Col Rouge

You write
'But if you prefer to keep the issue churned up with "emotionalism", that is OK I am happy to address that debate too.'

Emotionalism was the vehicle used to legalise abortions. The arguement in the 70's was always about the young girl who was raped and did not want to carry her rapist baby. We now know how dishonest this emotionalism by pro abortionist was. Well over 95% per cent of abortions have nothing to do with rape. Often it is about convenience. At least you are honest enough to say that you support abortion on the basis that you believe its the woman's choice but don't give me the crap about only anti abortionist using emotionalism. That is downright dishonest as is stg implication that anti abortionist are somehow the criminals in this whole debate.

Runner “We now know how dishonest this emotionalism by pro abortionist was. Well over 95% per cent of abortions have nothing to do with rape.”

So when you can quote back to me where I have made ‘rape’ a principle justification for an abortion you might be justified in your posturing, until then you are merely creating a straw-man argument to deflect the issue away from the absence of reasoning in your own argument.

“That is downright dishonest as is stg implication that anti abortionist are somehow the criminals in this whole debate”

At least we agree on that point..

Abortion is no longer a criminal offense.

In fact it was only ever a criminal offense for about 150 years.

Prior to the second quarter of the nineteenth century it was not illegal. The principle reason for legislation was not to preserve the fetus but to protect women from charlatan surgeons and the high death rate from primitive surgical procedures.

Nowadays the clinical/surgical procedures have much improved and we have reverted the legal status of abortion back to what it was preceding the later nineteenth and early twentieth century.

Their appears to be no absence of reasoning that killing the unborn generally for convenience is morally decadent. You seem to think that if you can put up an intellectually better argument (which no doubt you can) that this somehow vindicates such a callous cruel selfish action. I am sure if you wanted to defend the Nazis you would also win the 'debate' however killing the innocent who have no voice so women can continue their careers and often living promiscuous lives is obscene.

You also fail to acknowledge that the arguments about legalising abortion was about the young girl who was raped. This was the emotive lies used by pro abortionist to get their way. It has nothing to do with a straw man argument as you suggest.

You write

'Nowadays the clinical/surgical procedures have much improved and we have reverted the legal status of abortion back to what it was preceding the later nineteenth and early twentieth century.'

What we have today is built special clinics and made it clear that we the tax payer is willing to pay for anyone who wants an abortion. I doubt very much whether this was the case in the period you mention. Your whole argument that it is the woman's right to choose to let her baby live or not no doubt makes her choice a lot easier and her behaviour less responsible.

Runner

rstuart, opened this thread to ask if the pictures should have been taken off as far as I can see.
Which is what promoted me to ask the question that nobody has bothered to answer (If they know) were these pics put up with the consent of the ladies?
It’s a simply yes or no, but its makes all the difference in the world has to how we should view it both legally and emotionally.

Without this information none of us can really pass comment in fairness.

Haven’t you noticed the world is overpopulated and millions die from starvation?

I seem to recall you said on another thread it was utter stupidly to discuss animal cruelty to what YOU claim are Gods! Creatures.

How typically hypictical.

I get you think life starts before your born.

I get it that you think everybody is a year older almost- strange people.

What you don’t get is that some woman do not agree with you.

Now considering its their body their life and their belief who are YOU to try to force your ideas onto them.

Do try to respect other people do not think like you.

That simply means -mind your own business

runner,

Could you come to terms with abortion being legal but not available as a casual form of birth control, rather it is something a woman does with a heavy heart and at times necessary?

I to think it is murder but accept that sometimes things have to die... I think like this to animals too, keep it at the minimum we can. War as well.

All sadly necessary.

runner, Sunday, 25 January 2009 1:47:54 PM

"Yea and their are dozens of those here in Australia aren't there? Makes a lot of sense to listen to the pro deathers or murderers"

For me it's too easy to be a hypocrite if I was anti-abortion. Let's be honest, that's what it is, it isn't 'Pro-Life'.

In some instances I'm 'pro-war'. In some instances I'd not protest the murder of child rapists. I think euthanasia has a place in society. Some children probably would have been better off aborted rather than born into the horrific circumstances they were. I think you'll find a percentage of those kids would feel the same way - what's the suicide rate on the chronically abused again?.

Having said that, I'm not 'pro-choice' if it's a life style abortion. I lost a potential child due to that reason. Being the male in the circumstance there never was an issue of anti-abortion, or pro-choice. I had no-choice. That is something that will sit in my subconsciousness like a corn kernel in the teeth.