Tory MPs line up to disagree with Jacob Rees-Mogg's 'utterly abhorrent' views on abortion

First topic message reminder :

A number of Conservative MPs have criticised Jacob Rees-Mogg's views on abortion, some expressing vehement disagreement while others have gently espoused their more liberal stances.

On Wednesday, Mr Rees-Mogg, who is tipped to one day take over from Theresa May and become Tory leader, said he disagreed with abortion in every circumstance, including in cases of incest and rape. He also said that because he is a Catholic, he disagrees with same-sex marriage.

Margot James MP said: "Agree with @TimesOpinion about Jacob R-M who I like very much; but his views on pregnant women are utterly abhorrent"


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/07/tory-mps-line-disagree-jacob-rees-moggs-utterly-abhorrent-views/


Religious beliefs again, at the forefront of idiocy.

I'm not apologising for saying that women should not have abortions for trivial reasons - ie, reasons that I think are trivial. I'm not going to change my mind.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not apologising for saying that women should not have abortions for trivial reasons - ie, reasons that I think are trivial. I'm not going to change my mind.

So again is based on what you think, and not the woman who decides over her own body.

Hence your subjective views

Nobody asked you to change anything, as far as i am aware.

Everything said here is based on what someone thinks, including what you say Didge.

Raggamuffin wrote:Everything said here is based on what someone thinks, including what you say Didge.

Correct Rags. Which means it matters not, even what I think, but that of a woman. When it comes to having the right to control her own body.

Night

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:Most things and moral issues in life are not simply "black and white."

You can believe in something but still have reservations about some aspects of it.  

Having reservations yourself is one thing when it effects you that individual. Which you have the choice to decide on, but is it right to deny another woman control over her own body, based on your reservations?

No, I hate the idea that some people behave that way (it's certainly morally wrong in my opinion) but I wouldn't deny her rights...no.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Everything said here is based on what someone thinks, including what you say Didge.

Correct Rags. Which means it matters not, even what I think, but that of a woman. When it comes to having the right to control her own body.

Night

apart from when the man controls her body

any parent who chooses to terminate a child due to it being the ''wrong sex'' aren't fit to be parents imo

besides gender doesnt exist anymore, let the child choose it's own eh??

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:



Having reservations yourself is one thing when it effects you that individual. Which you have the choice to decide on, but is it right to deny another woman control over her own body, based on your reservations?

No, I hate the idea that some people behave that way (it's certainly morally wrong in my opinion) but I wouldn't deny her rights...no.

Morally?

Is it not morally wrong to force her to go through with that pregnancy?

gelico wrote:

any parent who chooses to terminate a child due to it being the ''wrong sex'' aren't fit to be parents imo

besides gender doesnt exist anymore, let the child choose it's own eh??

Really?

Based on what reasons?

You becoming judge and Jury?

What makes them any less loving parents to children they have and love?

You see, how your argument is simple based on emotion and not reason?

As a woman has a right to change her mind and many do for many reasons.

So you would force the woman to go through with the pregnancy then against her wishes?

As that must be the position you must take, if you think its wrong for a woman to have control over her own body?

Are you fit to be a human being by doing that?

Thorin wrote:

gelico wrote:

any parent who chooses to terminate a child due to it being the ''wrong sex'' aren't fit to be parents imo

besides gender doesnt exist anymore, let the child choose it's own eh??

Really?

Based on what reasons?

You becoming judge and Jury?

What makes them any less loving parents to children they have and love?

You see, how your argument is simple based on emotion and not reason?

As a woman has a right to change her mind and many do for many reasons.

So you would force the woman to go through with the pregnancy then against her wishes?

As that must be the position you must take, if you think its wrong for a woman to have control over her own body?

Are you fit to be a human being by doing that?

you act as judge and jury when it suits you didge

As a civilised society, rules, regulations and laws are made for the good of that society.
Its all very well insisting women have the sole right to their own body, but if that body is housing another human being, it then takes on another dimension.
So....whilst many people do agree that a woman has a right to end an unwanted pregnancy, there has to be legal stipulations, else she could be killing a fully formed human being, who if given the chance of birth could breathe independently and thrive.

Doctors normally consider births before 24 weeks to be miscarriages, and that is the cut off point for legal abortions, unless something is drastically wrong.
Most terminations are carried out well before this, nearer to 12 weeks, surely if a woman decides on an abortion the earlier this can be done the better for all.

Thor can argue all he wants, but his views are extreme, and thank goodness most sane people don't agree with him.

gelico wrote:

any parent who chooses to terminate a child due to it being the ''wrong sex'' aren't fit to be parents imo

besides gender doesnt exist anymore, let the child choose it's own eh??

I agree. Whatever next - designer babies?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Really?

Based on what reasons?

You becoming judge and Jury?

What makes them any less loving parents to children they have and love?

You see, how your argument is simple based on emotion and not reason?

As a woman has a right to change her mind and many do for many reasons.

So you would force the woman to go through with the pregnancy then against her wishes?

As that must be the position you must take, if you think its wrong for a woman to have control over her own body?

Are you fit to be a human being by doing that?

you act as judge and jury when it suits you didge

How am I judge and jury, when I have stated throughout that a woman should have the right to control over her own body?

Syl wrote:As a civilised society, rules, regulations and laws are made for the good of that society.
Its all very well insisting women have the sole right to their own body, but if that body is housing another human being, it then takes on another dimension.
So....whilst many people do agree that a woman has a right to end an unwanted pregnancy, there has to be legal stipulations, else she could be killing a fully formed human being, who if given the chance of birth could breathe independently and thrive.

Doctors normally consider births before 24 weeks to be miscarriages, and that is the cut off point for legal abortions, unless something is drastically wrong.
Most terminations are carried out well before this, nearer to 12 weeks, surely if a woman decides on an abortion the earlier this can be done the better for all.

Thor can argue all he wants, but his views are extreme, and thank goodness most sane people don't agree with him.

1) So your first argument would argue against any abortion, being as it is a living being. So you then contradict and argue you are okay with some abortion of a living being and then make the absurd view on what is a fully formed human being? That would be someone 25 years of age. Which I doubt you would allow or consider such a scenario. To murder any human that has been born up to the age of 25.

2) So if a woman changes her mind, then that is down to the woman. Its her body and she has every right to change her mind to an unborn living fetus.

3) I can argue the pants off you all  day, mainly as you are emotive and cannot construct a sensible argument.Your views would force women to carry something within then do not want to do. Which oddly enough happens to countless women around the world

And you claim I am extreme?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:As a civilised society, rules, regulations and laws are made for the good of that society.
Its all very well insisting women have the sole right to their own body, but if that body is housing another human being, it then takes on another dimension.
So....whilst many people do agree that a woman has a right to end an unwanted pregnancy, there has to be legal stipulations, else she could be killing a fully formed human being, who if given the chance of birth could breathe independently and thrive.

Doctors normally consider births before 24 weeks to be miscarriages, and that is the cut off point for legal abortions, unless something is drastically wrong.
Most terminations are carried out well before this, nearer to 12 weeks, surely if a woman decides on an abortion the earlier this can be done the better for all.

Thor can argue all he wants, but his views are extreme, and thank goodness most sane people don't agree with him.

1) So your first argument would argue against any abortion, being as it is a living being. So you then contradict and argue what is a fully formed human being? That would be someone 25 years of age. Which I doubt you would allow or consider such a scenario. To murder any human that has been born up to the age of 25.

2) So if a woman changes her mind, then that is down to the woman. Its her body and she has every right to change her mind to an unborn living fetus.

3) I can argue the pants off you all  day, mainly as you are emotive and cannot construct a sensible argument.Your views would force women to carry something within then do not want to do. Which oddly enough happens to countless women around the world

And you claim I am extreme?

I know you can argue all day...and night... then the next day, and on and on.....that's because you never understand that people may have different views to you, and horror of horrors....they may actually be right. 

You are the extreme one here Thor, you just see things in black and white as someone pointed out yesterday.
Some things are NOT black and white, and abortion, to anyone who is not an avid pro life campaigner...is one such subject.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


1) So your first argument would argue against any abortion, being as it is a living being. So you then contradict and argue what is a fully formed human being? That would be someone 25 years of age. Which I doubt you would allow or consider such a scenario. To murder any human that has been born up to the age of 25.

2) So if a woman changes her mind, then that is down to the woman. Its her body and she has every right to change her mind to an unborn living fetus.

3) I can argue the pants off you all  day, mainly as you are emotive and cannot construct a sensible argument.Your views would force women to carry something within then do not want to do. Which oddly enough happens to countless women around the world

And you claim I am extreme?

I know you can argue all day...and night... then the next day, and on and on.....that's because you never understand that people may have different views to you, and horror of horrors....they may actually be right. 

You are the extreme one here Thor, you just see things in black and white as someone pointed out yesterday.
Some things are NOT black and white, and abortion, to anyone who is not an avid pro life campaigner...is one such subject.

So again you misdirect, not taking on my points. Throw in a smile in the vain hope of desperation.

I see things very clearly, one that protects the rights of women to control their own bodies.

As seen you contradict on allowing sometimes to kill an unborn being and on others you allow

That is very evident, when its not your choice to make, unless you are carrying that unborn child.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:
I know you can argue all day...and night... then the next day, and on and on.....that's because you never understand that people may have different views to you, and horror of horrors....they may actually be right. 

You are the extreme one here Thor, you just see things in black and white as someone pointed out yesterday.
Some things are NOT black and white, and abortion, to anyone who is not an avid pro life campaigner...is one such subject.

So again you misdirect, not taking on my points. Throw in a smile in the vain hope of desperation.

I see things very clearly, one that protects the rights of women to control their own bodies.

As seen you contradict on allowing sometimes to kill an unborn being and on others you allow

That is very evident, when its not your choice to make, unless you are carrying that unborn child.

I know its not my choice to make, its my opinion and I wouldn't tell anyone else what to do....they have to make their own minds up.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So again you misdirect, not taking on my points. Throw in a smile in the vain hope of desperation.

I see things very clearly, one that protects the rights of women to control their own bodies.

As seen you contradict on allowing sometimes to kill an unborn being and on others you allow

That is very evident, when its not your choice to make, unless you are carrying that unborn child.

I know its not my choice to make, its my opinion and I wouldn't tell anyone else what to do....they have to make their own minds up.

By arguing over what women can or cannot do with their bodies.

Odd way of saying its not down to you to decide, by deciding for them.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:
I know its not my choice to make, its my opinion and I wouldn't tell anyone else what to do....they have to make their own minds up.

By arguing over what women can or cannot do with their bodies.

Odd way of saying its not down to you to decide, by deciding for them.

This is a forum, not a court of law.
I give my views just as you do....accept the fact that in this thread you are standing alone in your opinions, because frankly, I have not seen ONE other poster agree with any of the extreme points you are making.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


By arguing over what women can or cannot do with their bodies.

Odd way of saying its not down to you to decide, by deciding for them.

This is a forum, not a court of law.
I give my views just as you do....accept the fact that in this thread you are standing alone in your opinions, because frankly, I have not seen ONE other poster agree with any of the extreme points you are making.

Fact?

So now your arguments is based on a majority of views and not reason.

Thanks goodness we are not in Saudi or other places with that thinking on points of views over women's rights and you thinking this is how something should be rationalized?

Is that now your argument?

Wow

I would be critical of people that deny a woman the right to control her body.

If you do not like criticism for your views, then that is your tough luck

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

This is a forum, not a court of law.
I give my views just as you do....accept the fact that in this thread you are standing alone in your opinions, because frankly, I have not seen ONE other poster agree with any of the extreme points you are making.

Fact?

So now your arguments is based on a majority of views and not reason.

Thanks goodness we are not in Saudi or other places with that thinking on points of views over women's rights and you thinking this is how something should be rationalized?

Is that now your argument?

Wow

I would be critical of people that deny a woman the right to control her body.

If you do not like criticism for your views, then that is your tough luck

My argument hasn't changed throughout...I don't need back up from the majority, but it is obvious in this thread you are a lone voice in your own extreme views.

You must also be critical of everyone else who has voiced a view, the legal system, the medical profession in the UK...and uncle Tom Cobley an all.

I don't mind criticism...its YOU who cant stand people disagreeing with your pov not me.  

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Fact?

So now your arguments is based on a majority of views and not reason.

Thanks goodness we are not in Saudi or other places with that thinking on points of views over women's rights and you thinking this is how something should be rationalized?

Is that now your argument?

Wow

I would be critical of people that deny a woman the right to control her body.

If you do not like criticism for your views, then that is your tough luck

My argument hasn't changed throughout...I don't need back up from the majority, but it is obvious in this thread you are a lone voice in your own extreme views.

You must also be critical of everyone else who has voiced a view, the legal system, the medical profession in the UK...and uncle Tom Cobley an all.

I don't mind criticism...its YOU who cant stand people disagreeing with your pov not me.  

So again you now seek desperation in people being in agreement, not a coherent argument. Which as seen contradicts, as you are happy to abort an unborn life with some reasons and not others.

Have I objected or stated anywhere, that I cannot stand people disagreeing with me?

Nope.

Its a forum and am reasoning my points here on the rights of women.

So yes I am very critical of those who deny a woman the ability to control her own body.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

My argument hasn't changed throughout...I don't need back up from the majority, but it is obvious in this thread you are a lone voice in your own extreme views.

You must also be critical of everyone else who has voiced a view, the legal system, the medical profession in the UK...and uncle Tom Cobley an all.

I don't mind criticism...its YOU who cant stand people disagreeing with your pov not me.  

So again you now seek desperation in people being in agreement, not a coherent argument. Which as seen contradicts, as you are happy to abort an unborn life with some reasons and not others.

Have I objected or stated anywhere, that I cannot stand people disagreeing with me?

Nope.

Its a forum and am reasoning my points here on the rights of women.

So yes I am very critical of those who deny a woman the ability to control her own body.

What time limit (if any) would you agree that performing a termination is wrong?

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So again you now seek desperation in people being in agreement, not a coherent argument. Which as seen contradicts, as you are happy to abort an unborn life with some reasons and not others.

Have I objected or stated anywhere, that I cannot stand people disagreeing with me?

Nope.

Its a forum and am reasoning my points here on the rights of women.

So yes I am very critical of those who deny a woman the ability to control her own body.

What time limit (if any) would you agree that performing a termination  is wrong?

None

Thorin awaits Syl, to make her next screw up.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

What time limit (if any) would you agree that performing a termination  is wrong?

None

Thorin awaits Syl, to make her next screw up.

I don't think I need to add anything to this thread Thor......your one word answer has said it all.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


None

Thorin awaits Syl, to make her next screw up.

I don't think I need to add anything to this thread Thor......your one word answer has said it all.

Indeed it does, but at least I am by that time frame thinking of a mother who's life could be in possible danger of which is allowed by the law.

Hence you never think anything through.

So my answer was correct, as there is no time frame for when an abortion, "can" be carried out.

Do you want to disagree with me on that then Syl?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't think I need to add anything to this thread Thor......your one word answer has said it all.

Indeed it does, but at least I am by that time frame thinking of a mother who's life could be in possible danger of which is allowed by the law.

Hence you never think anything through.

So my answer was correct, as there is no time frame for when an abortion, "can" be carried out.

Do you want to disagree with me on that then Syl?

Wriggle wriggle.....its already been stated several times by different people that the 24 week legal limit can be overlooked if the mothers or babies health is a serious factor.

You know we are talking about a womans "right to 'choose" not a serious medical concern.

I do understand why you are wriggling though, if I had such extreme views I would be tempted to backtrack too.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Indeed it does, but at least I am by that time frame thinking of a mother who's life could be in possible danger of which is allowed by the law.

Hence you never think anything through.

So my answer was correct, as there is no time frame for when an abortion, "can" be carried out.

Do you want to disagree with me on that then Syl?

Wriggle wriggle.....its already been stated several times by different people that the 24 week legal limit can be overlooked if the mothers or babies health is a serious factor.

You know we are talking about a womans "right to 'choose" not a serious medical concern.

I do understand why you are wriggling though, if I had such extreme views I would be tempted to backtrack too.

You asked me what time frame.

There is none and I knew you would walk right into making an idiot of yourself, because throughout this you have been completely emotive and not rational.

I suggest you learn how easy it is for me to have you running around in an endless circle and the reason is Syl, you simple are not that smart.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Wriggle wriggle.....its already been stated several times by different people that the 24 week legal limit can be overlooked if the mothers or babies health is a serious factor.

You know we are talking about a womans "right to 'choose" not a serious medical concern.

I do understand why you are wriggling though, if I had such extreme views I would be tempted to backtrack too.

You asked me what time frame.

There is none and I knew you would walk right into making an idiot of yourself, because throughout this you have been completely emotive and not rational.

I suggest you learn how easy it is for me to have you running around in an endless circle and the reason is Syl, you simple are not that smart.

You don't have anyone running round in circled Thor, the posters including me, who answer your ramblings do so out of courtesy, and not that many give you the time and effort I do.

You play silly little games when you are cornered, introduce red herrings to try to distract from your own failings...in short, when trying to look clever you so often look like an arse.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You asked me what time frame.

There is none and I knew you would walk right into making an idiot of yourself, because throughout this you have been completely emotive and not rational.

I suggest you learn how easy it is for me to have you running around in an endless circle and the reason is Syl, you simple are not that smart.

You don't have anyone running round in circled Thor, the posters including me, who answer your ramblings do so out of courtesy, and not that  many give you the time and effort I do.

You play silly little games when you are cornered, introduce red herrings to try to distract from your own failings...in short, when trying to look clever you so often look like an arse.  

There is no games here.

I simple allow people to continue to make dumb mistakes as you constantly do here by either error or contradictions.

So again you assume wrong because again you have been emotional throughout.

So you think I am an arse, whoppdeedoo

So you are saying I should be thankful you respond to me, when many do?

Good for you

You are just another poster here like anyone else.

If people have no  wish to debate me, good luck to them, I do however happen to generate most of the debate on this forum.

syl has fallen for the great didge run around

silly syl

The point that is being made here is this: you either are for women having an abortion or against, right?
If you're for the right of a woman to choose then with that, comes all sorts of personal reasons that come along with the individual women. You can't pick and choose and though you may not agree with a certain reason for an abortion, you did choose to give her the right.

I'm with didge on this particular point. If you give them the right to abort then you have no right to tell them whether their reason is right. Right?

eddie wrote:The point that is being made here is this: you either are for women having an abortion or against, right?
If you're for the right of a woman to choose then with that, comes all sorts of personal reasons that come along with the individual women. You can't pick and choose and though you may not agree with a certain reason for an abortion, you did choose to give her the right.

I'm with didge on this particular point. If you give them the right to abort then you have no right to tell them whether their reason is right. Right?

Correct Eddie and at least finally someone gets what I have been saying.

+1

eddie wrote:The point that is being made here is this: you either are for women having an abortion or against, right?
If you're for the right of a woman to choose then with that, comes all sorts of personal reasons that come along with the individual women. You can't pick and choose and though you may not agree with a certain reason for an abortion, you did choose to give her the right.

I'm with didge on this particular point. If you give them the right to abort then you have no right to tell them whether their reason is right. Right?

even if the reason is gender termination which would usually only happen in male dominated cultures and societies and in most cases is usually the choice of the man

if the reason is never questioned or challenged, then in many cases the right to abort is taken from the woman and given to men.

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:The point that is being made here is this: you either are for women having an abortion or against, right?
If you're for the right of a woman to choose then with that, comes all sorts of personal reasons that come along with the individual women. You can't pick and choose and though you may not agree with a certain reason for an abortion, you did choose to give her the right.

I'm with didge on this particular point. If you give them the right to abort then you have no right to tell them whether their reason is right. Right?

even if the reason is gender termination which would usually only happen in male dominated cultures and societies and in most cases is usually the choice of the man

if the reason is never questioned or challenged, then in many cases the right to abort is taken from the woman and given to men.

Which would be wrong, if the woman is denied that choice to control her own body.

Not sure how many times that needs saying to you smells.

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

even if the reason is gender termination which would usually only happen in male dominated cultures and societies and in most cases is usually the choice of the man

if the reason is never questioned or challenged, then in many cases the right to abort is taken from the woman and given to men.

Which would be wrong, if the woman is denied that choice to control her own body.

Not sure how many times that needs saying to you smells.

well it happens on a regular basis didge, and not only in male dominated societies, it happens all over the western world where abortion is a free-for-all.

so what happens now?? you write them off as collateral damage??

I don't like her reason, this hypothetical woman who's using abortion as an answer to getting rid of her wrong-sex baby, but it's her right, right?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Which would be wrong, if the woman is denied that choice to control her own body.

Not sure how many times that needs saying to you smells.

well it happens on a regular basis didge, and not only in male dominated societies, it happens all over the western world where abortion is a free-for-all.

so what happens now?? you write them off as collateral damage??

Eh?

Let me dumb this down for you.

I support the right of women to control their own bodies.

That means if some men are forcing women to have abortions. Then that is inherently wrong. That we champion all women to have rights.

Will you join me in championing women's rights smelly?

So how am I writing them off?

Thorin wrote:

gelico wrote:

any parent who chooses to terminate a child due to it being the ''wrong sex'' aren't fit to be parents imo

besides gender doesnt exist anymore, let the child choose it's own eh??

Really?

Based on what reasons?

wtf? based on the reasoning that any parent who chooses to terminate a child due to it being the ''wrong sex'' aren't fit to be parents


which part of that do you struggle with?

eddie wrote:I don't like her reason, this hypothetical woman who's using abortion as an answer to getting rid of her wrong-sex baby, but it's her right, right?

indeed it is eddie. and if that's her reasoning that she's clearly doing the right thing,,,,,for all concerned

eddie wrote:The point that is being made here is this: you either are for women having an abortion or against, right?
If you're for the right of a woman to choose then with that, comes all sorts of personal reasons that come along with the individual women. You can't pick and choose and though you may not agree with a certain reason for an abortion, you did choose to give her the right.

I'm with didge on this particular point. If you give them the right to abort then you have no right to tell them whether their reason is right. Right?

Not true. The right to abort can and does depend on certain circumstances. One does not have to be "for" or "against" abortion at all.

eddie wrote:I don't like her reason, this hypothetical woman who's using abortion as an answer to getting rid of her wrong-sex baby, but it's her right, right?

No, it is not. A doctor can be suspended or struck off for agreeing to a woman having an abortion on the grounds of gender.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Indeed it does, but at least I am by that time frame thinking of a mother who's life could be in possible danger of which is allowed by the law.

Hence you never think anything through.

So my answer was correct, as there is no time frame for when an abortion, "can" be carried out.

Do you want to disagree with me on that then Syl?

Wriggle wriggle.....its already been stated several times by different people that the 24 week legal limit can be overlooked if the mothers or babies health is a serious factor.

You know we are talking about a womans "right to 'choose" not a serious medical concern.

I do understand why you are wriggling though, if I had such extreme views I would be tempted to backtrack too.

Nothing is overlooked, there is no legal time limit for abortion. After 24 weeks the conditions for abortion becomes more limited but it is still within the law to carry them out. To overlook the law would mean to break it.

eddie wrote:I don't like her reason, this hypothetical woman who's using abortion as an answer to getting rid of her wrong-sex baby, but it's her right, right?

It's not a "hypothetical woman" who chooses to abort for the wrong gender, these are actual woman controlled by men who force them to abort for numerous reasons including wrong gender

The choice you give then is taken from them by men. Their body his choice.

Don't be a coward and pretend it doesn't exist because the reality of supporting free-for-all abortion warts and all doesn't sit well with your fickle morality.

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:I don't like her reason, this hypothetical woman who's using abortion as an answer to getting rid of her wrong-sex baby, but it's her right, right?

It's not a "hypothetical woman"  who chooses  to abort  for the wrong gender, these are actual woman controlled by men who force them to abort for numerous reasons including wrong gender

The choice you give then is taken from them by men. Their body his choice.

Don't be a coward and pretend it doesn't exist because the reality of supporting free-for-all  abortion warts and all doesn't sit well with your fickle morality.

I wasn't aware we were talking about men making women abort. That's an entirely different topic.

eddie wrote:I don't like her reason, this hypothetical woman who's using abortion as an answer to getting rid of her wrong-sex baby, but it's her right, right?

WRONG.
Its against the law.

eddie wrote:The point that is being made here is this: you either are for women having an abortion or against, right?
If you're for the right of a woman to choose then with that, comes all sorts of personal reasons that come along with the individual women. You can't pick and choose and though you may not agree with a certain reason for an abortion, you did choose to give her the right.

I'm with didge on this particular point. If you give them the right to abort then you have no right to tell them whether their reason is right. Right?

Its just not as simplistic as that.
As pointed oit there are circumstances where abortion is not legally allowed.

If its not legally allowed there are reasons for that, the time factor and choosing not to have a baby because its the wrong sex are two such reasons.

You can still support a womans right to choose yet also support the view that in some circumstances the right to abort is wrong.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:The point that is being made here is this: you either are for women having an abortion or against, right?
If you're for the right of a woman to choose then with that, comes all sorts of personal reasons that come along with the individual women. You can't pick and choose and though you may not agree with a certain reason for an abortion, you did choose to give her the right.

I'm with didge on this particular point. If you give them the right to abort then you have no right to tell them whether their reason is right. Right?

Its just not as simplistic as that.
As pointed oit there are circumstances where abortion is not legally allowed.

If its not legally allowed there are reasons for that, the time factor and choosing not to have a baby because its the wrong sex are two such reasons.

You can still support a womans right to choose yet also support the view that in some circumstances the right to abort is wrong.

There comes a point in the development of that fetus where the child begins to have rights too. Once that mark is passed, I do believe abortion is wrong. And so says the law. So, it's only up until a certain point where the woman has a right to say no. After that, we're talking about a life that deserves to live.

gelico wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Really?

Based on what reasons?

wtf?  based on the reasoning that any parent who chooses to terminate a child due to it being the ''wrong sex'' aren't fit to be parents


which part of that do you struggle with?

The fact that its an emotive piss poor argument.

Try using that in a court of law.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:
Its just not as simplistic as that.
As pointed oit there are circumstances where abortion is not legally allowed.

If its not legally allowed there are reasons for that, the time factor and choosing not to have a baby because its the wrong sex are two such reasons.

You can still support a womans right to choose yet also support the view that in some circumstances the right to abort is wrong.

There comes a point in the development of that fetus where the child begins to have rights too.   Once that mark is passed, I do believe abortion is wrong.   And so says the law.   So, it's only up until a certain point where the woman has a right to say no.  After that, we're talking about a life that deserves to live.

Never heard such unbelievable gobbldekook.

So you accept a life being terminated, based on where you think the law decides that life deserves to live?

Do you not see how much of a contradiction that is?

The reality is its nothing more than subjective.

As anyone could argue that a 1 week old fetus deserves to live