Concern for the protection of women’s lives in anti-abortion laws is not a pro-choice ploy. It’s a p

[F1fan]

So there are no young, single mothers struggling to raise a child? There are no neglected infants or young children? They are all well provided for by the anti-abortion brigade?
Do yourself a favour!
The situation is already desperate with reasonable access to abortion. How bad do you think it will get when thousands of unwanted babies are born every year to resentful mothers unable and unwilling to care for them?
And then there are the thousands of avoidable maternal deaths through unsafe abortion.
But you don't care about any of that, do you. You just wasn't to punish sinful women and claim moral superiority.

This illustrates why the pro-life side is hypocritical. They look at the "life" and not the living.

 

[pearl]

There is no "abortion on demand" as such. It is a procedure that has to be approved and performed medical professionals. They don't have to carry out the procedure if they decide otherwise.

I was referring to subsequent cases post RvWade

 

[KWED]

I was referring to subsequent cases post RvWade

Could women in the US demand that a doctor perform an abortion, even if the doctor advised against it?
Sounds somewhat unlikely - but then, the US medico-legal system has always baffled me. Seems like insurance and litigation are more important than simply delivering healthcare to those who need it.
¡Viva la NHS!

 

[Wildswanderer]

But anyway, I don't see any real moral difference in throwing a child in the river and standing there and watching while one drowns when you could easily save it.

That's not a situation that's comparable, however. To be comparable, abortion is more like holding a baby unwater until he's dead and not donating organs while you are alive has nothing to do with that. Creating false scenarios doesn't help your cause.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So there are no young, single mothers struggling to raise a child? There are no neglected infants or young children? They are all well provided for by the anti-abortion brigade?
Do yourself a favour!
The situation is already desperate with reasonable access to abortion. How bad do you think it will get when thousands of unwanted babies are born every year to resentful mothers unable and unwilling to care for them?
And then there are the thousands of avoidable maternal deaths through unsafe abortion.
But you don't care about any of that, do you. You just wasn't to punish sinful women and claim moral superiority.

So, wanting babies to not be terminated means we have to take care of every baby in the country? That's like saying if you would not let someone drown you should pay for that person's college. Again, your making up false comparisons isn't helpful.

 

[ppp]

So, wanting babies to not be terminated means we have to take care of every baby in the country? That's like saying if you would not let someone drown you should pay for that person's college. Again, your making up false comparisons isn't helpful.

You are wrong in so many ways. If you save a drowning child you are giving it back to the people who have assumed responsibility for it. If the almost drowned child has no guardians then it becomes a ward of the state and you are implicitly assuming responsibility for that child with your taxes. What is more, parents are not legally required to send their child to college, so your false comparison is triply flawed. Think your analogies thru next time.

BTW, we should absolutely be providing comprehensive, universal and generously staffed and funded education to all of children within our borders. Not to mention comprehensive health care and secure housing

 

[KWED]

That's not a situation that's comparable,

Of course it is!
In one your deliberate actions lead to the avoidable death of a child.
In the other, your deliberate actions lead to the avoidable death of a child.
Not that difficult to grasp.

To be comparable, abortion is more like holding a baby unwater until he's dead and not donating organs while you are alive has nothing to do with that. Creating false scenarios doesn't help your cause.

You seem confused.
If you are asked to donate an unneeded kidney to save the life of another and you refuse, your considered, deliberate action knowing causes the death of another. That is basically the same as shooting them in the head.

However to use your analogy, holding a baby underwater until it drowns is as morally as reprehensible as standing and watching someone hold a baby underwater when you could easily stop them.
In fact, it is worse because you cannot claim the mental illness, previous context, etc that the holder-under might claim. You are simply watching a baby drown and thinking "meh, let it die".

 

[KWED]

You are wrong in so many ways. If you save a drowning child you are giving it back to the people who have assumed responsibility for it. If the almost drowned child has no guardians then it becomes a ward of the state and you are implicitly assuming responsibility for that child with your taxes. What is more, parents are not legally required to send their child to college, so your false comparison is triply flawed. Think your analogies thru next time.

BTW, we should absolutely be providing comprehensive, universal and generously staffed and funded education to all of children within our borders. Not to mention comprehensive health care and secure housing

Yeah. Pretty much.
As they have repeatedly demonstrated, al]nalogoes are not their strong suit.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Of course it is!
In one your deliberate actions lead to the avoidable death of a child.
In the other, your deliberate actions lead to the avoidable death of a child.
Not that difficult to grasp.

You seem confused.
If you are asked to donate an unneeded kidney to save the life of another and you refuse, your considered, deliberate action knowing causes the death of another. That is basically the same as shooting them in the head.

However to use your analogy, holding a baby underwater until it drowns is as morally as reprehensible as standing and watching someone hold a baby underwater when you could easily stop them.
In fact, it is worse because you cannot claim the mental illness, previous context, etc that the holder-under might claim. You are simply watching a baby drown and thinking "meh, let it die".

Again, that's not an apt comparison. Not donating your kidney is irrelevant. There's kidneys available from people who have already died. I assume you have volunteered to be an organ donor?
What you are doing is supporting deliberately killing children. No one can save every child who dies in the world but there's no reason to support those being terminated on purpose.
BTW, the pro life people also give more to charities and are more likely to sponsor a child, be Foster parents or adopt.

 

[PruePhillip]

And what is wrong with a person having the right to decide to end their own life when they feel as if the suffering is too great to bear? Big Christian Government says the person doesn't have the right, and only due to religious beliefs that should be personal.


That's funny since Christian theology says once you are born you are damned to hell, unless you accept Jesus as savior once you have the ability to utter the words.

But you are wrong. Pro-choicers just advocate for the right for a woman to make her own health care decisions where it comes to reproduction. Even doctors are refusing to help many women because laws are so ambiguous that they might be sued, so more harm to women for the "pro-life" side. They aren't pro-life, they are pro-dogma, and that means the dogma is more important than life. The claim of pro-life is inconsistent with their actions and judgments. As noted the pro-life side does not sort healthcare for women and all citizens as a right. Healthcare access IS the right to life.

Yes, I like pro-dogma, depending upon the dogma - love, life, liberty, education, forgiveness, private property, free expression etc are dogmas I hold to.
But there's no 'suffering' in people who committ suicide because they don't want to be a burden to others. What of the 18 year old who lost in a relationship - can they kill themselves too? Can we help kill them?

 

[PruePhillip]

When an early-stage foetus expresses its desire to be free of the tyranny of the mother and live life on its own but the mother refuses and keeps it in there for 9 months, you might have a point.

Peter Singer suggests you can kill your elderly parents and children up ot the age of five - it's an interesting thought, won't happen immediately, it needs subtle stages to reach this point.

 

[ppp]

Yeah. Pretty much.
As they have repeatedly demonstrated, al]nalogoes are not their strong suit.

Nor morality.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, I like pro-dogma, depending upon the dogma - love, life, liberty, education, forgiveness, private property, free expression etc are dogmas I hold to.
But there's no 'suffering' in people who committ suicide because they don't want to be a burden to others.

There's no suffering after they're dead, but there is a lot before hand.

What of the 18 year old who lost in a relationship - can they kill themselves too? Can we help kill them?

So you want to help kill teenagers who think the world has come to an end because they got dumped?

 

[PruePhillip]

There's no suffering after they're dead, but there is a lot before hand.


So you want to help kill teenagers who think the world has come to an end because they got dumped?

Sure, if we kill an elderly person who doesn't want to be a 'burden' to others (usually people dumped in houses for the elderly) then why can't this 'service' be offered to anyone of any age and any reason? It's the next step, you know.

 

[KWED]

Peter Singer suggests you can kill your elderly parents and children up ot the age of five - it's an interesting thought, won't happen immediately, it needs subtle stages to reach this point.

1. Who gives a feck what Peter Singer thinks?
2. Slippery slope fallacy, with bells and whistles. (Are you really suggesting that access to medially supervised, early stage abortion will eventually lead to killing children up to the age of five? Come on, even the nuttiest of Christian Right whingers don't think that. The reality is that as medical technology allows earlier premature births to survive, the cut-off point for abortion has gone down, not up).

 

[KWED]

Again, that's not an apt comparison. Not donating your kidney is irrelevant. There's kidneys available from people who have already died.

Not if you are the only compatible match. You murderer!

What you are doing is supporting deliberately killing children.

Where have I done that?
(Remember that an early stage foetus is not a child. But once again, you show us that ridiculous appeals to emotion are all you have in your locker.

BTW, the pro life people also give more to charities and are more likely to sponsor a child, be Foster parents or adopt.

Evidence?

 

[KWED]

Sure, if we kill an elderly person who doesn't want to be a 'burden' to others (usually people dumped in houses for the elderly) then why can't this 'service' be offered to anyone of any age and any reason? It's the next step, you know.

More nonsense from you.
Old people are not being (legally) killed against their will by their families because they are a burden.
So we can add dishonesty to appeals to emotion. Not a good looking arsenal, is it?

Also, are you suggesting that suicide be criminalised? The Religious Right just can't keep their hands off our bodies, can they!

 

[F1fan]

Sure, if we kill an elderly person who doesn't want to be a 'burden' to others (usually people dumped in houses for the elderly) then why can't this 'service' be offered to anyone of any age and any reason? It's the next step, you know.

Well no one kills old people who are feeling they are a burden. I don't know where you got that idea. And it seems you don't understand how different a person at the end of life differs from a young person. Why is that?

There is a moral argument for assisted suicide for those who have fatal diseases or are suffering to a degree that even pain medication can't offer them relief. I've watched loved ones slowly die from cancer and it was heart breaking that they suffered the way they did. I certainly have no interest in that kind of slow, painful death.

Are you a Christian? I'm seeing many Christians showing a very twisted, inaccurate, misinformed, and convoluted view of life and death.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There IS a thing called the 'slippery slope fallacy', only it's often not a fallacy. Just look how America is slowly ramping up its support for Ukraine - it was only ever going to be about Soviet era equipment, no advisors, no American aircraft etc.. Now it's A10 Warthogs, HIMAS... soon 300 km artillery etc..

Slowly? As far as I can tell, the US has always supported Ukraine. They were just treated badly by your former President, so maybe that's what you're thinking about?

For the gay movement it was about 'decriminalisation' and a promise never to promote it in schools, seek gay marriage etc..

And equality. I don't what that you mean by "promise never to promote it in schools, seek gay marriages, etc." Who did/said that? Why wouldn't gay people want the same rights as anyone else? Nobody "promotes" homosexuality in schools. Learning about the existence of gay people isn't "promoting it in schools." So what are you talking about here? Some "slippery slope" of rights for gay people? Like that's a bad thing?

Euthenasia in Australia was only ever going to be about the last six months of terminal, painful suffering - never about suicide of people who feel they are just a burden to family and society (now 47% of cases)

Just like with any new legislation, there are kinks that need to be worked out and I don't know where you pulled that number from or if it is accurate.

Now 'medicinal marijuana' and how it isn't a gateway drug.

Medical marijuana is not a gateway drug. The legalized, controlled sale of marijuana takes away the "gateway drug" part of it, because now people are purchasing it legally, rather than seeking it out from drug dealers on the streets who quite often have plenty of other, stronger drugs to sell. Legalizing it takes away the gateway aspect of it.

So yeah, there's slippery slope arguments, and real slippery slopes.

And pretend ones too.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Pro-choicers are similar to slave owners, insisting they have control over the lives of unborn children - the lives of the unborn be damned.

Uh, no they aren't. They think the CHOICE about what to do with one's own body should be left up to the individual, because it's that individual's body and nobody else's.

Slave owners think they own human beings as property and can make choices on their property's behalf.

Terrible analogy.