Uhm, WTF Britain?

[Sava]

Well, congratulations, I guess? Your willful ignorance has once again ensured that you don't have to think too hard about an important subject. Yay?

I've already come to the proper conclusion on this subject. I try to help lost souls whenever possible.

[Lorizael]

As I said, willful ignorance. The topic I was discussing was what we should do about the underlying problems of society that lead to abortions. Your proper conclusion to that is "RESTRICTING ABORTION RIGHTS IS RAPE!!!!"

[Sava]

As I said, willful ignorance.

Knowing what's worth knowing is an important skill.

If you care this much about reducing unwanted pregnancies, go pass out condoms. Otherwise, you're just being lazy. If your convictions are so weak that you don't care to take action, they aren't worth knowing.

[Lorizael]

Willful ignorance! Again, the solution is simple: genetically engineer humans to be sterile from birth, grow fetuses in artificial wombs. Christ.

[Sava]

finally

[Lorizael]

Finally? I said the exact same thing 20 posts ago!

[Sava]

blindly replying to posts was part of the bit

[kentonio]

Why "setting aside the late term thing"? Why do you oppose it when opposing it means "[involving] another living human being told what they can and cannot do with their own body"? This seems to be a hypocrisy on your part.

Because to me (and many, many other people) there's a difference between potential life, and life that can likely survive on it's own. Banning abortion past a certain amount of time when the foetus has developed to the point where it could hopefully survive even without the mother gives the mother enough time to make her own decision on whether to carry the child and avoids fully developed babies being killed.

It works very well over here which is why we don't have any of the national divide and fury over abortion that you lot do. It basically never even comes up in political debate any more (apart from occasional religious politicians talking about tweaking the number of weeks down) because we have a sensible compromise.

I find it interesting that you lump women in one bloc like this. The biggest pro-lifers I know are women, so it isn't all of them who believe in one way on this.

It doesn't matter. You're talking about something deeply fundamental to womens rights, and something I already covered in my previous post. Democracy does not mean you can **** all over peoples civil rights just because 51% of people say so.

Sounds like you are trying to make it "clear cut" to me.

Sorry if you're unable to deal with the idea of a foundational principle having many layers of complexity on top of it. Then again it isn't your rights you're trying to trample on is it?

[molly bloom]

Did anyone catch the part about the girl having an I.Q. of 54?

The DinoDoc style guardians of public morality clearly aren't that upset about the rape and sexual abuse of an educationally and emotionally subnormal barely pubescent teenage girl.

All that matters is: there is a potential human being in her womb, and it is her duty to attempt to carry it for a full term. Regardless of the mental or physical consequences.


Of course if or when it is born, neither he nor Sister Bendy will be there to look after it or pay for its upkeep- they'll leave that to the tender mercies of the state.

[DinoDoc]

The DinoDoc style guardians of public morality clearly aren't that upset about the rape and sexual abuse of an educationally and emotionally subnormal barely pubescent teenage girl.

I'm upset by a State that orders an invasive medical procedure over the objections of the person in question and then proceeds to bully the vulnerable patient into agreeing to it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because to me (and many, many other people) there's a difference between potential life, and life that can likely survive on it's own. Banning abortion past a certain amount of time when the foetus has developed to the point where it could hopefully survive even without the mother gives the mother enough time to make her own decision on whether to carry the child and avoids fully developed babies being killed.

Still "[involving] another living human being told what they can and cannot do with their own body" (btw, that actually is an argument pro-life groups make against banning late term abortions).

I hope you can see how silly the "you can't tell others what they can do with their own body" argument is now. Considering you seemingly would like to do so "after a certain amount of time".

It doesn't matter. You're talking about something deeply fundamental to womens rights, and something I already covered in my previous post. Democracy does not mean you can **** all over peoples civil rights just because 51% of people say so.

Who decides these 'rights'? Did a supreme being give them to you or did the people decide what the rights were?

[Dauphin]

I'm upset by a State that orders an invasive medical procedure over the objections of the person in question and then proceeds to bully the vulnerable patient into agreeing to it.

Are you against a state that orders an invasive medical procedure over the objections of the person in question and then proceeds to bully the vulnerable patient into doing it, when the procedure in question is giving birth?

[Dauphin]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/09/13-year-old-girl-is-capable-of-making-abortion-decision-high-court-rules_n_5298747.html

Appears the Court is not in the habit of forcing abortions.

[DaShi]

As I said, willful ignorance. The topic I was discussing was what we should do about the underlying problems of society that lead to abortions. Your proper conclusion to that is "RESTRICTING ABORTION RIGHTS IS RAPE!!!!"

First you need to identify what the underlying problems are. Frankly, unless the state is forcing abortions, I don't see any unreasonable problems that lead to abortions at this time.

Also, Sava is right. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to have those opinions heard.

[kentonio]

Still "[involving] another living human being told what they can and cannot do with their own body" (btw, that actually is an argument pro-life groups make against banning late term abortions).

If the pro-choice people weren't convinved the pro-life side wanted to completely ban abortion, I think you'd see a lot more compromise on this.

I hope you can see how silly the "you can't tell others what they can do with their own body" argument is now. Considering you seemingly would like to do so "after a certain amount of time".

It's not silly at all. Giving people a reasonable amount of time to make their decision actually works. In real life. It's just a shame that as always America is determined that the countless examples of other countries should be ignored.