One life

[AiA in Atlanta]

It all depends on why your killing, just don't fool yourself, you are killing.

The research just isn't on your side Frogen. Stage development determines the answer given to ANY question.

[Auzgurl]

I doubt it was me... and the underlined part wasn't talking about fetus' anyway.

Your right about the underlined part..and yes it was you.

[Auzgurl]

It all depends on why your killing, just don't fool yourself, you are killing.

This really is having a bob either way..either its wrong to kill a fetus or its not. You have to take a firm veiw if your going to use it as leverage to shoot down others as you have been doing.

[Auzgurl]

I am sorry auzgirl- i don't want to argue on this issue. Last time we debated abortion there was a lot of emotional flare up all round and I prefer to avoid it. i like you- i don't want to fight with you or hurt each other. I think we are both entitled to our views.

If we are entitled to "our veiws" Rainbow, why were the so called advocates for the argument of why abortion should remain [[so women should/could have a choice about their fertility,]] abused so cruelly on that last thread by you and Frogen. I didnt see much evidence there that you liked me or respected my veiws.

Its not a matter of if I like you or not, its a mattter of you now being caught out on a technicality...even though a very fundamental one.

You say abortion is WRONG in every case, even levelled the word scum at anyone who dared argue against your POV, and yet you say its OK to kill a baby who is not perfect, who REALLY WOULD BE AN INCONVENIENCE for the parent to have in his/her world.. In this case you are not killing to escape rape,abuse,death..you are killing to avoid the inconvenience of having to support a disability for the term of that humans life. The word"inconvenient" was used ,I believe , to drive "home"a relentless point ( adnauseum) to say that women only aborted to escape an inconvenient liabilty to their lives?

Your indignation and morality suddenly seems to means nothing when faced with an ACTUAL challenge, one where you really have to back up your words and so called conviction.?

[JW Frogen]

It all depends on why your killing, just don't fool yourself, you are killing.

The research just isn't on your side Frogen. Stage development determines the answer given to ANY question.

Indeed, and the stage life begins is at conception, the quality or viability of that life from that point on is a cultural, social and moral question; this is why different religions and societies have different answers. That is is life however is just a fact of biology.

GILLIGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, (the Skipper throws Gilligan into the lagoon and then goes to fuck Ginger), makes my case for me, that the decision to kill goes through stages.

First, kill for selfish reasons, because it is good for “me”.

Second, all killing is wrong even if it is good for “me”.

Third, this killing may be justified regardless of my wishes, empathy.

But empathy is not the same thing as denial.

The need to deny one is killing at all, to define away the very meaning of life is a return to the first, selfish stage; “I pretend it is not a life because it is easier for me to kill.”

[AiA in Atlanta]

It all depends on why your killing, just don't fool yourself, you are killing.

The research just isn't on your side Frogen. Stage development determines the answer given to ANY question.

Indeed, and the stage life begins is at conception, the quality or viability of that life from that point on is a cultural, social and moral question; this is why different religions and societies have different answers. That is is life however is just a fact of biology.

GILLIGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, (the Skipper throws Gilligan into the lagoon and then goes to fuck Ginger), makes my case for me, that the decision to kill goes through stages.

First, kill for selfish reasons, because it is good for “me”.

Second, all killing is wrong even if it is good for “me”.

Third, this killing may be justified regardless of my wishes, empathy.

But empathy is not the same thing as denial.

The need to deny one is killing at all, to define away the very meaning of life is a return to the first, selfish stage; “I pretend it is not a life because it is easier for me to kill.”

See "moose-knuckle" reference in Chinese Food thread.

[boxy]

Forcing women to be life support systems, against their will, is a greater moral injustice than the death of an unaware and totally dependent embryonic human.

Just as people being artificially kept alive in a persistent vegetative state should be allowed to pass without any moral qualms, so should unwanted embryos. Before consciousness has developed, and after it has left, there is no human life.

I believe you had a "go" at me once boxy for even hinting that it was ok to abort such fetuses, when in actual fact I did not...

Oh wait, here it is!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/polanimal/view ... 3644#p3644

It's pretty bloody obvious that what I was having a go at wasn't the suggestion that fetuses in a "persistent vegetative state" be aborted... because it was never made. What I was having a go at was your bringing up abortion of genetically identifiable divergence in the context of a discussion about transgenders.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

I am not wriggling out of a clever trap auzgirl- i am trying not to get involved in another emotive argument where people get hurt.

I did not say that it was okay to abort a baby with a problem. I said it was more legitimate to abort as self-defence if your own life was at risk or if the baby would only have life in a vegatative state, unaware of anything. That is why Boxy referred to adults in that state. A vegetative state is more than a problem. It is not a heart defect or down syndrome or cystic fibrosis.

If you don't want to me regard abortion as more legitimate in some circumstances than others, well- sorry. I am not made to your measure. My fundamental viewpoint is that it is wrong to kill an unborn baby. As Frogen says, there are various reasons for killing. Maybe some of those have more legitmacy than others. I mean, do you think it is as legitimate for a woman to have her fifth contraceptive abortion at 32 weeks for convenience reasons as it is for a woman to have an abortion for the first time, under pressure from "help" agencies, when she is 15 and the baby was conceived three days earlier? Do you think it is as legitimate to abort a child that does not fit into your life plan as it is to abort one because you believe its existence would be a misery and you could not protect it from its father?

[Auzgurl]

I am not wriggling out of a clever trap auzgirl- i am trying not to get involved in another emotive argument where people get hurt.

How is taking your own words and repeating them back to you ,entrapment..? I never used emotive descriptions in my posts, that was those on the others side of the issue.

I did not say that it was okay to abort a baby with a problem. I said it was more legitimate to abort as self-defence if your own life was at risk or if the baby would only have life in a vegatative state, unaware of anything. That is why Boxy referred to adults in that state. A vegetative state is more than a problem. It is not a heart defect or down syndrome or cystic fibrosis.

I know what a "vegetative state" is Rainbow Moonlight..but I dont see how any of us who have do not know what it is like to live in this way, because we cant see the point , can decide for those afflicted that it is not worth living and so end the life. Say what you will now with your new and amended version of that post.

How do you know if a human is" unaware of anything"..how can anyone measure that? We cannot know if they consider their ONE life worth living. We have no right to end it because we do not know.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

What- you think it is not okay to kill foetuses whom will exist in a vegetative state but right to kill ones that won't do so?

Of course it is wrong to kill them- just, in my view more legitimate than to kill one for a selfish and self-seeking and convenience based reason. And you are right I guess- we cannot know the experience of life of another, but the suggestion I made was based on IF the baby would be spending their life that way. If as you say it is impossible to know or determine when an adult or child or baby is in a vegetative state- unaware of surroundings and living and touch etc - then it means it is impossible for it ever to be even that little bit legitimate to kill the foetus isn't it?