazareth is God’s. *
Trying not to get off point, Tarentino is full of prunes. Clark Kent is Superman’s disguise. And a clever one at that. If you need a disguise, the best one is your opposite number. Pedophiles, for example, might become policemen, or judges … or even priests. Didn’t the serpent pretend to be Eve’s friend?
Likewise, the pro-choice advocates pretend to be friends to women, when what they are really doing is enabling them to lose their souls … along with their unborn children.
*According to Quentin Tarentino, (Kill Bill Volume 2) Clark Kent is Superman’s opinion of the human race. It occurs to me that, using the same logic, Jesus of Nazareth is God’s. *
Trying not to get off point, Tarentino is full of prunes. Clark Kent is Superman’s disguise. And a clever one at that. If you need a disguise, the best one is your opposite number. Pedophiles, for example, might become policemen, or judges … or even priests. Didn’t the serpent pretend to be Eve’s friend?
Likewise, the pro-choice advocates pretend to be friends to women, when what they are really doing is enabling them to lose their souls … along with their unborn children.
W
wanner47
Guest
Actually, I don’t understand your logic here.Well I’m sure that one thing we can agree on, no matter which side of the fence we each are on, is that it wasn’t very prudent of her to have an abortion that late in the pregnancy - to be quite charitable …
Seems to me that if you’re in favor of rape victims being able to abort, then they should be able to do so at any point during pregnancy.If you’re not in favor of that, why not?
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
Any comments about that prior post? Agree? disagree?Did I read your prior post? Yes, I did.
J
jmcrae
Guest
That’s a good point … 
Although I suspect that most “pro-choice” advocates haven’t actually thought through the issues, and are just spouting the lines that are being fed to them through the liberal media. I have noticed that as long as you agree with mainstream society, you don’t actually have to think, in order to be considered “thoughtful.”
It’s only when you actually do start thinking for yourself, and you come to disagree with society, that you then get the label of “bigot” or “reactionary.”
O
o_mlly
Guest
Does science know when the “conceptus” becomes a “child”? You have used both terms to refer to the unborn.
E
Eris_Discordia
Guest
I’m calling BS, sorry. I’ve thought about it. I’ve done research for hundreds of hours over the past 3 years. I’ve even been pro-life, because that was all I was taught, and was not allowed to think any differently. I’ve come to the conclusions about a lot of things through self research and deeply thinking, as well as personal experiences. I disagree strongly with the pro-life movement, but I realize that people have thought about it and have their reasons as well. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I’m not thoughtful, and just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean you’re not thoughtful.
Although I suspect that most “pro-choice” advocates haven’t actually thought through the issues, and are just spouting the lines that are being fed to them through the liberal media. I have noticed that as long as you agree with mainstream society, you don’t actually have to think, in order to be considered “thoughtful.”
It’s only when you actually do start thinking for yourself, and you come to disagree with society, that you then get the label of “bigot” or “reactionary.”
J
jmcrae
Guest
Have you thought of the pain and fear that the child experiences, as he or she is being aborted?
E
Eris_Discordia
Guest
Yes I have, and then I learned that a child doesn’t develop a sentient mind or nerves for pain until later in the pregnancy. Which is why I am against third trimester abortions completely.
J
jmcrae
Guest
“It” (she) has a spinal cord (that is to say, a nervous system that can feel pain) before she has anything else - that’s what that string thingy is, during the first week of development.
I am uncertain I understand the logic of this statement.
So at 185 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes abortion is OK, but a minute later it is not?
Inherent in your logic is the acknowledgement of the unborn having a right to life (if only in the third trimester).
Why put yourself through the mental and moral gymnastics necessary to make yourself differentiate one human life from another?
The logic of the pro-life side of the argument is solid. Logically and morally.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Seems to be a natural law argument - not much else to say really:shrug:
R
Rence
Guest
Ok, you seem sincere and not out to pummel me here. Although that will probably change. Though I’ve already answered this part in detail that was probably 300 posts ago. So here I go again:Actually, I don’t understand your logic here.
If you’re not in favor of that, why not?
I am not in favor of abortion, except for cases of rape. I believe that EC should be available for rape victims, without exception, in the ER. I believe a woman has the right to protect herself by having full access without limitations to EC in the ER after a rape. Further action beyond EC in the ER is not an option for me, even if I were to get pregnant because I made my attempt to prevent the pregnancy and in my hypothetical example, it didn’t work. That’s for me.
While I would not choose abortion for myself, I DO NOT force my opinion down the throats of non-catholics, non-christians, non-compliant catholics, athiests or whatever the case my be with these women. I believe it’s a personal choice of the woman, especially in the case of rape. I am not sympathetic to women who have abortions and then suffer from it because they are well informed in all aspects, and the risk is worth it to them. Therefore they live with the consequences. Just like any other thing in life. However, Not everyone is Catholic, and this is most definitely not a catholic country. People are not slaves to the Church regardless of what the Church thinks, for if one is not Catholic, one gives not a hoot about it’s rules and regulations.
I value my freedom, and just like I would not tolerate being subject to another religion’s rules and regulations, I will not subject violating another person’s freedom, liberty and autonomy by cramming my religious convictions down their throat. This subject is religious-led. And I value the separation of Church and state and am against laws being made based on religious convictions - any religion’s convictions. And yes, the woman is the one with the right to choose.
Following the rules of a particular religion is voluntary and based on free will. As it should be.
I’m against abortion (except for cases for rape) because I believe the woman has the right to prevent a pregnancy that was a result of rape. Period. It would be in her best interests to do it earlier than later, but it’s her choice. I do not force my values and beliefs on other women.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Yes, I have muddied the waters because when I use the terms in their technically correct the “Pro-Lifers” jump down my throat. It’s not a child until it’s born really.
Without sounding too stupid here, what is EC?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Emergency contraceptive.
- Status