Only where it deals with restrictions on late term abortions, where the baby may be viable - it's reasonable to prohibit elective abortions in that period, but to protect the mother's health or life, or in cases where the baby will be severely deformed at birth, it should be allowed.
I was under the impression that the current UK law does largely reflect that opinion.
I would presume so, I don't live in the UK, but most would agree that late term abortions should only be done when necessary.
*That* *is* murder.
Your position treats women as baby factories. Not as equal to men.
Only when it's done late enough in pregnancy that the baby may be viable, and there is no risk to the mother's health or life. Earlier in pregnancy, it is definitely not equivalent to murder.
Only the woman can make the decision about abortion, but she is free to talk to the man about it before and after the child is conceived.
The man can talk to her about what she'd do if she becomes pregnant, before agreeing to have sex with her. If he fails to do that, and she aborts his child, that's what he gets for being so obsessed with sex.
Maybe you like the state making personal decisions for you, not everyone feels that way.
It's not murder, and the man's input is only as relevant as the woman makes it.
Yep, well, then don't have sex.
Sure there is, he couldn't keep his pants on long enough to talk about the consequences of having sex. That's on him.
Do you live in China. That would explain your responses.
It's quite rare for a father to want to murder his child. I guess life in gaol is one disincentive.
I take it you showed little interest in sex?
You're just comparing irrelevant things. Abortion before the child is viable isn't murder, nor are laws to protect children relevant to abortion.
It's not a child until it's viable outside the womb.
Tell that to the lawmakers, who agree with me.
That's not 100% effective, the conversation about pregnancy needs to be had when heterosexuals have sex. If the man is in too much of a hurry to f*ck, he forfeits any input he might've had on what would be done about pregnancy.
Feel free to shut the hell up, then, it's not like I have nothing better to do than argue with your idiocy.
Because that's the point at which he would have input. Once she's pregnant, he no longer does, unless she allows him to.
I don't know of any other state that decrees whether a women should be subjected to an abortion. Perhaps this is the Aussie experience or a claim by a fanatic, demented old man?
Its quite rare for a women to kill a child.
Please do cite the statistics of prosecutions where a child is murdered by women. Otherwise you're talking nonsense.
Right. So you just showed an interest.
For the most of us it is far from 'odd'.
If we are talking of murder that attracts prosecutions, then we seem to be singing the same hymn sheet after all.
So we have final acceptance that your argument and position is flawed?
In other words, you lost the debate. Thanks for admitting it, even though you should have hours ago.
Nope, you're running away from the debate, because your arguments sucked, and you lost.
And you're still showing your cowardice, loser of the debate.
On Feb 20, 2021 at 4:12:15 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>:
But each person gets a say on what happens to their own body.
On Feb 20, 2021 at 4:01:56 PM MST, "Joel" wrote snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
And they are. If there are any exceptions in the US that can be verified I not see the evidence.
On Feb 20, 2021 at 4:03:41 PM MST, "Joel" wrote snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Rod Speed cannot figure out why murder is wrong?
On Feb 20, 2021 at 4:05:58 PM MST, "Joel" wrote snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Right: it is about controlling women. Not acceptable.
On Feb 20, 2021 at 4:18:26 PM MST, "Joel" wrote snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
How could it be? The claim makes no sense.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required