@izzythepush,
Quote:It's not the truth, it's your version of the truth. Giving a woman the decision of what to do with her own body is the right thing to do. Allowing living children to die of starvation whilst bleating about the rights of the unborn child is not the right thing to do.
Surely it is human life once conceived. If not when does it become alive?
It is a common literary conceit in fiction to place characters in morally interesting situations so that readers can derive their own moral orientation from considering them. The situations are better if they are possible ones. The author of the book I mentioned did that with the woman with the freakshow who created her exhibits by drinking certain substances. The point is that the reader is being asked to say whether she has the right to what she wants with her own body. The principle involved is well known in relation to her drinking, smoking or taking drugs during pregnancy.
If you support a woman's right to do what was proposed then, okay, you are pro-choice. If you don't you are not and are using the soothing term "pro-choice" to engineer a convenience.
That childrn are dying from starvation is not connected to this subject. A person who is against abortion is not necessarily less concerned with children dying of starvation that you are. What form of expression does your concern for children take? Blowing £200 on a junket to Amsterdam when there are adverts on telly for money for straving children. Is that it?
Why is it "bleating"? Apisa had me "shouting" and "bent out of shape". Why is it your side of the fence that uses such ridiculous and self-confirming words. Krumpie used such things all the time. There has to be a reason why your side here chooses to use these infantile words in lieu of argument. Maybe you have no other answers.
What possible difference does it make to the argument even if I am bleating and shouting and bent out of shape?
Were the dissenting judges in the USSC bleating? Or shouting? Or bent out of shape? Is the Pope in all those conditions and all those who also are opposed to abortion? It seems a rather facile way to try to win an argument. Is everybody you don't agree with bleating and shouting and bent out of shape?
Does "bleating" and "shouting" and being " out of shape" as assertions prove your argument correct. Does asserting that I have not answered a question when not only was it a stupid question but I answered it three times in different ways, add up to anything. None of my questions have been answered. Such as what happens to the aborted babies? Or will a woman regret having an abortion when she's older and it sour the rest of her life. Whatever conditions she faces bringing up the baby are not her responsibility but her killing the life inside her is her responsibility. She's on her own with it and can only blame herself. Or what might the father be thinking when he's waiting for the woman he loves to have the result of his moment of glory cancelled out as she lies there with her legs in the stirrups as a clinician roots about in her pride and joy.
I'll put the reader in an interesting moral situation. Research into abortion products finds a substance which restores hair growth for baldies or removes wrinkles. To get a business going selling it women are paid to provide the raw material the quantities of which are small but diluted a thousand times it works. $5,000, say, for each dead unborn baby. Are you pro-choice on that? Probably get two a year I should think. Would it be classed as taxable earnings?
Suppose such a substance extended life 20 years and there was only the one source. All the oilmen in the ME flying into Harley Street at first. With mass production the price comes down to suit the pockets of most people.
