Abortion

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Not in terms of abortion, but the (reasonable) UK murder laws actually do put emphasis upon 'the way you breathe'.

Lest we get our jacket caught in that revolving door again.

The UK abortion laws don't. Perhaps you should get your logic straight.

A person already born entirely dependant on outside assistance for survival is not given a green light to be killed, you know. That criteria has nothing to do with law at all.

In fact, you are basically wrong- murder law is concerned about whether you breathe or do not; not about the way you do it. Life has never, ever been sensibly defined that way.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The UK abortion laws don't. Perhaps you should get your logic straight.

The UK abortion laws don't what? I just said that.

They don't care about the way you breathe. As I said, nor do the murder laws.

No UK law does. Breath by yourself, from a respirator or from the aid of a mother, no definition of human life comes from the method by which you sustain yourself.

Alright.. the first part was a JOKE!!
secondly its not an imoral act when it has no need in life. Its just like saying that baby that was killed could have been the next president
thrildy you say THEY! are you saying that your not one of them or are you just a hipocrit?
and lastly its not entierly wrong for their could be other realsons for its death such as they could be used for cellsin science or (lets aedd another what if) what if it has HIV would you like it to live off the world with such a burden? and rape and abortion have nothing incommon unless... some one gets raped and gets pregnent...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
They don't care about the way you breathe. As I said, nor do the murder laws.

No UK law does. Breath by yourself, from a respirator or from the aid of a mother, no definition of human life comes from the method by which you sustain yourself.

The murder law does in this country consider breathing as an element of being alive.

It's not the definition of human life; it's the definition of a reasonable creature in being capable of being murdered.

However, I am simply stating that point. It's not an argument put forward; simply a fact to stop us regressing. It seems to have had the opposite effect.

"its not an imoral act when it has no need in life. "

That's an opinion. It is debated. What is your opinion of where the cut off point should be? UK law has it at 24 weeks, after that is immoral (in law), other countries vary... what do you think?

How am I possibly a hypocrite? I am describing how the pro-life argument is admissable.

When did I say rape and abortion had anything in common? I was simply point out that inablity to prevent an immoral act is no grounds for it to be legal.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The murder law does in this country consider breathing as an element of being alive.

It's not the definition of human life; it's the definition of a reasonable creature in being capable of being murdered.

However, I am simply stating that point. It's not an argument put forward; simply a fact to stop us regressing. It seems to have had the opposite effect.

To your first sentence- I agreed. I actively said it cares whether you breathe or not. Do try and keep up. But the WAY you are breathing, it does not care about. I would appreciate it if you read my posts properly.

And it's hardly my fault that some people in this thread think they have made a definitive, unarguable point when in fact no such thing has taken place.

i say it should be stated.. that no side can be decided by common people becuase of such corrpupt policy their would be no posible way to get voice heard.

Except in the Irish Referendum?

i have NOIDEA what the hell that is...

Their anti-abortion laws were made constitutional following a referendum to the people.

Seems the common people's voices have been heard in at least one case.

Not that I think a referendum is any basis for law, personally.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
To your first sentence- I agreed. I actively said it cares wherther you breathe or not. Do try and keep up.

It does matter how you breathe though. 'Breathing' through the mother does not count, which is why pre-birth killing is not murder. You also edited your post after I quoted, so you might like to edit the snide remark to 'do try to keep up with my edits'.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

But the WAY you are breathing, it does not care about. I would appreciate it if you read my posts properly.

It does, and I did. Breathing via the mother is not breathing for the purposes of murder. It does not qualify as an independent existence, as the test dictates. When you are born, you are an independent existence. Breathing isn't a concern anymore.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

And it's hardly my fault that some people in this thread think they have made a definitive, unarguable point when in fact no such thing has taken place.

No, but if we could achieve some kind of separation between abortion and murder laws, it might be nice. The thread would be a lot clearer.

if our voice was heard stupid ass bush would have NEVER been the president the first time... 😠 their for hes the casue of the problems casue i hate im and casue hes a republican whom i hate...

Originally posted by Lord Follen
if our voice was heard stupid ass bush would have NEVER been the president the first time... 😠 their for hes the casue of the problems casue i hate im and casue hes a republican whom i hate...

Blah blah blah blah.....................................yeah yeah stop beating around the bush..................focus on abortion and not american policies and freedoms its not a national piece but an international one seeing as you are discussing this with 2 gentlement from the UK at the moment🙂

Originally posted by soleran30
Blah blah blah blah.....................................yeah yeah stop beating around the bush..................focus on abortion and not american policies and freedoms its not a national piece but an international one seeing as you are discussing this with 2 gentlement from the UK at the moment🙂

It is tempting to blame Bush for everything, though.

Originally posted by soleran30
Blah blah blah blah.....................................yeah yeah stop beating around the bush..................

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It is tempting to blame Bush for everything, though.

Originally posted by soleran30
Blah blah blah blah.....................................yeah yeah stop beating around the bush..................focus on abortion and not american policies and freedoms its not a national piece but an international one seeing as you are discussing this with 2 gentlement from the UK at the moment🙂

LOL! I love your sig!

Ireland yesterday, South Dakota today,

Tomorrow: De Welt!!!!!

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Ireland yesterday, South Dakota today,

Tomorrow: De Welt!!!!!

Actually it's "Die Welt"

Originally posted by StyleTime
You directly answered one of my questions earlier concerning whether or not you support making a law that infringes on the rights of a woman to have an abortion. You said you [B]do not believe a law should be made forcing a woman to abide your beliefs. Now you are saying that you are not pro choice.[/B]

It would offend me if all pro lifers wanted to ban abortion. I don't want it banned. If you ban abortion, rape victims would be forced to give birth, women would die because they wouldn't be able to have an abortion to save their own lives etc. Banning abortion might bring down the abortion rate, but with all the desperate women going and having a coathanger abortion, we'd have thousands of women dying each year, which is something we don't need, and what I certainly don't want. I would never want abortion made illegal. Restrictions, more sex education, mandatory counselling, yes, but never make it illegal, That would be the worst thing you could do.