Is this a specious argument for pro-abortion?

Hasn't the Pope just got rid of limbo for unbaptised infants? Is that a good thing, or just a bit of divine slum clearance?

I am not bent out of shape Frank. I'm surprised you are driven to stooping to such tactics. You got into that state when you left A2K. I am offering an argument which is accepted by a very large number of people some of which might get elected in November.

As the Texas schoolteacher has proved women do not have the right to choose anything they want. You are using the right to choose in this one specific case and I presume you have a reason. She has no right to shoot heroin because the specific act on her own body is seen to have wider social implications. There is no reason to make any law other than considerations of wider social implications. And psychological problems have wider social implications.

I have raised that point in numerous ways and you have failed to address them preferring instead to fall back on the usual mantras. It seems obvious to me that abortion is damaging to the woman, the man, and society at large.

I shouldn't have to repeat myself simply because you pick and choose how to deal with my posts and ignore the salient points. The secrecy surrounding the operation and the soothing euphemisms chosen to describe it are stand out proof of the felt shame attached to it. Why do you think there were two dissenting judges in the USSC. Why are there all these regulations about trimesters? What the hell is a trimester if not just a technical term to divide up a process which cannot be divided? It's a verbal trick.

Describe the procedure for us Frank. Go from the bloke rolling off to his lover staggering out of the clinic with his fatuity neutralised. The more detail the better as it will help us to understand what has gone on. As things stand it is an abstraction. An aspect of "pro choice". A term which demands our approval. Something we can talk about without actually talking about it.

If you don't think abortion is an affront to feminine dignity and to the dignity of society then that is your choice but other things flow from the position. Misogyny in the bone marrow for one.

Rights are indulgencies. Hasn't a woman a right to expect a man ******* her to take care of her best interests? She's on Cloud Nine isn't she Frank? And he loves her doesn't he?

Are you into bat for the free exercise of male orgasm?

What did Ovid mean when he told Corinna "don't ever do that again!!" when he discovered she had had an abortion? And he was no Catholic. Is everything the Church teaches valueless because you don't like Catholicism. The only reason you don't like Catholicism is because it demands you are a better lover.

There's no record that I know of with Casanova getting anybody pregnant.

Well then--when does the "clump of cells" become a person?



Why don't you go off and argue with the Catholics Frank? I have not had recourse to any Catholic teachings. Why do you address my posts as if I have? Are you that bereft of rebuttals? There are plenty of atheists who find abortion disgusting. And it's no surprise because it is disgusting.

"Limbo" (particularly the limbo of innocents) has always been a joke. Aquinas proposed it in order to lessen the severe teachings of Augustine on the subject of babies dying unBaptized. But the essential of Limbo was that it was missing "the Beatific Vision"...direct communication with the god of Christianity.

Unfortunately, one of the other teachings of the Church was that the most distressing and painful punishments meted out in Hell was denial for all of eternity of the Beatific Vision. So, innocent souls in Limbo were effectively subjected to the most bitter punishment of Hell.

Not sure if the Pope got rid of it...I doubt if it ever was dogma to be gotten rid of.

But if the "faithful" feel that their god takes innocent souls into its company for all the rest of eternity in delightful bliss...aborting a fetus does the fetus a great service. No chance of being born and ******* up...and ending up in Hell.

That pretty much is why I have been asking Spendius the question I have asked several times and he has avoided answering.

Spendius, I have treated you with a great deal more respect than you are affording me...and I will continue to do so.

If you ever get around to answering the question, I will respond to you answer respectfully.

and what has anyone's personal feeling got to do with it?

are you going to stop posting because of my personal feelings about your posts?

Everything. It's why we are here.



Nope. Are you going to stop posting because of my personal feelings about your posts?

Precisely.

How you feel about my postings, and how I feel about your postings are meaningless and irrelevant.

Similarly, how you/I feel about anyone else's healthcare decisions are meaningless and irrelevant.

Your are wrong madam.

People generally care what others think, and like to meddle with others affair, because generally speaking we are animals of social nature washed by consumerism. Therefore, your feelings about other's healthcare decisions do have some effect, and relevant to lawmaking, etc. Every action has a reaction, in a sense that is what indirectly molded the obamacare.

If this is the question--



I have answered it. I have not the slightest idea what happens to unborn babies in any transcendent sense which are exterminated either by nature or by social engineers. Or what happens in that regard to anybody that is dead. I defy anybody else to have any idea either. It's a red herring and Germaine Greer deployed it when she sarcastically suggested that sanitary towels should be baptised just in case. Circa 1970.

I see abortion as an offence to civilised society and to womanhood. A damaging offence. It demeans both. So do pro-abortionists as proved by their secrecy and failure to discuss the matter without soothing euphemisms. Only a complete idiot would not know what the offence is to the unborn baby.

You describe an abortion as you were asked to. I wouldn't dare. Let's see if you know what you are talking about. What happens to the unborn babies after the procedure has been carried out? That's a practical question with a practical answer.

I saw unborn babies pickled in formaldehyde in " attractions" on Blackpool promenade in the old days. I very much doubt if they are still there. I've seen dozens of Mother and Child paintings, photographs and even cross-stitch depictions of the subject.

People don't just like to meddle - they love to meddle. Still doesn't make their opinions meaningful.

There is a novel written by an American woman which I read a review of in a literary magazine sometime in the early 80s.

In it there was a female character who had a freak-show attraction with a travelling circus. She deliberately got herself pregnant and then drank things like disinfectant, kerosene and insecticide in order to produce exhibits for her show.

Pro choice.

Intelligent readers here will be noting who isn't answering questions. In fact it is impossible for them not to notice.

Answer the obvious question that fiction presented to its readers. I didn't read it of course.

It does if there enough of them.

Well, since you have yet to address that very question, I can only surmise that you consider yourself a complete idiot.

I do not. I do not even consider you an incomplete idiot, Spendius. I think you are intelligent, but intellectually undisciplined. I also think you are a guy stumped by a question...who refuses to acknowledge that he is stumped...and is trying to shout his way out of answering it.

Children born to beggars in India are often mutilated in some way to make them a good earner. That's similar to your fictitious disinfectant drinking freakshow producing mumsie.

I can't see, without labouring the issue, what either of those two examples have to do with someone deciding, for whatever reason, that they cannot continue with a pregnancy.

Izzy, if I may (with a vu toward constructive criticism)
permit me to draw your attention to a syntactical error of logic, to wit:
reference to "Children" which is in the plural;
accordingly, referring to them in the singular (i.e, "a good earner") is an inconsistency.
I know that as a writer u will wish to be acutely aware of this,
which is offered in the most wholesome of friendly GOOD WILL,
and I hope that my mention of this will be accepted in that spirit.





David

I'm sorry Frank. I'm not disposed to answer posts like that. I have answered a few of a similar nature but not any more.

Do me a favour and put me on Ignore. That's what I would ask you to do in the pub if you persisted with that stuff.

The thing is the phrase 'a good earner' is part of our vernacular. The phrase 'make them good earners,' wouldn't sound English any more.

It's a matter of principle, I'm sure you'll understand.

How about all the women deciding to discontinue their pregnancies. If you say that that won't happen then you are relying on those who will continue with them.

I wouldn't continue with a pregnancy if it was me. No sir. Not if there is a simple, cheap, harmless and routinely acceptable alternative like there is for aching teeth.

Would you?

On Radio 4 the other day, there was a woman relating the vagina and the female orgasm to increased dopamine production and such characteristics as risk taking and increased self confidence.

I don't have a vagina, although I sometimes have the use of one, so I could not say how I would feel, what with all that oestrogen and whatnot.

The fact that your vision of women opting en masse for termination has never happened speaks volumes