Pro abortion or not

[WesOlsen]

I didnt hear any arguments from you. Black OR white. For or against. So it seems that YOU are the one going for the beige, custom-fit, do whatever you feel is right morality.
How does that feel? Laodicean?
Nice? Comfortable? Popular?

Perhaps like most other people on this forum, he concedes that the debate is complex and acknowledges that there are numerous different scenarios which could lead to an abortion being considered. Unlike you, rational humans have to wrestle with a great many ethical references, they don't just spout the ludicrous dogma from one ludicrous book and demand the moral highground. Deriving your entire moral compass from one highly dubious piece of dark-age shite is the real crime here. As if anyone is going to take moral advice from someone who has been exposed to very little philosophy and even less science. The one book solution fails again.

And you agreed with someone who holds two mutually exclusive positions?

If we consider the plethora of different scenarios that could lead to a couple or individual considering an abortion then it's no surprise that people could hold multiple, context dependent opinions. That's probably hard for you to swallow because you naively believe that your ridiculous book of religious propaganda contains everything you need to know, despite being so utterly vague regarding certain rulings that not even christians can agree.

This is not an "an emotive and complex" issue - not even for strong opponents of abortion-on-demand. Saving one life as opposed to definitely losing TWO, is a moral no-brainer.

Are these morals derived from the good book? I seem to recall it contains quite a few stories in which multiple lives were anihilated for next to no reason. What were you saying about things being a moral no-brainer? Depends from whence you derive your morals I suppose, jackass.

So please dont try to equate that life saving medical intervention with the elective destruction of healthy unborn babies.

They're called non-viable and pre-viable for a reason dipshit, because they're so underdeveloped that they wouldn't last 10 seconds outside of the mother's womb. As already mentioned they're a cluster of cells that don't yet represent an infant child. No cognition, no functioning CNS etc. Not that medical/scientific conclusions ever satisfied you cranks.

I would argue that the medical treatment of patients with ectopic pregnancies is a moral question of whether one or both lives can be saved.
The pro-life position would be that saving one life is better than losing two.

Again, what ashame that the good book is filled to the brink with tales of innane killing and inherited sin.

What percentage of the millions of abortions performed each year do you think are necessary to save the life of the mother?

It doesn't really matter, they're early stage and don't yet constitute human life. Science is agreed on that.

If you want to see hypocrisy writ-large, chat to a pro-choicer who opposes circumcision. You can abort an unborn baby but parents who circumcise their new born babies butchers.)

A newborn baby is alive and kicking. It is exposed to the elements and medical science is agreed that they constitute an individual life in their own right. Abuse of a born child is quite different to aborting something that is not considered an individual life. Circumcision is grim but probably doesn't compare to the long-term, systematic psychological guilt-cycle abuse forced on to children in Baptist and other denominational communities. No need to discuss the physical abuse endemic in many christian communities the world over.

Its an interesting paradox that the supporters of abortion on-demand chant... it's a womans body, its a womans choice, mind your own business, right up until the baby is born, and then it's the taxpayers job to step up and support unmarried moms if her choice of fertility partner leaves her.

Spoken like a true right-wing cunt. Funnily enough in most parts of the developed world, welfare isn't a derogatory term thrown at non god-fearing republican wankers. Once a baby is born then child abuse becomes a matter of public interest, it's everyones business (which is why so many people show disgust towards religious child abuse). A non-viable foetus is the parent's concern only. Funny how your analogy, typical amongst your ilk, ignored the potential taxpayer contributions made by the hypothetical mother and father. Interesting how right-wing religious nuts seem to think that they're the only ones paying taxes and legislating 'right' and 'wrong'. You better get used to not dictating the world's ethical makeup, secular politics doesn't need your irrational bed-time stories. Prick.