"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[henry quirk]

You wrote: The morality of abortion is a subjective issue

If I slice a bed-ridden old man to death for no reason 'cept I could and wanted to: is that a subjective issue?


You wrote: The relevant question is whether people who are against it (abortion) have the right to interfere in the lives of those who are not against it.

Well, it's nobody's business that I spend my time slicin' helpless folks to death (man's gotta have a hobby, don't ya know)...or is it?

I wonder why someone might object to my hobby, why they might think they have a 'right to interfere'?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You wrote: The morality of abortion is a subjective issue

If I slice a bed-ridden old man to death for no reason 'cept I could and wanted to: is that a subjective issue?


You wrote: The relevant question is whether people who are against it (abortion) have the right to interfere in the lives of those who are not against it.

Well, it's nobody's business that I spend my time slicin' helpless folks to death (man's gotta have a hobby, don't ya know)...or is it?

I wonder why someone might object to my hobby, why they might think they have a 'right to interfere'?

How many abortions have you witness first hand then? Your silly displays of faux machismo have worn thin dear.

[henry quirk]

You asked: How many abortions have you witness(ed) first hand then?

Better question: How many abortions have you had?

[Dubious]

Whether right or wrong, the state has nothing to say about it nor any dumb-ass supreme court. Sometimes its right or seems so and sometimes its wrong. The reason for government interference is due to hypocritical proclamations borrowed from theists when they affirm that life is sacred by which they mean exclusively human life. So now we have almost 9 billion sacred lives on the planet with more on the way making it a near hallowed object in the universe. You'd think we'd be shining by our own light by now.

Governments have absolutely no right being decision makers when such choices reside completely with the individual and their circumstances. In something as personal as this, governments have no mandate to decide anything. When they do, it's a tearing away of an individual's authority over herself in favor of the state to decide. This also applies to the other end of spectrum, namely euthanasia.

A fetus or embryo belongs to the mother not to the state.

[Harbal]

You wrote: The morality of abortion is a subjective issue

If I slice a bed-ridden old man to death for no reason 'cept I could and wanted to: is that a subjective issue?


You wrote: The relevant question is whether people who are against it (abortion) have the right to interfere in the lives of those who are not against it.

Well, it's nobody's business that I spend my time slicin' helpless folks to death (man's gotta have a hobby, don't ya know)...or is it?

I wonder why someone might object to my hobby, why they might think they have a 'right to interfere'?

Not everyone thinks that a scarcely developed foetus has the same status as a fully formed human being; that is a matter of opinion; a subjective judgement.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You asked: How many abortions have you witness(ed) first hand then?

Better question: How many abortions have you had?

How is that a 'better question'? You are the one making absurd claims about demonic surgeons waving scalpels around, slicing up babies like salamis. I'm sure you are pro death penalty too (the stunning 'logic' of the religiously insane). How many times have you been executed?

[Immanuel Can]

Not everyone thinks that a scarcely developed foetus has the same status as a fully formed human being; that is a matter of opinion; a subjective judgement.

All this means is that people disagree about the objective truth. The presence of many opinions doesn't signal that there is no answer.

[Immanuel Can]

Whether right or wrong, the state has nothing to say about it nor any dumb-ass supreme court.

Would you say the same about prohibitions on rape or child molestation?

A fetus or embryo belongs to the mother not to the state.

What's your evidence that it "belongs" to either?

[henry quirk]

You wrote: A fetus or embryo belongs to the mother not to the state.

If the fetus or embryo is just meat then, yeah.

If the fetus or embryo is a person, then the fetus or embryo belongs to itself (him- or her-self).

As for government: one of the few legit functions of those proxy/employees in government is protecting the vulnerable or helpless from predation by others.

Certainly, if what a pregnant woman carries is a person, he/she is deserving of that protection, yeah?

[henry quirk]

"Not everyone thinks that a scarcely developed foetus has the same status as a fully formed human being; that is a matter of opinion; a subjective judgement."

I get that.

But just cuz someone sez 'that's not a person' doesn't make it so.

Consider: what a pregnant woman carries, at any point in her pregnancy, is indisputably 'alive' and 'human', so, from the start, we're more than half-way down the road to person-hood.

The only question is: At what point during pregnancy does what a woman carry become a person?

[henry quirk]

You wrote: How many times have you been executed?

How many times have you pulled the trigger, thrown the switch, taken human life?

[Harbal]

The only question is: At what point during pregnancy does what a woman carry become a person?

I don't know, but I personally think there is a period at the beginning of pregnancy when it is not appropriate to say the foetus has rights. The moral validity of that belief can never be anything other than a matter of opinion.

[RCSaunders]

A fetus or embryo belongs to the mother not to the state.

Absolutely. Everything else said about this subject is nonsense spouted by those who live to interfere in other's lives.

[Immanuel Can]

A fetus or embryo belongs to the mother not to the state.

Absolutely. Everything else said about this subject is nonsense spouted by those who live to interfere in other's lives.

Do you also believe that slaves belong to their masters? Because that's the implication of the question you've begged: "Is the child an individual human person, or not?" If she is not, then she is just a useless "cluster of cells" that can be disposed of in any way. But if she is, then you've just said it's obvious that one person can "belong to" another, even to the extent where the second can just decide to kill the first. And there's absolutely no reason why that shouldn't apply to everyone.

Happy with that?

[Harbal]

Do you also believe that slaves belong to their masters? Because that's the implication of the question you've begged

What is the similarity between a slaves relationship to his master and an embryo's to its mother?

: "Is the child an individual human person, or not?"

Up to a certain stage of development, I would say not. You may well say it is, but both arguments would depend on our own definitions, each of which would be open to dispute by the other. It would be unreasonable for me to bind you with my opinion, as would it for you to bind me with yours. Isn't it better that we each are allowed to live in accordance with our own beliefs?