Col, a “consensual relationship” requires the agreement of all parties…I hear no agreement from the unborn whose life will end or the survivors of abortion…

Your continuing verbal ‘slagging off’ typically indicates your poor arguments and lack of factual knowledge of the subjects you attempt to discuss…

If you throw up it may just rid your body of some of that unhealthy bile that you so readily spew on any argument you don’t have an answer for…that’s pretty well all of them, isn’t it?

As for martyrdom, well I guess your vitriolic abuse could count for persecution, but so far I've lived through it so I couldn't really claim to be a martyr. I have indicated previously that there are blessings for all those involved, not just those seeking help...we can all gain through empathy for one another, try it Col. You may find that those dreaded Catholics aren't as 'covert' and fearful as your paranoia has painted them.

Francis sums up the situation nicely...you should check under the bed, you'll probably find little more than dust bunnies to feed your obsessions with.

Meg1 “I hear no agreement from the unborn whose life will end or the survivors of abortion…”

Ah, I see, not only do you expect to consult with the non-cognitive embryo, you expect to consult and obtain permission even from the yet-to-be fertilised egg.

I see you believe you should never let reason get in the way of your religious fanaticism.

“Agreement” from “the unborn” is neither possible, viable or logical. Asking for the impossible is not “reasonable”.

The “unborn” does not have a right of voice in the matter (to say nothing of being incapable of speech).
Any rights anyone can claim for the “unborn” are subordinate to the rights of the already born occupant of the body which is to supply resources for the development of the unborn.

Re francis “paranoid anti-Catholicism”

oh no francis, plenty of abuses by the priesthood of plenty other religions too. My critical observation(not paranoia) is against all organised religions who use the name of God to empower a priest-class and elevate them above the congregants from which they have exercised all manner of abuse and from which the clerical hierarchy have protected them from discovery and denied the abused the support and care they were due.

I guess, that RCC has been around longer and thus has had more time to produce a litany of horrors of social abuse, as well as private abuse and is one of the major protagonists in trying to deny women their sovereign rights.


“your vitriolic abuse could count for persecution,”

So you agree, you are a natural when it comes to a “martyr complex”

Now back to the thread.

Meg1 and francis have a choice, to do what they want with their bodies, which I guess would be that they would never have an abortion, even if they found someone to impregnant them.

My only expectation is they extend to others the same “right of choice” which they demand for themselves.

Col claims: 'So you agree, you are a natural when it comes to a “martyr complex”'.

Meg1 ‘As for martyrdom, well I guess your vitriolic abuse could count for persecution, but so far I've lived through it SO I COULDN’T REALLY CLAIM TO BE A MARTYR. I have indicated previously that there are blessings for all those involved, not just those seeking help...we can all gain through empathy for one another, try it Col. You may find that those dreaded Catholics aren't as 'covert' and fearful as your paranoia has painted them.’

Col, your arrogant assumption that others will accept your effort to discredit or lie without checking for themselves, only proves how weak your arguments really are…

Col: ‘Any rights anyone can claim for the “unborn” are subordinate to the rights of the already born occupant of the body which is to supply resources for the development of the unborn.’

This pitiful argument also applies to a newborn, an infant, a toddler, a quadriplegic, many aged…they also depend on others to supply resources…who are they subordinate to when pleading for their lives, Col? You’re sounding more like a little Hitler every time you post…he was a contradiction in most things too.

Francis is male (Frances is the female version), it would be a good start if you weren't ignorant of the basics before hurling your invective…and I already have children, so spew all the bile you want, Col…sticks and stones and all that, etc.

Whenever you’re ready, it might be a good time to start to discuss the actual topic – just tuck your bigotry into your own collar first…

Meg1 from in your tirade of vitriolic twaddle I will make one observation to a particular fact on which your argument fails.

(I have just answered this for Meg on another thread so hopefully, repetition will help it sink in)

“This pitiful argument also applies to a newborn, an infant, a toddler, a quadriplegic, many aged…. they also depend on others to supply resources”

Now the perpetual LIE which Meg1 keeps dragging out to embarrass herself with and for which her deficiency in reasoning and cognitive skills is shown like a black hole, full of nothing, is this

Yes, everyone of those people rely on someone to supply resources.

However, the someone(s) they rely on are non-specific. It could be any one of thousands or millions of people upon whom they may rely.

Here is the DIFFERENCE

The embryo / foetus does not “rely” on “any one” it relies on one specific individual who is not able to be substituted by anyone else.

It relies exclusively and totally upon the woman in whose body it is developing.

She cannot be substituted by another carer at the end of her work shift or when she is feeling sick.

That is the “difference”

A “non-specific carer” versus a “specific carer”.

Hence, the law recognises the different relationship in pregnancy of the “specific carer” and respects that persons right to first call on her own body.

Now, having explained that I suggest you, Meg1, come up with some reasoned argument instead of just floating nonsense and pretend logic.

I am happy to challenge ever lie and misrepresentation you and your ilk spew out.

I will refute every pitiful excuse you make to justify your demand to interfere in the private lives of people, who really could not care if you were hit by a truck.

Get your own life and stop trying experience it by trying to make decisions which will only effect the lives of others.

‘I will refute every pitiful excuse you make to justify your demand to interfere in the private lives of people, who really could not care if you were hit by a truck.’

Col, I really could care if you were hit by a truck…apart from the mess that someone would have to clean up and the distress to the truckie…you see I really am pro-life, even with your life!

But seriously, I’m waiting for just one example where you actually refute rather than demolish your own argument…on every thread…and here it is again.

‘Get your own life and stop trying experience it by trying to make decisions which will only effect the lives of others.’

You’re a classic, Col…you’ve just argued against having a say yourself…you really are a man, aren’t you?

Does that mean you won't post on any subject that does NOT directly affect YOUR BODY, Col? We should be so lucky...lucky, lucky, lucky - you've got me singing.

And again…

‘The embryo / foetus does not “rely” on “any one” it relies on one specific individual who is not able to be substituted by anyone else.’

You support killing by abortion to term…which means you are…

Wrong again…even humidicribs,etc replace the womb to enable survival of babies…and as I will respond on the ‘other’ thread…the born still rely on a specific individual at any one time…no difference really in that context. If that individual does not exercise their duty of care (as is required of the pregnant mother), the baby won’t survive either.

The mother certainly holds a position of power and the responsibility that goes with it…the hope is, she won’t resort to the bully-boy tactics that you employ on these threads, Col.

As I have suggested before Col, I don’t bully easily. Stick to the facts and make a valid point. Only the weakest of minds resort to threats and bullying to cover the inadequacies in their argument.

Meg1 “Get your own life and stop trying experience it by trying to make decisions which will only effect the lives of others.’

You’re a classic, Col…you’ve just argued against having a say yourself…you really are a man, aren’t you?”

My support of choice is to allow others to decide for themselves, without deference to my opinion or will.

That is not “arguing against myself.”

Oh I am securely a man. But may I ask, from your pitiful attempts to grasp logic,– am I to assume you are blonde?

So what “even humidicribs,etc replace the womb to enable survival of babies”

If a woman were to want to go to term se would not need a humidicrib.

It is completely “illogical” to assume a late term abortion will be for any reason other than the most severe.

No woman would carry almost to term and then abort at the last stages. If she wanted to abort it would have been at an earlier stage and if she needs to abort at a later stage it would only be for the most compelling of reasons.

I would point out at this time, in Holland any premature baby born under 25 weeks is not seen as “viable” in the context that a high certainty of early death or extreme and permanent disability including severe brain damage occurring. Doctors have decided the quality and expectation of life is so remote that the better option is not to attempt to pretend there is possibility of “life”.

That is a paediatric medical experts collected opinion. “Humidicribs” per se, are not the universal panacea which you claim.

“I don’t bully easily. Stick to the facts and make a valid point. Only the weakest of minds resort to threats and bullying to cover the inadequacies in their argument.”

I will hold you to that but you even saying it is crass and hypocritical, yet lacking the sarcasm which you have started to deploy..