Yabby,
When a woman discovers she is pregnant, she says, "I'm going to have a baby!" She does not refer to the cells in her womb as a "brainless organism" as you suppose. I suggest you tell the mother: "no its not a human child that you have!"
Quote, "A 12 week old organsim, does not have a human brain. It does not think or feel. So its not a child. A child is a person, ie. it has a human brain that thinks and feels."

Your ignorance of the feelings of the 12 week formed child is appalling. I suggest you observe with medical imagaging the muscular convulsions a 12 week formed baby expresses as it is surgically extracted. It is alive and the general purpose of surgical or chemical abortion is to kill that life. These are the facts, you may not like to see them as facts as it makes your conscience squirm

Philo

When I found out I was pregnant my first reaction was to cry. My doctor was attempting to congratulate me while I sat on the surgery floor in tears. I was pregnant to a cruel, manipulative man who I was trying to escape from. I could no more bring an innocent child into that environment than I could hit a kitten.

So my first thought was "Oh SH*T".

And, caring so much for children as I do, I went ahead and had abortion. I have escaped from my ex and I know I saved at least two lives from torment.

Might I suggest that you, as a male, not attempt to state what women feel when pregnant. You will never know and never understand.

Oh Philo – “The fact is a boyfriend jumped on the stomach of his pregnant girlfriend”

Oh you were referring to an action by a third party.

It is only now that you mention it.

I thought an abortion was about the woman, in whose body the embryo is developing, choice, not her partners.

RU386 is a tablet which the woman takes, not her partner.

You need to make the circumstances of the action clearer, although, obviously you would not want to do that because “clarity” would have destroyed the basis of your observation.

The fact that the boyfriend committed serious criminal assault on the woman is an entirely different set of circumstances to the woman, almost ready to give birth being faced with a dilemma of such proportions that she has to consider abortion.

Keep up the deception Philo, that is what you have done, used low stealth and deceit to gain an advantage, then what is new in that strategy from Pro-Lifers who use the wrath of God to threaten and intimidate, as alternatives to reason and respect.

Next time you bring any topic to debate I will expect full disclosure all the circumstances, you are obviously incapable of deploying “truth” in debate.

I note Meg1 is quick to support Philo’s use of deception in the pursuit of Pro-Life tyranny.


Scout – I doubt you waited until you were 8 months gone when you aborted.

Even Suggesting it sounds brutal of me and I apologise to you for that but saying it cannot be avoided. I have no doubt the decision you made, based on the circumstances you faced was necessary for you. What I or anyone else thinks does not matter, we are ignorant of your circumstances and not responsible for your actions.

You are absolutely correct, as a male I cannot appreciate how a woman might feel.

Yet as a human being, I value the right of choice over myself which I exercise and I seek to empower everyone else with the same right of choice, equally, regardless of gender.

Philo, muscles can move as a reflex action, with a head on a body or not. They respond to electrical impulses. To feel pain you need a brain that is conscious and aware. A 12 week old organsim is neither
conscious or aware, the brain structures are not yet in place.

You are free to use emotive rhetoric, which most in the anti choice
movement do, as they simply don't understand the science and are engulfed by their emotions. The thing is, on a forum like OLO, where rational debate over the rights of others takes place, it would be nice if the standard was at least at a level of being a little bit rational and not just emotional rhetoric.

If you are promoting the removal of peoples rights to make their own decisions about their lives, you are going to have to have some extremely well thought out reasons for justifying those actions,
not just religious dogma and a lack of scientific understanding of the issues, coloured by melodramatic language.

Meg,

1. I did not say that all society or body of experts should agree. I stated that if both could not, how is the definition to be found – except in the eyes of the individual. I did not state that my judgement should stand for any other except myself – just as your should stand for no other except yourself. Just where do I flip in that? Understand what I am saying. I am not taking any point of view, simply trying to discuss the issue.

2. A specious argument regarding dogs and four legs does not equate to truths regarding religion and like subjective matter. I know you have exceptional faith, however this does not make you absolutely right. This attitude is what is leading to bombs killing civilians. Can you not see the similarity in this position? I would never deny you your truth regarding God and your position on abortion. Just don’t tell me it is the final and absolute. There are many who would as vehemently tell you yours is wrong. Again, can you not see the similarity?

3. I expect corrections, however still regard your statements as your opinion only. Hence any implied inability to argue reason or otherwise on your part is not a correction, simply an insult. And I made no ‘baseless accusations’ – I simply pointed out what you were doing.

4. Again with the flip flop? So, see above. As to the baby’s decision. I don’t believe the potential being requires one. That is our difference. Why can’t you accept that I see things different you? What is so hard about that?

5. & 6. At no time have I treated you with contempt. That I disagree is not contempt. That you find someone disagrees as contempt is your issue. I apologised for the initial comment regarding Col and Yabby, stand corrected and am trying to discuss things reasonably. That you won’t says a lot about you. I have never bullied or treated you with anything but respect.

I still don’t see any grounds for your unkindness…

Reason, you should re-read my post and your own…see 1, 2, etc…

Your spurious and malicious invective regarding –‘This attitude is what is leading to bombs killing civilians...’, deserves to be treated with little more than contempt.

In fact, your attitude of supporting the rabid aggression, threats and intimidation and tossing in a few inaccurate accusations of your own holds more similarities with the attitude prevalent amongst those barbarians…

You are applying a similar rational to killing the unborn as terrorists are applying to their innocent victims…even the terminology and justifications are similar…

RE: Truth does not require belief. If it is truth then it will be proven…at some stage…think it through reason.

RE: ‘flip-flop’ ‘ Which is it, minority makes the judgment or majority rules? You advocate BOTH! ‘ Pretty clear where the flip, flop is…you can’t logically advocate both…

’You allege ‘insults’, condescension, nastiness, unkindness, etc. to perceived opponents – untruthfully - then admit supporting those of like ilk, who exemplify the lot…add bigotry.

I read pro-life posters being treated contemptuously, then with outrage when any dares to defend against the crude bullying.

I regard bullying as very poor form, Reason…if you don’t like that, don’t support the perpetrators and then falsely accuse to reinforce the bullying.

Playing the ‘victim’ doesn’t convince me you’ve any grounds for complaint.’

Refer to the above…and check on the similarities in your arguments and those of your ilk to those used to support the acts of terrorism on the innocent…what was that about splinters in someone else’s eye, careful the logs aren’t dislodged when you blink.

Yabby you talk of emotive rhetoric and hyperventilate if you suspect that anyone regards chimps or bonobos as lesser beings...hypocrisy or misguided emotion?...probably both.