FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > A post to support all the unborn babies due to be killed today(part 2)
A post to support all the unborn babies due to be killed today(part 2)
Jump to: Newest in thread
Well worth continuing this debate I think. Maybe a slight change in direction is required to focus on the choice that is soon to be made in the Irish Republic and the need for the same discussion to be had North of the border. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Religious superstitions and dogma are purely private matters which have no valid place in civil society, particularly in respect of education and legislation.
Anything else is abuse.
But then, hierarchical religions are by their nature abusive, as centuries of vile behaviour have demonstrated.
You can think of the "rights" of cells if you want to - but perhaps you would do better to consider the millions of actual victims of religion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I actually think men should have no voice here"
Some men, some women, some people of course it all depends on the subject and the point of view..
Censorship due to birth is wrong, education is the better option ..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I actually think men should have no voice here
Some men, some women, some people of course it all depends on the subject and the point of view..
Censorship due to birth is wrong, education is the better option ..
"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Could someone enlighten us as to what all the fuss is about? Abortion is legal certainly in the first 12 weeks for any reason. What is the problem?
Do people want abortions to be legal after 7 months, or 8 and a half months? What is the argument actually about? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Could someone enlighten us as to what all the fuss is about?"
No one knows. This thread was started more than a year ago. The OP didn't say what the thread was about, so we'll just have to guess.
Why someone chose to re-open this long dead thread is a mystery. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Could someone enlighten us as to what all the fuss is about? Abortion is legal certainly in the first 12 weeks for any reason. What is the problem?
Do people want abortions to be legal after 7 months, or 8 and a half months? What is the argument actually about?"
There are 2 people in the UK right now facing prison sentences for abortions.
It is nowhere near the legality and straightforwardness here that people claim it is, last week the tories removed their commitment to protecting reproductive rights.
While it may not be at the "Active danger" stage yet, people should be paying more attention |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are 2 people in the UK right now facing prison sentences for abortions."
Not quite. One of them might not be charged for abortion, she's being charged for unlawfully obtaining Misoprostol. The other one is charged with saying that she was less than 10 weeks pregnant to obtain Misoprostol, but then delivering a 28 week foetus.
What was your point? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Mandatory chemical contraceptive injections for all men.
Removed only when a court agrees they are fit to be a father and release their sperm for this outcome only. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Mandatory chemical contraceptive injections for all men.
Removed only when a court agrees they are fit to be a father and release their sperm for this outcome only. "
Isn't that telling other people what they can and can't do with their own body?
Isn't that, like, bad? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Mandatory chemical contraceptive injections for all men.
Removed only when a court agrees they are fit to be a father and release their sperm for this outcome only.
Isn't that telling other people what they can and can't do with their own body?
Isn't that, like, bad?"
No it's fine.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Mandatory chemical contraceptive injections for all men. Removed only when a court agrees they are fit to be a father and release their sperm for this outcome only. "
"Isn't that telling other people what they can and can't do with their own body?
Isn't that, like, bad?"
"No it's fine. "
That's all right then. Thanks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
When men are the ones to get pregnant, and have to carry an organism inside their body that grows steadily larger for 9 months, often with extremely detrimental effects on their health, then have to spend hours of agony pushing a thing the size of a watermelon through a hole that normally only gets stretched to 4 or 5 centimetres maximum, then they might have a valid viewpoint upon abortion. Until then, men should just STFU about it.
As for the vile examples of humanity in some parts of the US that have been recently setting laws in place to force any girl, however young, to carry to term babies resulting from r@pe or ince$t (any sex with children is r@pe by definition anyway) even if it would kill both the girl and the baby: I would desperately love to see some of these lawmakers be forcibly implanted with embryos themselves. Apparently it is even possible to implant a fertilized egg into the body cavity of a man, where it can latch onto the intestines and draw nourishment. It will of course kill the host as it grows, but hey, these lawmakers believe that once the embryo is there it must be allowed to grow even if it results in death. Only after a man has either given birth or had an abortion himself, should he be allowed any say whatsoever in making laws regarding contraception and childbirth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Only after a man has either given birth or had an abortion himself, should he be allowed any say whatsoever in making laws regarding contraception and childbirth."
What is wrong with you people? Can you really be that blind?
The opposition believes that life begins at conception. That means that the foetus is a life, and aborting it is murder. Of course men can have an opinion on murder. Everyone should have an opinion on murder, and whether it should or shouldn't be allowed.
Ranting and raving about who has the rights over the body carrying the foetus isn't going to change anybody's mind. The people on your side already agree, and the people on the other side only care about the 'unborn child'.
If you ever want to get anywhere with this debate you need to understand the enemy, and engage them with arguments that they can understand. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Only after a man has either given birth or had an abortion himself, should he be allowed any say whatsoever in making laws regarding contraception and childbirth.
What is wrong with you people? Can you really be that blind?
The opposition believes that life begins at conception. That means that the foetus is a life, and aborting it is murder. Of course men can have an opinion on murder. Everyone should have an opinion on murder, and whether it should or shouldn't be allowed.
Ranting and raving about who has the rights over the body carrying the foetus isn't going to change anybody's mind. The people on your side already agree, and the people on the other side only care about the 'unborn child'.
If you ever want to get anywhere with this debate you need to understand the enemy, and engage them with arguments that they can understand."
We understand the enemy. There are no arguments that they can understand, as it is purely a matter of blind faith that they believe their religious belief stands above all other considerations. Including that they believe it is justified to force all pregnancies to come to term, even if it kills the mother. It is their belief that killing the mother is the right thing under those circumstances, because them enforcing their god's will in this way is necessary to ensure their own place in heaven.
However they feel no obligation whatsoever to ensure the life of mother or child after the birth, they feel no obligation to ensure mother and child have medical care, or food, or any quality of life.
The opposition believing that "life begins at conception, the foetus is a life, and aborting it is murder" are fanatics who believe that their beliefs trump the beliefs of all others. There is no negotiation possible with them. They can hold an opinion upon the matter, but they should have zero right to enforce their opinion where is actively causes harm to others that are absolutely nothing to do with them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Only after a man has either given birth or had an abortion himself, should he be allowed any say whatsoever in making laws regarding contraception and childbirth.
What is wrong with you people? Can you really be that blind?
The opposition believes that life begins at conception. That means that the foetus is a life, and aborting it is murder. Of course men can have an opinion on murder. Everyone should have an opinion on murder, and whether it should or shouldn't be allowed.
Ranting and raving about who has the rights over the body carrying the foetus isn't going to change anybody's mind. The people on your side already agree, and the people on the other side only care about the 'unborn child'.
If you ever want to get anywhere with this debate you need to understand the enemy, and engage them with arguments that they can understand."
The problem is they are arguing religion, and religion plurality means that while they are entitled to their opinion on their religion, they are not entitled to force that opinion on another person, let alone the law.
Secondly while abortion is legal, it cannot be murder. as murder is the unlawful killing of a person.
It may seem pedantic but it is important to call out misleading rhetoric.
Thirdly by forcing someone to carry a foetus they do not want to, this opens up a slippery slope. Where do we stop on allowing someone to be forced to use their body in a potentially lethal, potentially lifelong detrimental fashion, for the benefit of another?
Does this mean I can now sue you to give me a kidney if we are a match, regardless of your feelings?
Or there is the example of forced vasectomies for the male population. it is exactly the same invasion of a persons bodily autonomy, and it would actually prevent far more abortions.
lastly it is impossible to stop abortions with legislation banning them, all you can stop is safe abortions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
