hackenslash wrote:jamest wrote:That's bollocks, since the only rights a woman loses if she loses the power to abort a child growing within her, is the power (through present law) to cull that child.
And again you're using emotional language, eliding all sorts of cogent argumentation and choosing the phrase 'cull that child'. You seriously expect anybody to believe you haven't thought about this before will all the PRATTs you're erecting?
To my shame I've never seriously formulated an opinion about abortion before, no. Why would I not have expressed these opinions before if I had done so? I'm not exactly shy about expressing controversial opinions in here.
I've already told you what rights you're removing from the woman, namely bodily autonomy. You're forcing somebody into a position of slavery. That's what this is about, James. All humans have the right to bodily autonomy above all other things. It's the foundation of all rights and, without it, the notion of a right is complete fucking nonsense.
I've addressed this point already. The child is not her mum and so there's more than one body to consider. When a woman has an abortion she's acting upon two bodies, one of those not her. Hence, having an abortion violates the child's body and life.
This one principle is precisely why secular morality is superior in every way to the other dreck passed off as morality.
Then secular morality is flawed in this instance, since the principle of bodily autonomy does not and certainly should not favour one individual over the other. Why is this difficult for you to comprehend? I have no idea.
You are granting a clump of cells rights not afforded anybody else in any other situation, and it comes at the cost of breaching that simple threshold, and undermines the entire foundation of all moral and ethical reasoning.
Incorrect, I'm granting a developing human being the exact same rights and protection granted to the mother. If bodily autonomy applies to the mother then it must apply to the child also, in which case the mother does not have the right to end the child's life.
To grant the force of law to such an egregious notion is make society a slave culture. There is no greater immorality than this, and there's certainly no greater crime on society. Having full control of reproductive health in the hands of those who need it is the clearest route to a healthier, happier society and reduction in abortions. This is so obvious it should hardly need to be pointed out. If you really want to reduce the number of abortions, supporting the repeal of bullshit like the 8th Amendment is exactly the sort of thing you should be doing.
I don't give two fucks for religious morality. If I don't have reason for a belief, then I reject the belief. It's the way I am.
The Laws and rights of a land are applicable to all humans therein, including unborn humans. One can only support 'casual' abortion if one rejects the notion that unborn children are human. That's the argument I need to see from you, in order to change my mind. Not this bollocks about bodily autonomy only applying to women.
Btw, it's good to see you posting again. My regards.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
by 
