Register to Comment
Page 159 of 218 FirstFirst ... 59109149157158159160161169209 ... LastLast
Results 1,581 to 1,590 of 2173
Like Tree558Likes
  1. #1581
    DaveM DaveM is offline
    DaveM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    17,894

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    You're probably right - I'll see if I can find anything on it. But now we really must get back on topic.
    Marie Fleming loses Supreme Court right-to-die case - Independent.ie
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #1582
    livingstone livingstone is offline
    livingstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,452

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    I think that conclusion is unavoidable. To allow that the life of a foetus is of less worth than that of a born infant presents us with obvious comparisons between the worth of a week old infant - who is basically fukk all use for anything - and the worth of the life of a brain surgeon in the middle of a delicate surgical procedure.
    As for the issue of prosecutions, if a crime is committed we should prosecute, and if the outcome offends, it is perhaps the legal and penal systems that need to be looked at rather than overlooking an illegal act because we do not come out smelling of roses if we address it.
    But of course if one genuinely believed what was being punished was actually murder, the outcome wouldn't offend.

    One might prefer that murder not attract a mandatory life sentence, or that prison conditions were improved etc. But if the outcome is that a woman who gets an abortion is treated in the same way as someone who commits a murder in the same circumstances (but with the sole difference being that the victim is unborn rather than born) then that should not offend someone who genuinely believes that the right to life of that unborn is the same as your right to life or mine.

    The reason it offends, and the reason you are alone in this thread in favouring criminalising and prosecuting women for having abortions in the UK, is precisely because despite their claims, very few people actually, genuinely believe that an unborn foetus has the same right to life as you do or I do.

    That was the point I have been making from the start. That includes folk like tonic and ger. And the debate on abortion would be a lot more productive if they had the honesty to admit that inescapable fact. Once you admit that virtually no one thinks an unborn child has precisely the same right to life as a born person, then from there you can drop the arrogance of certainty that dogs this whole debate.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #1583
    Sailor Sailor is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    57,530

    Quote Originally Posted by livingstone View Post
    But of course if one genuinely believed what was being punished was actually murder, the outcome wouldn't offend.

    One might prefer that murder not attract a mandatory life sentence, or that prison conditions were improved etc. But if the outcome is that a woman who gets an abortion is treated in the same way as someone who commits a murder in the same circumstances (but with the sole difference being that the victim is unborn rather than born) then that should not offend someone who genuinely believes that the right to life of that unborn is the same as your right to life or mine.

    The reason it offends, and the reason you are alone in this thread in favouring criminalising and prosecuting women for having abortions in the UK, is precisely because despite their claims, very few people actually, genuinely believe that an unborn foetus has the same right to life as you do or I do.

    That was the point I have been making from the start. That includes folk like tonic and ger. And the debate on abortion would be a lot more productive if they had the honesty to admit that inescapable fact. Once you admit that virtually no one thinks an unborn child has precisely the same right to life as a born person, then from there you can drop the arrogance of certainty that dogs this whole debate.
    I would say that is based purely on an emotional reaction, based on factors such as the invisibility of the unborn child, compassion for a woman experiencing difficult circumstances and the continuous depiction of the foetus as a "clump of cells" - and would not bear scrutiny at an intellectual level. And again this is not confined to the pro-lifers - how many of those who believe that life and the right to life begin at 20 weeks, and who advocate for abortion up to that term, would be able to bring themselves to say "kill it" if they could see the baby lying in front of them? It is easy to support that which is very hygienically presented as a "right", but not at all so unproblematical when the victim is made visible. There really is a strong element of "out of sight, out of mind" in the whole process of normalization of abortion.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #1584
    livingstone livingstone is offline
    livingstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,452

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    I would say that is based purely on an emotional reaction, based on factors such as the invisibility of the unborn child, compassion for a woman experiencing difficult circumstances and the continuous depiction of the foetus as a "clump of cells" - and would not bear scrutiny at an intellectual level. And again this is not confined to the pro-lifers - how many of those who believe that life and the right to life begin at 20 weeks, and who advocate for abortion up to that term, would be able to bring themselves to say "kill it" if they could see the baby lying in front of them? It is easy to support that which is very hygienically presented as a "right", but not at all so unproblematical when the victim is made visible. There really is a strong element of "out of sight, out of mind" in the whole process of normalization of abortion.
    That's a separate debate.

    My point was that those who claim they believe in the right to life of an unborn child on the same basis as the rest of us simply don't. Why that is the case is an entirely separate issue. My main point was the hypocrisy of making that falsely making that claim.

    And the debate would be a much more honest one if people had the honesty to admit that whatever rights they believe that an unborn child has, they simply do not believe that it has the same right to life as you or me. It's entirely possible to be pro-life while recognising that reality - and indeed, many pro-life people do recognise it. But the likes of tonic and ger, claiming to believe in the equal right to life but in reality believing no such thing do a disservice to the debate.

    Of course the alternative would be your position of mass criminalisation and prosecution, which is also a hideous approach in my view. But at least yours is a more consistent approach than that of tonic and ger, and no doubt, of any of the pro-lifers we'll see in any referendum campaign, telling us all about the right to life of the unborn but also being wholly unwilling to accept the logical consequences of that 'right to life'.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #1585
    tonic tonic is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    47,849

    Quote Originally Posted by livingstone View Post

    Neither of you are coming out smelling of roses in this whole exposition.
    Says the man who is happy to end a life if it suits him.

    Would you ever f*** off with yourself.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #1586
    livingstone livingstone is offline
    livingstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,452

    Quote Originally Posted by tonic View Post
    Says the man who is happy to end a life if it suits him.

    Would you ever f*** off with yourself.
    You just can't help yourself, can you.

    A wee bit of advice - if you don't have an argument or a rebuttal, it's better not to respond. Responding with petty ad hom and nothing else simply highlights your paucity of argument. If you just don't respond, people might credit you with not seeing a post or not having time to respond.

    But if you respond with zero argument, you confirm you have (a) seen the post; (b) had time to respond; but (c) had precisely zero of substance to say.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #1587
    tonic tonic is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    47,849

    Quote Originally Posted by livingstone View Post

    The reason it offends, and the reason you are alone in this thread in favouring criminalising and prosecuting women for having abortions in the UK, is precisely because despite their claims, very few people actually, genuinely believe that an unborn foetus has the same right to life as you do or I do.
    Please, don't try to excuse yourself by claiming to be no worse than anyone else.
    You think you have the right to decide who lives or dies, at least try to explain yourself on that basis and not hide behind your delusions.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #1588
    tonic tonic is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    47,849

    Quote Originally Posted by livingstone View Post
    You just can't help yourself, can you.

    A wee bit of advice - if you don't have an argument or a rebuttal, it's better not to respond. Responding with petty ad hom and nothing else simply highlights your paucity of argument. If you just don't respond, people might credit you with not seeing a post or not having time to respond.

    But if you respond with zero argument, you confirm you have (a) seen the post; (b) had time to respond; but (c) had precisely zero of substance to say.
    Showing your hypocrisy doesn't need any argument when we have your words to show.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #1589
    livingstone livingstone is offline
    livingstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,452

    Quote Originally Posted by tonic View Post
    Showing your hypocrisy doesn't need any argument when we have your words to show.
    I'm not sure you understand what hypocrisy means.

    This whole discussion has demonstrated your hypocrisy, and the fact that as much as you protest, like me, you don't actually believe that the unborn have the same right to life as you and me.

    I can understand why that leads you to lashing out, since you have no rebuttal to that inescapable conclusion.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #1590
    petaljam petaljam is offline
    petaljam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    23,033

    Quote Originally Posted by tonic View Post
    Please, don't try to excuse yourself by claiming to be no worse than anyone else.
    You think you have the right to decide who lives or dies, at least try to explain yourself on that basis and not hide behind your delusions.
    But that's exactly what you do, when you justify the deliberate destruction of IVF embryos just because you think the reasons behind it are convincing ones. Yet nobody would die if it became illegal to destroy IVF embryos. In fact by your logic, thousands of "people" would be saved.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment