qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime.


Shame Barnaby, shame.

____ wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

a criminal crime

Is that more criminal than a plain ordinary crime?

Wolseley wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:22pm:

____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: a criminal crime Is that more criminal than a plain ordinary crime?

A moral crime doesn't usually end up with a women in a cell doing time.
Current abortion laws in Australia could lead to this outcome.

Roe v Wade decision, the one most referred to in this debate, stipulated that the State should not properly sanction a woman who secures an abortion.  While it did not open the door to total abortion on demand,  thus freeing medical practicioners from the burden of being forced to provide something they may oppose on personal moral or religious grounds, it did allow that procuring an abortion would not be criminal.

Providing an abortion illegally may still be an actionable offence, and rightly so.

So I'd say - since we seem to be in the Roe v Wade era here as well as in the US - that the appropriate Minister should Shut The F^ck Up, and not continue to make a fool of himself.

____ wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame.

Another dick head that doesn't live in the REAL world.

Destroy them!

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 6:09am:

____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. Another dick head that doesn't live in the REAL world. Destroy them!

And the smug self righteous face on him - eeew

____ wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame.

There are many who oppose same sex marriage, but you don't hear anyone calling for it to be a crime. Grow up, grub.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 7:32am:

There are many who oppose same sex marriage, but you don't hear anyone calling for it to be a crime.

Not so much anymore at least...


Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 7:32am:

Grow up, grub.

??

I reckon ol' Barny had a few reds before going on last night, he was off track almost every time he opened his mouth (which was fairly frequently)...

Once it occurred to me that he might be a bit "snakes hissed" nothing much he said mattered.

____ wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame.

You ultra hypocritical Leftist infanticide protagonists are the shameless ones.  :(

Congratulations to Barnaby Joyce for standing up for the inalienable human rights of the unborn child.

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 9:11am:

____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. You ultra hypocritical Leftist infanticide protagonists are the shameless ones.  :( Congratulations to Barnaby Joyce for standing up for the inalienable human rights of the unborn child.

Abortion is a moral abomination. But just as bad are those that would deny the right to hold such an opinion. And as always, these are the same people that demand everyone embrace gays.

Criminalise Gay Marriage and be done with it.... off with their heads!

**thread poll hijack**

http://www.theteeparty.com/designs/400/eat_me_img1.gif

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 7:32am:

____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. There are many who oppose same sex marriage, but you don't hear anyone calling for it to be a crime. Grow up, grub.

You miss the point completely.

Those that oppose abortion for moral reasons can remain on their perches, looking down on everyone, wagging their fingers ... no one is asking for these people to shift.

What is required is removal of abortion as a criminal crime, that very easily could be used to jail women who has an abortion.

Barnaby was asked about removal of this law and he ran for the hills and refused to say why.

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 12:08pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:32am: ____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. There are many who oppose same sex marriage, but you don't hear anyone calling for it to be a crime. Grow up, grub. You miss the point completely. Those that oppose abortion for moral reasons can remain on their perches, looking down on everyone, wagging their fingers ... no one is asking for these people to shift. What is required is removal of abortion as a criminal crime, that very easily could be used to jail women who has an abortion. Barnaby was asked about removal of this law and he ran for the hills and refused to say why.

Just because you think it doesn't make it right.

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 12:08pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:32am: ____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. There are many who oppose same sex marriage, but you don't hear anyone calling for it to be a crime. Grow up, grub. You miss the point completely. Those that oppose abortion for moral reasons can remain on their perches, looking down on everyone, wagging their fingers ... no one is asking for these people to shift. What is required is removal of abortion as a criminal crime, that very easily could be used to jail women who has an abortion. Barnaby was asked about removal of this law and he ran for the hills and refused to say why.

Murder is already a "criminal crime"

Abortion is 'murder'. (infanticide)  :(

Yet where abortion is allowed families are smaller, the children more loved, delinquency and crime way down. Just by letting women control their own bodies and  control their own fertility.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:39pm:

Yet where abortion is allowed families are smaller, the children more loved, delinquency and crime way down. Just by letting women control their own bodies and  control their own fertility.

...that is one creepy comment  :(

Has a very national socialist characteristic about it....

Nazis practiced eugenics, Swag, were not noted for letting people run their own lives. Stupid comment!

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:48pm:

Nazis practiced eugenics, Swag, were not noted for letting people run their own lives. Stupid comment!

...they also tried to dehumanise and kill off people they didn't have any use for...sounds awfully like the pro-abortion movement  :(

So you think you have a right to control a woman and her reproduction? THAT sounds rather nazi to me.

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:54pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 1:48pm: Nazis practiced eugenics, Swag, were not noted for letting people run their own lives. Stupid comment! ...they also tried to dehumanise and kill off people they didn't have any use for...sounds awfully like the coalition movement  :(

fixed it for you  ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

So you think you have a right to control a woman and her reproduction? THAT sounds rather nazi to me.

No, reproduction is entirely up to the female. 

mariacostel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 12:25pm:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 12:08pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:32am: ____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. There are many who oppose same sex marriage, but you don't hear anyone calling for it to be a crime. Grow up, grub. You miss the point completely. Those that oppose abortion for moral reasons can remain on their perches, looking down on everyone, wagging their fingers ... no one is asking for these people to shift. What is required is removal of abortion as a criminal crime, that very easily could be used to jail women who has an abortion. Barnaby was asked about removal of this law and he ran for the hills and refused to say why. Just because you think it doesn't make it right.

Translation into english please.

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:29pm:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 12:08pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:32am: ____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. There are many who oppose same sex marriage, but you don't hear anyone calling for it to be a crime. Grow up, grub. You miss the point completely. Those that oppose abortion for moral reasons can remain on their perches, looking down on everyone, wagging their fingers ... no one is asking for these people to shift. What is required is removal of abortion as a criminal crime, that very easily could be used to jail women who has an abortion. Barnaby was asked about removal of this law and he ran for the hills and refused to say why. Murder is already a "criminal crime" Abortion is 'murder'. (infanticide)  :(

That is your moral decision.
A foetus is not a human as a fertilised egg is not a chicken.

Wag your moral finger all you like ... removing abortion from the crime law book should be a federal election issue.

This abuse of a women's right over her body by men is a part of the reason so many women are murdered by their (ex) partners.

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:45pm:

A foetus is not a human

You sound like Goebbels reincarnated?  :(

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:50pm:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:45pm: A foetus is not a human You sound like Goebbels reincarnated?  :(

In your mind, anyone who opposed your demands to control women, would sound like Goebbels.

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:53pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:50pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:45pm: A foetus is not a human You sound like Goebbels reincarnated?  :( In your mind, anyone who opposed your demands to control women, would sound like Goebbels.

Pretty much.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:39pm:

Yet where abortion is allowed families are smaller, the children more loved, delinquency and crime way down. Just by letting women control their own bodies and  control their own fertility.

And there are dead babies everywhere.

And you would have to be a prize idiot to claim that somehow today where abortion is legal that children are more loved and there is less crime.

It would be a struggle to come up with a worse argument than the one you came up with.

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:45pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 1:29pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 12:08pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:32am: ____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. There are many who oppose same sex marriage, but you don't hear anyone calling for it to be a crime. Grow up, grub. You miss the point completely. Those that oppose abortion for moral reasons can remain on their perches, looking down on everyone, wagging their fingers ... no one is asking for these people to shift. What is required is removal of abortion as a criminal crime, that very easily could be used to jail women who has an abortion. Barnaby was asked about removal of this law and he ran for the hills and refused to say why. Murder is already a "criminal crime" Abortion is 'murder'. (infanticide)  :( That is your moral decision. A foetus is not a human as a fertilised egg is not a chicken. Wag your moral finger all you like ... removing abortion from the crime law book should be a federal election issue. This abuse of a women's right over her body by men is a part of the reason so many women are murdered by their (ex) partners.

Thus sayeth a gay that will never father a child. You are disqualified from even holding an opinion, nevermind stating it.

mariacostel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 6:57pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 1:39pm: Yet where abortion is allowed families are smaller, the children more loved, delinquency and crime way down. Just by letting women control their own bodies and  control their own fertility. And there are dead babies everywhere. And you would have to be a prize idiot to claim that somehow today where abortion is legal that children are more loved and there is less crime. It would be a struggle to come up with a worse argument than the one you came up with.

Stupid Catholic faith as propounded by a bunch of celibate old men! They are not a realistic guide to living.

I think they would really love lots of single Mums to preach to! Stuff them! When women can control their own bodies and own reproductive system the outcomes are better!

I am torn on this issue because it is far from black and white....I wish abortion was never necessary but that is not the issue!!!

If a woman is raped and falls pregnant (some conservative nut jobs contest woman cannot conceive from rape) then I can understand wanting to terminate the pregnancy!!!

If there is a health issue with the mother or foetus that could result in either being harmed I can understand wanting to terminate the pregnancy!!!

I also believe woman have the right to choose and must live with the consequences of their decision which would not be easy!!!

I also believe religion should be taken out of the debate as it is irrelevant what any religious denomination believes concerning laws and policies....Unless of course you are prepared to accept Muslims have a right to implement Sharia Law on those who chose to follow Islam...Separation of Church and State cannot be selective!!!

In the end it is the woman who must live with the decisions they make and therefor should be free to make that choice without fear of penalty!!!

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 7:20pm:

I am torn on this issue because it is far from black and white....I wish abortion was never necessary but that is not the issue!!! If a woman is raped and falls pregnant (some conservative nut jobs contest woman cannot conceive from rape) then I can understand wanting to terminate the pregnancy!!! If there is a health issue with the mother or foetus that could result in either being harmed I can understand wanting to terminate the pregnancy!!! I also believe woman have the right to choose and must live with the consequences of their decision which would not be easy!!! I also believe religion should be taken out of the debate as it is irrelevant what any religious denomination believes concerning laws and policies....Unless of course you are prepared to accept Muslims have a right to implement Sharia Law on those who chose to follow Islam...Separation of Church and State cannot be selective!!! In the end it is the woman who must live with the decisions they make and therefor should be free to make that choice without fear of penalty!!! :-? :-? :-?

oh really? Thats a new one. Make that up as well as so much else you state?

mariacostel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 6:59pm:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:45pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 1:29pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 12:08pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:32am: ____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. There are many who oppose same sex marriage, but you don't hear anyone calling for it to be a crime. Grow up, grub. You miss the point completely. Those that oppose abortion for moral reasons can remain on their perches, looking down on everyone, wagging their fingers ... no one is asking for these people to shift. What is required is removal of abortion as a criminal crime, that very easily could be used to jail women who has an abortion. Barnaby was asked about removal of this law and he ran for the hills and refused to say why. Murder is already a "criminal crime" Abortion is 'murder'. (infanticide)  :( That is your moral decision. A foetus is not a human as a fertilised egg is not a chicken. Wag your moral finger all you like ... removing abortion from the crime law book should be a federal election issue. This abuse of a women's right over her body by men is a part of the reason so many women are murdered by their (ex) partners. Thus sayeth a gay that will never father a child. You are disqualified from even holding an opinion, nevermind stating it.

Maria, since you are new here then you would of missed my posts on threads about my three children.  When longweekend get's back, he can verify this for me.

And your opinion that not having children disqualifying a right to expressing an opinion here ... sorry you're only a pleb, not a dictator.

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:53pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:50pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:45pm: A foetus is not a human You sound like Goebbels reincarnated?  :( In your mind, anyone who opposed your demands to control women, would sound like Goebbels.

....no....Goebbels dehumanised Jews, Eastern Europeans, etc with propaganda so that the Nazis could murder them under the noses of the public

Pro-abortion protagonists like yourself dehumanise foetuses with propaganda so that doctors can murder them under the nose of the public.... :( 

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 7:20pm:

I am torn on this issue because it is far from black and white....I wish abortion was never necessary but that is not the issue!!! If a woman is raped and falls pregnant (some conservative nut jobs contest woman cannot conceive from rape) then I can understand wanting to terminate the pregnancy!!! If there is a health issue with the mother or foetus that could result in either being harmed I can understand wanting to terminate the pregnancy!!! I also believe woman have the right to choose and must live with the consequences of their decision which would not be easy!!! I also believe religion should be taken out of the debate as it is irrelevant what any religious denomination believes concerning laws and policies....Unless of course you are prepared to accept Muslims have a right to implement Sharia Law on those who chose to follow Islam...Separation of Church and State cannot be selective!!! In the end it is the woman who must live with the decisions they make and therefor should be free to make that choice without fear of penalty!!! :-? :-? :-?

It is interesting that you use the word 'live'. Apparently you are unaware what an abortion is. It certainly is not LIFE.

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 7:43pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 6:59pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:45pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 1:29pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 12:08pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:32am: ____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. There are many who oppose same sex marriage, but you don't hear anyone calling for it to be a crime. Grow up, grub. You miss the point completely. Those that oppose abortion for moral reasons can remain on their perches, looking down on everyone, wagging their fingers ... no one is asking for these people to shift. What is required is removal of abortion as a criminal crime, that very easily could be used to jail women who has an abortion. Barnaby was asked about removal of this law and he ran for the hills and refused to say why. Murder is already a "criminal crime" Abortion is 'murder'. (infanticide)  :( That is your moral decision. A foetus is not a human as a fertilised egg is not a chicken. Wag your moral finger all you like ... removing abortion from the crime law book should be a federal election issue. This abuse of a women's right over her body by men is a part of the reason so many women are murdered by their (ex) partners. Thus sayeth a gay that will never father a child. You are disqualified from even holding an opinion, nevermind stating it. Maria, since you are new here then you would of missed my posts on threads about my three children.  When longweekend get's back, he can verify this for me. And your opinion that not having children disqualifying a right to expressing an opinion here ... sorry you're only a pleb, not a dictator.

You don't have children. You would be every child's nightmare plus it involves something you dont like - women.

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 7:43pm:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:53pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:50pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:45pm: A foetus is not a human You sound like Goebbels reincarnated?  :( In your mind, anyone who opposed your demands to control women, would sound like Goebbels. ....no....Goebbels dehumanised Jews, Eastern Europeans, etc with propaganda so that the Nazis could murder them under the noses of the public Pro-abortion protagonists like yourself dehumanise foetuses with propaganda so that doctors can murder them under the nose of the public.... :(

You are blind to one fact. I am not pro abortion, I am pro to removing abortion from the law book and then people this directly effect can choose their own choices without me influencing.

Now I repeat a point I made previously and you ignored.
The anti women's choice mobsters like you are part of the problem that cause the high rates of domestic violence and so the mass murder of women occurring in Australia. Care to comment on your complicity.

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 7:53pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:43pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:53pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:50pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:45pm: A foetus is not a human You sound like Goebbels reincarnated?  :( In your mind, anyone who opposed your demands to control women, would sound like Goebbels. ....no....Goebbels dehumanised Jews, Eastern Europeans, etc with propaganda so that the Nazis could murder them under the noses of the public Pro-abortion protagonists like yourself dehumanise foetuses with propaganda so that doctors can murder them under the nose of the public.... :(  You are blind to one fact. I am not pro abortion, I am pro to removing abortion from the law book and then people this directly effect can choose their own choices without me influencing. Now I repeat a point I made previously and you ignored. The anti women's choice mobsters like you are part of the problem that cause the high rates of domestic violence and so the mass murder of women occurring in Australia. Care to comment on your complicity.

Abortion is murder. It kills a child. I am not going to go into endless definitions of life that are determined solely by how you view this question rather than objectively. If a child can be born at 22 weeks gestation and live then how can a child of 25 weeks be aborted and it NOT be murder.

I don't get my position from The Church. I get it from the morals I was taught and understand to be true.

mariacostel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 7:48pm:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:43pm: mariacostel wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 6:59pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:45pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 1:29pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 12:08pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:32am: ____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. There are many who oppose same sex marriage, but you don't hear anyone calling for it to be a crime. Grow up, grub. You miss the point completely. Those that oppose abortion for moral reasons can remain on their perches, looking down on everyone, wagging their fingers ... no one is asking for these people to shift. What is required is removal of abortion as a criminal crime, that very easily could be used to jail women who has an abortion. Barnaby was asked about removal of this law and he ran for the hills and refused to say why. Murder is already a "criminal crime" Abortion is 'murder'. (infanticide)  :( That is your moral decision. A foetus is not a human as a fertilised egg is not a chicken. Wag your moral finger all you like ... removing abortion from the crime law book should be a federal election issue. This abuse of a women's right over her body by men is a part of the reason so many women are murdered by their (ex) partners. Thus sayeth a gay that will never father a child. You are disqualified from even holding an opinion, nevermind stating it. Maria, since you are new here then you would of missed my posts on threads about my three children.  When longweekend get's back, he can verify this for me. And your opinion that not having children disqualifying a right to expressing an opinion here ... sorry you're only a pleb, not a dictator. You don't have children. You would be every child's nightmare plus it involves something you dont like - women.

Maria, will explain this once to you and when longweekend returns, he can back me up, since long and I have discussed this a few times ... alcohol and a turkey baster dare ... with three different women.  100% hit rate ... hows that for virile !

And no, not looking for a fourth, so don't ask sweetie.

mariacostel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 7:47pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:20pm: I am torn on this issue because it is far from black and white....I wish abortion was never necessary but that is not the issue!!! If a woman is raped and falls pregnant (some conservative nut jobs contest woman cannot conceive from rape) then I can understand wanting to terminate the pregnancy!!! If there is a health issue with the mother or foetus that could result in either being harmed I can understand wanting to terminate the pregnancy!!! I also believe woman have the right to choose and must live with the consequences of their decision which would not be easy!!! I also believe religion should be taken out of the debate as it is irrelevant what any religious denomination believes concerning laws and policies....Unless of course you are prepared to accept Muslims have a right to implement Sharia Law on those who chose to follow Islam...Separation of Church and State cannot be selective!!! In the end it is the woman who must live with the decisions they make and therefor should be free to make that choice without fear of penalty!!! :-? :-? :-? It is interesting that you use the word 'live'. Apparently you are unaware what an abortion is. It certainly is not LIFE.

Context Maria....If that is the best rebuttal you have why did you bother....Quite a silly argument to make when you support the death penalty!!!

:-? :-? :-?

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 7:53pm:

Now I repeat a point I made previously and you ignored. The anti women's choice mobsters like you are part of the problem that cause the high rates of domestic violence and so the mass murder of women occurring in Australia. Care to comment on your complicity.

I only against the females that willingly murder their own children and the 'executioners' that perform the act?

And I'm not against choice at all.  See Reply#22


Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:37pm:

No, reproduction is entirely up to the female.

mariacostel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 7:57pm:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:53pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:43pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:53pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:50pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:45pm: A foetus is not a human You sound like Goebbels reincarnated?  :( In your mind, anyone who opposed your demands to control women, would sound like Goebbels. ....no....Goebbels dehumanised Jews, Eastern Europeans, etc with propaganda so that the Nazis could murder them under the noses of the public Pro-abortion protagonists like yourself dehumanise foetuses with propaganda so that doctors can murder them under the nose of the public.... :(  You are blind to one fact. I am not pro abortion, I am pro to removing abortion from the law book and then people this directly effect can choose their own choices without me influencing. Now I repeat a point I made previously and you ignored. The anti women's choice mobsters like you are part of the problem that cause the high rates of domestic violence and so the mass murder of women occurring in Australia. Care to comment on your complicity. Abortion is murder. It kills a child. I am not going to go into endless definitions of life that are determined solely by how you view this question rather than objectively. If a child can be born at 22 weeks gestation and live then how can a child of 25 weeks be aborted and it NOT be murder. I don't get my position from The Church. I get it from the morals I was taught and understand to be true.

An egg can never be a chicken and a chicken can never be an egg.

A foetus is not a human and that why the human population clock, counting humans, ...currently around 7,370,350,000 ... not one of them are a foetus.

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:04pm:

An egg can never be a chicken

....you didn't do too well at biology I assume  ;D

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:04pm:

counting humans, ...currently around 7,370,350,000 ... not one of them are a foetus.

...they are all foetuses

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:12pm:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:04pm: An egg can never be a chicken ....you didn't do too well at biology I assume  ;D

If a person get's out of a car, that person was never 'the car'.

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:14pm:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:04pm: counting humans, ...currently around 7,370,350,000 ... not one of them are a foetus. ...they are all foetuses

You are a foetus?

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:02pm:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:53pm: Now I repeat a point I made previously and you ignored. The anti women's choice mobsters like you are part of the problem that cause the high rates of domestic violence and so the mass murder of women occurring in Australia. Care to comment on your complicity. I only against the females that willingly murder their own children and the 'executioners' that perform the act? And I'm not against choice at all.  See Reply#22 Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:37pm:   No, reproduction is entirely up to the female.

This is not about reproduction. It's about men stepping back. Women control their own bodies.
By opposing this, you are a proponent of domestic violence ... which kill women in huge numbers.

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:16pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:14pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:04pm: counting humans, ...currently around 7,370,350,000 ... not one of them are a foetus. ...they are all foetuses You are a foetus?

.....a mature one yes, aren't you?   

mariacostel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 7:39pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:20pm: I am torn on this issue because it is far from black and white....I wish abortion was never necessary but that is not the issue!!! If a woman is raped and falls pregnant (some conservative nut jobs contest woman cannot conceive from rape) then I can understand wanting to terminate the pregnancy!!! If there is a health issue with the mother or foetus that could result in either being harmed I can understand wanting to terminate the pregnancy!!! I also believe woman have the right to choose and must live with the consequences of their decision which would not be easy!!! I also believe religion should be taken out of the debate as it is irrelevant what any religious denomination believes concerning laws and policies....Unless of course you are prepared to accept Muslims have a right to implement Sharia Law on those who chose to follow Islam...Separation of Church and State cannot be selective!!! In the end it is the woman who must live with the decisions they make and therefor should be free to make that choice without fear of penalty!!! :-? :-? :-? oh really? Thats a new one. Make that up as well as so much else you state?

I admit I have been wrong before and probably will be again....Perhaps you should read more and educate yourself a bit Maria!!!

[smiley=lolk.gif] [smiley=lolk.gif] [smiley=lolk.gif]

http://mic.com/articles/48691/the-7-most-outrageous-gop-explanations-for-why-rape-victims-can-t-get-pregnant

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/a-canard-that-will-not-die-legitimate-rape-doesnt-cause-pregnancy/261303/

http://theweek.com/articles/472972/rape-cant-cause-pregnancy-brief-history-todd-akins-bogus-theory

There are many more examples if you choose to look....A simple sorry will do Maria!!!

:) :) :)

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:23pm:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:16pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:14pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:04pm: counting humans, ...currently around 7,370,350,000 ... not one of them are a foetus. ...they are all foetuses You are a foetus? .....a mature one yes, aren't you?

I am a human being, not a foetus being.

The afterbirth of the birth process ... are you that also?

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:22pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:02pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:53pm: Now I repeat a point I made previously and you ignored. The anti women's choice mobsters like you are part of the problem that cause the high rates of domestic violence and so the mass murder of women occurring in Australia. Care to comment on your complicity. I only against the females that willingly murder their own children and the 'executioners' that perform the act? And I'm not against choice at all.  See Reply#22 Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:37pm:   No, reproduction is entirely up to the female.  This is not about reproduction. It's about men stepping back. Women control their own bodies. By opposing this, you are a proponent of domestic violence ... which kill women in huge numbers.

No, it's about someone defending the inalienable human right of the unborn child to its life.

Society protects children up till 18 years because they are apparently unable to look after themselves properly.  Likewise a foetus is even more helpless.  Society should protect them.

Particularly these days, a female can choose whether to conceive or not.  That is totally her choice (unless raped)? 

Once conception occurs, another human's choice to live has to enter the equation.  The brand new human has the same right to life as anyone else.

What about incest, forced marriage, mental incapacity, health concerns or any other myriad of problems that cannot be foreseen....Once the woman's right to choose is taken away who makes the decision to keep the child???

:-? :-? :-?

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:38pm:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:22pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:02pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:53pm: Now I repeat a point I made previously and you ignored. The anti women's choice mobsters like you are part of the problem that cause the high rates of domestic violence and so the mass murder of women occurring in Australia. Care to comment on your complicity. I only against the females that willingly murder their own children and the 'executioners' that perform the act? And I'm not against choice at all.  See Reply#22 Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 5:37pm:   No, reproduction is entirely up to the female.  This is not about reproduction. It's about men stepping back. Women control their own bodies. By opposing this, you are a proponent of domestic violence ... which kill women in huge numbers. No, it's about someone defending the inalienable human right of the unborn child to its life. Society protects children up till 18 years because they are apparently unable to look after themselves properly.  Likewise a foetus is even more helpless.  Society should protect them. Particularly these days, a female can choose whether to conceive or not.  That is totally her choice (unless raped)?  Once conception occurs, another human's choice to live has to enter the equation.  The brand new human has the same right to life as anyone else.

Your arrogant position of controlling another human's bodies, women, is complicit with the perpetrators of domestic violence. They too think they have rights over their ex/partner's body.

If you want to protect children, then how about defending the children being raped in Australia's offshore and onshore gulags.
And if you want to take pressure off and so assist in abortions decreasing, go out and foster some children dumped into institutions because there is no one interested in fostering or adoption them.

Walk the walk. Stop dictating what others should do and be an agent for change.

www.ozchild.org.au/foster-care/

____ wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:30pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:23pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:16pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:14pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:04pm: counting humans, ...currently around 7,370,350,000 ... not one of them are a foetus. ...they are all foetuses You are a foetus? .....a mature one yes, aren't you?    I am a human being, not a foetus being. The afterbirth of the birth process ... are you that also?

You were a human baby and before that a human foetus and now a human adult, but still a human.

Your attitude is a perfect example of the propaganda of the pro-abortionists.  They try to dehumanise a human foetus to hoodwink the public into thinking that it is somehow not a crime to kill it.  :(

That's the same tactic the Nazis used to hide their genocide.

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:46pm:

What about incest, forced marriage, mental incapacity, health concerns or any other myriad of problems that cannot be foreseen....Once the woman's right to choose is taken away who makes the decision to keep the child??? :-? :-? :-?

The usual argument. Extreme cases.  What would be the percentage of abortions where all these apply I wonder?

In any case, even when rape has been perpetrated, the foetus is not the guilty party there, so why should they be executed?

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:49pm:

____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:30pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:23pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:16pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:14pm: ____ wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:04pm: counting humans, ...currently around 7,370,350,000 ... not one of them are a foetus. ...they are all foetuses You are a foetus? .....a mature one yes, aren't you?    I am a human being, not a foetus being. The afterbirth of the birth process ... are you that also? You were a human baby and before that a human foetus and now a human adult, but still a human. Your attitude is a perfect example of the propaganda of the pro-abortionists.  They try to dehumanise a human foetus to hoodwink the public into thinking that it is somehow not a crime to kill it.  :( That's the same tactic the Nazis used to hide their genocide.

You have just demonised millions of woman who have had abortions Swag, with no regard to their struggle or reasons for making one of the hardest decisions a woman might have to make....I thought you where better than that!!!


Quote:

Godwin’s Law is an internet adage that is derived from one of the earliest bits of Usenet wisdoms, which goes “if you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion thread, you’ve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in.”

:-? :-? :-?

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:46pm: What about incest, forced marriage, mental incapacity, health concerns or any other myriad of problems that cannot be foreseen....Once the woman's right to choose is taken away who makes the decision to keep the child??? :-? :-? :-? The usual argument. Extreme cases.  What would be the percentage of abortions where all these apply I wonder? In any case, even when rape has been perpetrated, the foetus is not the guilty party there, so why should they be executed?

I am glad I do not have to make that choice Swag....Who should???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:59pm:

You have just demonised millions of woman who have had abortions Swag, with no regard to their struggle or reasons for making one of the hardest decisions a woman might have to make....I thought you where better than that!!!

There's millions of dead babies in that equation too that never got the opportunity to draw a breath or make a choice. I thought you were better than that!!!

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 10:11pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:59pm: You have just demonised millions of woman who have had abortions Swag, with no regard to their struggle or reasons for making one of the hardest decisions a woman might have to make....I thought you where better than that!!! There's millions of dead babies in that equation too that never got the opportunity to draw a breath or make a choice. I thought you were better than that!!!

I never compared millions of woman to Nazis Swag....That would be you!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 10:45pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:59pm: You have just demonised millions of woman who have had abortions Swag, with no regard to their struggle or reasons for making one of the hardest decisions a woman might have to make....I thought you where better than that!!! There's millions of dead babies in that equation too that never got the opportunity to draw a breath or make a choice. I thought you were better than that!!! I never compared millions of woman to Nazis Swag....That would be you!!! ::) ::) ::)

Do you agree with Greens_win that a foetus is not a human? 

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:45pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:59pm: You have just demonised millions of woman who have had abortions Swag, with no regard to their struggle or reasons for making one of the hardest decisions a woman might have to make....I thought you where better than that!!! There's millions of dead babies in that equation too that never got the opportunity to draw a breath or make a choice. I thought you were better than that!!! I never compared millions of woman to Nazis Swag....That would be you!!! ::) ::) ::) Do you agree with Greens_win that a foetus is not a human?

I believe all life is sacred and abortions should only be allowed once the woman has been counselled and given all relevant information about alternatives and consequences....However the choice should still remain with the woman who must live with the decision....At what point a sperm and egg become a human is something I am not qualified to determine but life is not recognised until the first breath is taken I would have thought....Education about contraception and reproduction should be mandatory for all high school students IMO!!!

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 11:08pm:

I believe all life is sacred

Well Phil I don't have that belief.  I'm actually pro voluntary euthanasia and capital punishment as there are some evil buggers out there that should just be put against a wall and blown away for their crimes.

You mention a woman's "choice".  The freedom for an individual to choose is indeed important.  That freedom should not be impinged upon, unless that individual choice impacts detrimentally (or in the case of abortion, lethally) on another individual.  A foetus is undoubtedly a human and an individual.

There may be exceptional cases where abortion can be justifiable homicide  such as self preservation, defense etc.

Individuals can 'choose' whether to end their life which is voluntary euthanasia

Criminals that commit capital crimes 'choose' to commit those capital crimes.

Woman can choose whether to or not to get pregnant.

But when it comes to babies, kids, teens, old people, insane people society protects them because society deems that as individuals they don't have the capacity to 'choose' for themselves.

I believe that life begins at conception.  You don't need a qualification to figure that out.  Take away the conception and there is no foetus, no baby, no child, teen or adult human.  Society should protect the life so it can live and make its own choices.

Once conception has occurred and abortion is sought, there are 2 choices to contend with,  and life should overrule lifestyle.

That is my view.  :(

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:00pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:47pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:20pm: I am torn on this issue because it is far from black and white....I wish abortion was never necessary but that is not the issue!!! If a woman is raped and falls pregnant (some conservative nut jobs contest woman cannot conceive from rape) then I can understand wanting to terminate the pregnancy!!! If there is a health issue with the mother or foetus that could result in either being harmed I can understand wanting to terminate the pregnancy!!! I also believe woman have the right to choose and must live with the consequences of their decision which would not be easy!!! I also believe religion should be taken out of the debate as it is irrelevant what any religious denomination believes concerning laws and policies....Unless of course you are prepared to accept Muslims have a right to implement Sharia Law on those who chose to follow Islam...Separation of Church and State cannot be selective!!! In the end it is the woman who must live with the decisions they make and therefor should be free to make that choice without fear of penalty!!! :-? :-? :-? It is interesting that you use the word 'live'. Apparently you are unaware what an abortion is. It certainly is not LIFE. Context Maria....If that is the best rebuttal you have why did you bother....Quite a silly argument to make when you support the death penalty!!! :-? :-? :-?

I oppose the death penalty and always have just as I oppose abortion and always will. At least quote me correctly!

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 11:08pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:53pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:45pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:59pm: You have just demonised millions of woman who have had abortions Swag, with no regard to their struggle or reasons for making one of the hardest decisions a woman might have to make....I thought you where better than that!!! There's millions of dead babies in that equation too that never got the opportunity to draw a breath or make a choice. I thought you were better than that!!! I never compared millions of woman to Nazis Swag....That would be you!!! ::) ::) ::) Do you agree with Greens_win that a foetus is not a human?  I believe all life is sacred and abortions should only be allowed once the woman has been counselled and given all relevant information about alternatives and consequences....However the choice should still remain with the woman who must live with the decision....At what point a sperm and egg become a human is something I am not qualified to determine but life is not recognised until the first breath is taken I would have thought....Education about contraception and reproduction should be mandatory for all high school students IMO!!! :-? :-? :-?

Then you would be wrong. If you shoot a pregnant woman and the fetus dies then you will be charged with murder of an unborn child.

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 10:45pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:59pm: You have just demonised millions of woman who have had abortions Swag, with no regard to their struggle or reasons for making one of the hardest decisions a woman might have to make....I thought you where better than that!!! There's millions of dead babies in that equation too that never got the opportunity to draw a breath or make a choice. I thought you were better than that!!! I never compared millions of woman to Nazis Swag....That would be you!!! ::) ::) ::)

Millions of women were Nazis.

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 11:08pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:53pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:45pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:59pm: You have just demonised millions of woman who have had abortions Swag, with no regard to their struggle or reasons for making one of the hardest decisions a woman might have to make....I thought you where better than that!!! There's millions of dead babies in that equation too that never got the opportunity to draw a breath or make a choice. I thought you were better than that!!! I never compared millions of woman to Nazis Swag....That would be you!!! ::) ::) ::) Do you agree with Greens_win that a foetus is not a human?  I believe all life is sacred and abortions should only be allowed once the woman has been counselled and given all relevant information about alternatives and consequences....However the choice should still remain with the woman who must live with the decision....At what point a sperm and egg become a human is something I am not qualified to determine but life is not recognised until the first breath is taken I would have thought....Education about contraception and reproduction should be mandatory for all high school students IMO!!! :-? :-? :-?

In late term abortion there are cases where the foetus's life is viable outside the womb. In these cases the abortion process includes deliberately killing the foetus to ensure that it does not survive.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 11:08pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:53pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:45pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:59pm: You have just demonised millions of woman who have had abortions Swag, with no regard to their struggle or reasons for making one of the hardest decisions a woman might have to make....I thought you where better than that!!! There's millions of dead babies in that equation too that never got the opportunity to draw a breath or make a choice. I thought you were better than that!!! I never compared millions of woman to Nazis Swag....That would be you!!! ::) ::) ::) Do you agree with Greens_win that a foetus is not a human?  I believe all life is sacred and abortions should only be allowed once the woman has been counselled and given all relevant information about alternatives and consequences....However the choice should still remain with the woman who must live with the decision....At what point a sperm and egg become a human is something I am not qualified to determine but life is not recognised until the first breath is taken I would have thought....Education about contraception and reproduction should be mandatory for all high school students IMO!!! :-? :-? :-? In late term abortion there are cases where the foetus's life is viable outside the womb. In these cases the abortion process includes deliberately killing the foetus to ensure that it does not survive.

It is hard to stomach how anyone could do that or support it. Every abortion supporter should be forced to watch a late-term abortion - without a vomit bag.

Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land.

You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy.

____ wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 9:17am:

Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy.

No women in Australia should be jailed for committing a MURDER?

____ wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 9:17am:

Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy.

Do you remember what the guy on the panel said about the Victoria case and a need to be a bit careful of the consequences. I do basically agree by the way.

In my view this is a complex issue which is not as straight forward as a lot of people believe.

In my view there has to be a point where an unborn child has the right to not be killed.

mariacostel wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 9:25am:

____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:17am: Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy. No women in Australia should be jailed for committing a MURDER?

Most States in Australia have a statutory definition of murder, and in the absence of an explicit definition of murder, we can look to the common law to give guidance on what are the constitute parts to the offence.

Murder is a flexible state and can exclude some stages foetuses.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 9:26am:

____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:17am: Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy. Do you remember what the guy on the panel said about the Victoria case and a need to be a bit careful of the consequences. I do basically agree by the way. In my view this is a complex issue which is not as straight forward as a lot of people believe. In my view there has to be a point where an unborn child has the right to not be killed.

I agree ... unless the mother's life is in risk at the later stage of pregnancy.

____ wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 9:39am:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:25am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:17am: Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy. No women in Australia should be jailed for committing a MURDER? Most States in Australia have a statutory definition of murder, and in the absence of an explicit definition of murder, we can look to the common law to give guidance on what are the constitute parts to the offence. Murder is a flexible state and can exclude some stages foetuses.

this is ungodly and satanic teachings

to mutilate and harvest humans for corporate gain look here ,

haggling over prices

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2xi9mhmuohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCs_gvImyw

whoa be unto you of dark and satanic intent

exposed

namaste

The topic of abortion sure brings out the religious nutcases!

it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 9:43am:

____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:39am: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:25am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:17am: Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy. No women in Australia should be jailed for committing a MURDER? Most States in Australia have a statutory definition of murder, and in the absence of an explicit definition of murder, we can look to the common law to give guidance on what are the constitute parts to the offence. Murder is a flexible state and can exclude some stages foetuses. this is ungodly and satanic teachings to mutilate and harvest humans for corporate gain look here , haggling over prices https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2xi9mhmuohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCs_gvImyw whoa be unto you of dark and satanic intent exposed namaste

Yet we all accept the so called 'ungogly' treatment of humans from the moment we are born until the moment we die.

If anti choicers are so worried about ending abortion, how about a joint attack on the issue ... stand up against the abuse of all humans. By ending this, you will also succeed in ending abortions.

The other angle I don't understand from the religious anti choicers ... these foetuses go to god ... how is this a bad outcome?

Dnarever wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 9:26am:

____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:17am: Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy. Do you remember what the guy on the panel said about the Victoria case and a need to be a bit careful of the consequences. I do basically agree by the way. In my view this is a complex issue which is not as straight forward as a lot of people believe. In my view there has to be a point where an unborn child has the right to not be killed.

Ironically, the viewpoint of the pro-choice crowd is that the child NEVER has that right even up to minutes before birth. Such a position clearly comes from ideology rather than anything even remotely scientific, never mind moral. I've even heard otherwise intelligent people claim that there is no life until they take their first breath.

We could argue about WHEN life begins, but instead what you will find out is that pro-choice people don't care about that issue at all. Its all about the right to not be inconvenienced right up until 2 minutes before birth and then two minutes AFTER birth scream bloody murder if someone touches the child. We can cut up a fetus into peices while still moving in-utero, but the day after birth if you took a photo of the naked (and living) child they would want you arrested.

There are days when people simply disgust me and I despair for a society that proclaims the absolute rights of the child but will mercilessly kill them in-utero all in the name of 'rights'.

mariacostel wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 11:33am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:26am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:17am: Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy. Do you remember what the guy on the panel said about the Victoria case and a need to be a bit careful of the consequences. I do basically agree by the way. In my view this is a complex issue which is not as straight forward as a lot of people believe. In my view there has to be a point where an unborn child has the right to not be killed. Ironically, the viewpoint of the pro-choice crowd is that the child NEVER has that right even up to minutes before birth. Such a position clearly comes from ideology rather than anything even remotely scientific, never mind moral. I've even heard otherwise intelligent people claim that there is no life until they take their first breath. We could argue about WHEN life begins, but instead what you will find out is that pro-choice people don't care about that issue at all. Its all about the right to not be inconvenienced right up until 2 minutes before birth and then two minutes AFTER birth scream bloody murder if someone touches the child. We can cut up a fetus into peices while still moving in-utero, but the day after birth if you took a photo of the naked (and living) child they would want you arrested. There are days when people simply disgust me and I despair for a society that proclaims the absolute rights of the child but will mercilessly kill them in-utero all in the name of 'rights'.

As a pro-choicer, that seems to be a misrepresentation of my position.

Using abortion as a form of contraception should be a crime.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 11:44am:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:26am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:17am: Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy. Do you remember what the guy on the panel said about the Victoria case and a need to be a bit careful of the consequences. I do basically agree by the way. In my view this is a complex issue which is not as straight forward as a lot of people believe. In my view there has to be a point where an unborn child has the right to not be killed. Ironically, the viewpoint of the pro-choice crowd is that the child NEVER has that right even up to minutes before birth. Such a position clearly comes from ideology rather than anything even remotely scientific, never mind moral. I've even heard otherwise intelligent people claim that there is no life until they take their first breath. We could argue about WHEN life begins, but instead what you will find out is that pro-choice people don't care about that issue at all. Its all about the right to not be inconvenienced right up until 2 minutes before birth and then two minutes AFTER birth scream bloody murder if someone touches the child. We can cut up a fetus into peices while still moving in-utero, but the day after birth if you took a photo of the naked (and living) child they would want you arrested. There are days when people simply disgust me and I despair for a society that proclaims the absolute rights of the child but will mercilessly kill them in-utero all in the name of 'rights'. As a pro-choicer, that seems to be a misrepresentation of my position.

And as a statement of you actual position that was a nul argument.

mariacostel wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 3:28pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:44am: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:26am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:17am: Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy. Do you remember what the guy on the panel said about the Victoria case and a need to be a bit careful of the consequences. I do basically agree by the way. In my view this is a complex issue which is not as straight forward as a lot of people believe. In my view there has to be a point where an unborn child has the right to not be killed. Ironically, the viewpoint of the pro-choice crowd is that the child NEVER has that right even up to minutes before birth. Such a position clearly comes from ideology rather than anything even remotely scientific, never mind moral. I've even heard otherwise intelligent people claim that there is no life until they take their first breath. We could argue about WHEN life begins, but instead what you will find out is that pro-choice people don't care about that issue at all. Its all about the right to not be inconvenienced right up until 2 minutes before birth and then two minutes AFTER birth scream bloody murder if someone touches the child. We can cut up a fetus into peices while still moving in-utero, but the day after birth if you took a photo of the naked (and living) child they would want you arrested. There are days when people simply disgust me and I despair for a society that proclaims the absolute rights of the child but will mercilessly kill them in-utero all in the name of 'rights'. As a pro-choicer, that seems to be a misrepresentation of my position. And as a statement of you actual position that was a nul argument.

Why is it a null argument? You are assigning thoughts and intentions to pro-choicers. You are making the claim that this is how we think.

This is being contested by a pro-choicer. It is also contested by me.

The onus is on you to back up your claim. You cannot of course, being it is facile to demand that you know what another thinks, when that other is telling you it is not so.

If you were so certain of your position, you would not need to make up arguments.

mothra wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 3:53pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 3:28pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:44am: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:26am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:17am: Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy. Do you remember what the guy on the panel said about the Victoria case and a need to be a bit careful of the consequences. I do basically agree by the way. In my view this is a complex issue which is not as straight forward as a lot of people believe. In my view there has to be a point where an unborn child has the right to not be killed. Ironically, the viewpoint of the pro-choice crowd is that the child NEVER has that right even up to minutes before birth. Such a position clearly comes from ideology rather than anything even remotely scientific, never mind moral. I've even heard otherwise intelligent people claim that there is no life until they take their first breath. We could argue about WHEN life begins, but instead what you will find out is that pro-choice people don't care about that issue at all. Its all about the right to not be inconvenienced right up until 2 minutes before birth and then two minutes AFTER birth scream bloody murder if someone touches the child. We can cut up a fetus into peices while still moving in-utero, but the day after birth if you took a photo of the naked (and living) child they would want you arrested. There are days when people simply disgust me and I despair for a society that proclaims the absolute rights of the child but will mercilessly kill them in-utero all in the name of 'rights'. As a pro-choicer, that seems to be a misrepresentation of my position. And as a statement of you actual position that was a nul argument. Why is it a null argument? You are assigning thoughts and intentions to pro-choicers. You are making the claim that this is how we think. This is being contested by a pro-choicer. It is also contested by me. The onus is on you to back up your claim. You cannot of course, being it is facile to demand that you know what another thinks, when that other is telling you it is not so. If you were so certain of your position, you would not need to make up arguments.

INdeed, its the pooling together of all pro-choicers into the same category of pro-choice ( such as the statement about all pro-choicers seeming comfortable with late-term abortions, something which I'm not comfortable with)

mothra wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 3:53pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 3:28pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:44am: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:26am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:17am: Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy. Do you remember what the guy on the panel said about the Victoria case and a need to be a bit careful of the consequences. I do basically agree by the way. In my view this is a complex issue which is not as straight forward as a lot of people believe. In my view there has to be a point where an unborn child has the right to not be killed. Ironically, the viewpoint of the pro-choice crowd is that the child NEVER has that right even up to minutes before birth. Such a position clearly comes from ideology rather than anything even remotely scientific, never mind moral. I've even heard otherwise intelligent people claim that there is no life until they take their first breath. We could argue about WHEN life begins, but instead what you will find out is that pro-choice people don't care about that issue at all. Its all about the right to not be inconvenienced right up until 2 minutes before birth and then two minutes AFTER birth scream bloody murder if someone touches the child. We can cut up a fetus into peices while still moving in-utero, but the day after birth if you took a photo of the naked (and living) child they would want you arrested. There are days when people simply disgust me and I despair for a society that proclaims the absolute rights of the child but will mercilessly kill them in-utero all in the name of 'rights'. As a pro-choicer, that seems to be a misrepresentation of my position. And as a statement of you actual position that was a nul argument. Why is it a null argument? You are assigning thoughts and intentions to pro-choicers. You are making the claim that this is how we think. This is being contested by a pro-choicer. It is also contested by me. The onus is on you to back up your claim. You cannot of course, being it is facile to demand that you know what another thinks, when that other is telling you it is not so. If you were so certain of your position, you would not need to make up arguments.

If you want to contest my statement then come up with your actual position. Simply saying it isnt your position and nothing else is worthless - and suspicious.

mariacostel wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 4:33pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 3:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 3:28pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:44am: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:26am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:17am: Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy. Do you remember what the guy on the panel said about the Victoria case and a need to be a bit careful of the consequences. I do basically agree by the way. In my view this is a complex issue which is not as straight forward as a lot of people believe. In my view there has to be a point where an unborn child has the right to not be killed. Ironically, the viewpoint of the pro-choice crowd is that the child NEVER has that right even up to minutes before birth. Such a position clearly comes from ideology rather than anything even remotely scientific, never mind moral. I've even heard otherwise intelligent people claim that there is no life until they take their first breath. We could argue about WHEN life begins, but instead what you will find out is that pro-choice people don't care about that issue at all. Its all about the right to not be inconvenienced right up until 2 minutes before birth and then two minutes AFTER birth scream bloody murder if someone touches the child. We can cut up a fetus into peices while still moving in-utero, but the day after birth if you took a photo of the naked (and living) child they would want you arrested. There are days when people simply disgust me and I despair for a society that proclaims the absolute rights of the child but will mercilessly kill them in-utero all in the name of 'rights'. As a pro-choicer, that seems to be a misrepresentation of my position. And as a statement of you actual position that was a nul argument. Why is it a null argument? You are assigning thoughts and intentions to pro-choicers. You are making the claim that this is how we think. This is being contested by a pro-choicer. It is also contested by me. The onus is on you to back up your claim. You cannot of course, being it is facile to demand that you know what another thinks, when that other is telling you it is not so. If you were so certain of your position, you would not need to make up arguments. If you want to contest my statement then come up with your actual position. Simply saying it isnt your position and nothing else is worthless - and suspicious.

Why should i jump through you hoop?

You're telling me what i think, i'm telling you that is not what i think. I'm under no expectation to expand just because you have ascribed erroneous ideologies to me.

mothra wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 4:35pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 4:33pm: mothra wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 3:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 3:28pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:44am: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:26am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:17am: Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy. Do you remember what the guy on the panel said about the Victoria case and a need to be a bit careful of the consequences. I do basically agree by the way. In my view this is a complex issue which is not as straight forward as a lot of people believe. In my view there has to be a point where an unborn child has the right to not be killed. Ironically, the viewpoint of the pro-choice crowd is that the child NEVER has that right even up to minutes before birth. Such a position clearly comes from ideology rather than anything even remotely scientific, never mind moral. I've even heard otherwise intelligent people claim that there is no life until they take their first breath. We could argue about WHEN life begins, but instead what you will find out is that pro-choice people don't care about that issue at all. Its all about the right to not be inconvenienced right up until 2 minutes before birth and then two minutes AFTER birth scream bloody murder if someone touches the child. We can cut up a fetus into peices while still moving in-utero, but the day after birth if you took a photo of the naked (and living) child they would want you arrested. There are days when people simply disgust me and I despair for a society that proclaims the absolute rights of the child but will mercilessly kill them in-utero all in the name of 'rights'. As a pro-choicer, that seems to be a misrepresentation of my position. And as a statement of you actual position that was a nul argument. Why is it a null argument? You are assigning thoughts and intentions to pro-choicers. You are making the claim that this is how we think. This is being contested by a pro-choicer. It is also contested by me. The onus is on you to back up your claim. You cannot of course, being it is facile to demand that you know what another thinks, when that other is telling you it is not so. If you were so certain of your position, you would not need to make up arguments. If you want to contest my statement then come up with your actual position. Simply saying it isnt your position and nothing else is worthless - and suspicious. Why should i jump through you hoop? You're telling me what i think, i'm telling you that is not what i think. I'm under no expectation to expand just because you have ascribed erroneous ideologies to me.

Then my position on Pro-Choicers remains unchallenged - largely because I am correct otherwise someone as obnoxious as you would say something.

mariacostel wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 4:35pm: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 4:33pm: mothra wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 3:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 3:28pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:44am: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:26am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:17am: Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy. Do you remember what the guy on the panel said about the Victoria case and a need to be a bit careful of the consequences. I do basically agree by the way. In my view this is a complex issue which is not as straight forward as a lot of people believe. In my view there has to be a point where an unborn child has the right to not be killed. Ironically, the viewpoint of the pro-choice crowd is that the child NEVER has that right even up to minutes before birth. Such a position clearly comes from ideology rather than anything even remotely scientific, never mind moral. I've even heard otherwise intelligent people claim that there is no life until they take their first breath. We could argue about WHEN life begins, but instead what you will find out is that pro-choice people don't care about that issue at all. Its all about the right to not be inconvenienced right up until 2 minutes before birth and then two minutes AFTER birth scream bloody murder if someone touches the child. We can cut up a fetus into peices while still moving in-utero, but the day after birth if you took a photo of the naked (and living) child they would want you arrested. There are days when people simply disgust me and I despair for a society that proclaims the absolute rights of the child but will mercilessly kill them in-utero all in the name of 'rights'. As a pro-choicer, that seems to be a misrepresentation of my position. And as a statement of you actual position that was a nul argument. Why is it a null argument? You are assigning thoughts and intentions to pro-choicers. You are making the claim that this is how we think. This is being contested by a pro-choicer. It is also contested by me. The onus is on you to back up your claim. You cannot of course, being it is facile to demand that you know what another thinks, when that other is telling you it is not so. If you were so certain of your position, you would not need to make up arguments. If you want to contest my statement then come up with your actual position. Simply saying it isnt your position and nothing else is worthless - and suspicious. Why should i jump through you hoop? You're telling me what i think, i'm telling you that is not what i think. I'm under no expectation to expand just because you have ascribed erroneous ideologies to me. Then my position on Pro-Choicers remains unchallenged - largely because I am correct otherwise someone as obnoxious as you would say something.

I just said as a pro-choicer what I'm in favour of, no late-term abortions

mariacostel wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 4:35pm: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 4:33pm: mothra wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 3:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 3:28pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:44am: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:26am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:17am: Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy. Do you remember what the guy on the panel said about the Victoria case and a need to be a bit careful of the consequences. I do basically agree by the way. In my view this is a complex issue which is not as straight forward as a lot of people believe. In my view there has to be a point where an unborn child has the right to not be killed. Ironically, the viewpoint of the pro-choice crowd is that the child NEVER has that right even up to minutes before birth. Such a position clearly comes from ideology rather than anything even remotely scientific, never mind moral. I've even heard otherwise intelligent people claim that there is no life until they take their first breath. We could argue about WHEN life begins, but instead what you will find out is that pro-choice people don't care about that issue at all. Its all about the right to not be inconvenienced right up until 2 minutes before birth and then two minutes AFTER birth scream bloody murder if someone touches the child. We can cut up a fetus into peices while still moving in-utero, but the day after birth if you took a photo of the naked (and living) child they would want you arrested. There are days when people simply disgust me and I despair for a society that proclaims the absolute rights of the child but will mercilessly kill them in-utero all in the name of 'rights'. As a pro-choicer, that seems to be a misrepresentation of my position. And as a statement of you actual position that was a nul argument. Why is it a null argument? You are assigning thoughts and intentions to pro-choicers. You are making the claim that this is how we think. This is being contested by a pro-choicer. It is also contested by me. The onus is on you to back up your claim. You cannot of course, being it is facile to demand that you know what another thinks, when that other is telling you it is not so. If you were so certain of your position, you would not need to make up arguments. If you want to contest my statement then come up with your actual position. Simply saying it isnt your position and nothing else is worthless - and suspicious. Why should i jump through you hoop? You're telling me what i think, i'm telling you that is not what i think. I'm under no expectation to expand just because you have ascribed erroneous ideologies to me. Then my position on Pro-Choicers remains unchallenged - largely because I am correct otherwise someone as obnoxious as you would say something.

You spoke of pro-choicer opinions on late term abortions. I said i disagreed.

Bojack said he disagreed.

Yet you want to keep fighting imaginary enemies. Genius.

mariacostel wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 7:55am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 11:08pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:53pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:45pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 10:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 8:59pm: You have just demonised millions of woman who have had abortions Swag, with no regard to their struggle or reasons for making one of the hardest decisions a woman might have to make....I thought you where better than that!!! There's millions of dead babies in that equation too that never got the opportunity to draw a breath or make a choice. I thought you were better than that!!! I never compared millions of woman to Nazis Swag....That would be you!!! ::) ::) ::) Do you agree with Greens_win that a foetus is not a human?  I believe all life is sacred and abortions should only be allowed once the woman has been counselled and given all relevant information about alternatives and consequences....However the choice should still remain with the woman who must live with the decision....At what point a sperm and egg become a human is something I am not qualified to determine but life is not recognised until the first breath is taken I would have thought....Education about contraception and reproduction should be mandatory for all high school students IMO!!! :-? :-? :-? Then you would be wrong. If you shoot a pregnant woman and the fetus dies then you will be charged with murder of an unborn child.

I did not state it as fact, only my own opinion and something I read....


Quote:

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen 2:7

:) :) :)

____ wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame.

For goodness sake get some experience in life.
Abortion in Australia is quite extreme.
Since it is not an issue that is on the agenda murder is committed. I always ask people if you would protect a new born from murder than why not protect a new born 5 minutes from birth or why not 10 minutes etc, etc

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 9:45am:

The topic of abortion sure brings out the religious nutcases!

So where do you stand ? Can I kill your  newborn ? Or can I wait a minute before its born and kill it ? Is 5 minutes enough ?

Our first child died at the age of 3 days after being taken off life-support.  The baby died from a chromozone balanced translocation.

[urlhttp://www.rarechromo.org/information/Other/Balanced%20translocations%20FTNP.pdf][/url]

This was because my wife was a carrier of this condition.

Our doctor advised us that any future pregnancy could  have 4 possible outcomes:
1. Perfectly healthy/normal baby
2. Early miscarriage
3. The child being healthy ... but a carrier
4. An uncompleted formed baby as in this case capable of life for a few hours or days.

The Doctor then explained that new breakthroughs now allowed for tests to be done on an unborn child to determine which of the 4 possibilities would result. And that it would be up to us (my wife really) to decide is she should have an abortion.

Barnaby (and a few uninformed gasbags here) believe that it would be a crime for her to have an abortion.

Just to put this further into perspective of some of the "exceptions" that the gasbags and Barnaby would allow:

1) I did not rape my wife.... the child is wanted.
2) going full term would not alter the outcome for the baby, nor would it put my wife's physical health at risk.  (Her mental health would surely be tested).

Even though the baby may only live for a few hours or days, do the pro-lifers (who believe in the sanctity of life, even if short) also believe that my wife would be a criminal to have an abortion - Barnaby does?   

Cliff48 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

Our first child died at the age of 3 days after being taken off life-support.  T

My deepest sympathies ...

Merlin wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:45am: The topic of abortion sure brings out the religious nutcases! So where do you stand ? Can I kill your  newborn ? Or can I wait a minute before its born and kill it ? Is 5 minutes enough ?

what a stupid comment

Cliff, my deepest sympathy too.

Merlin. Abortion is a choice for the mother.

Cliff, my deepest sympathy also.

Anything you and your wife decide is more than ok by me.

____ wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame.

Good on him, no need to murder, just keep your legs closed. Not too much to ask.

ordinaryguy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 10:29pm:

____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. Good on him, no need to murder, just keep your legs closed. Not too much to ask.

Is your judgement so black and white after reading Cliff's story Ordinary Guy?

ordinaryguy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 10:29pm:

____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. Good on him, no need to murder, just keep your legs closed. Not too much to ask.

OrdinaryGuy  .. please my post above and comment with a lil more intelligence than you did here.

[urlhttp://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1443442767/90#90][/url]

.

.

ordinaryguy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 11:22pm:

There are many pro lifers who have my view also so its not good to assume they are all against you mate.

Yet you still call it murder. How do you think the label 'murder' effects people like Cliff and his wife?

.

ordinaryguy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 11:26pm:

Bugger off mothra go troll someone else tonight , had enough of your nonsense the other night.

Can you answer the question OG?

mothra wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 11:24pm:

ordinaryguy wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:22pm: There are many pro lifers who have my view also so its not good to assume they are all against you mate. Yet you still call it murder. How do you think the label 'murder' effects people like Cliff and his wife?

Thank you Mothra.  Unlike Ordinaryguy you fully understand the point of my post.

Cliff48 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 11:34pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:24pm: ordinaryguy wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:22pm: There are many pro lifers who have my view also so its not good to assume they are all against you mate. Yet you still call it murder. How do you think the label 'murder' effects people like Cliff and his wife? Thank you Mothra.  Unlike Ordinaryguy you fully understand the point of my post.

Now worries Cliff. I don;t think anybody should stand in judgement over what is unquestionably a very, very difficult decision.

Clearly the story was bogus.

My response has been retracted.
Good one, you got me this time.
Won't happen again.

ordinaryguy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 11:42pm:

Clearly the story was bogus. My response has been retracted. Good one, you got me this time. Won't happen again.

Why on earth would you say that?

Secondly, why would you retract your empathic answer addressed to a scenario that exists simply because you no longer (for whatever bizarre reason) think the relater of the story is making it up?

This is not a unique story. You have empathy and reserve judgement in such circumstances .. or you do not.

You need to stop calling it murder though. That is entirely unhelpful.

Pfft on your bike troll.

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 12:13am:

Pfft on your bike troll.

You cannot answer? I will assume i have effectively corrected you then.

mariacostel wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 4:35pm: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 4:33pm: mothra wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 3:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 3:28pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:44am: mariacostel wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:26am: ____ wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 9:17am: Yet the issue is concerning removing abortion from the criminal law books across the land. You don't have to be pro abortion to agree with this. No women in Australia should be jailed for aborting a pregnancy. Do you remember what the guy on the panel said about the Victoria case and a need to be a bit careful of the consequences. I do basically agree by the way. In my view this is a complex issue which is not as straight forward as a lot of people believe. In my view there has to be a point where an unborn child has the right to not be killed. Ironically, the viewpoint of the pro-choice crowd is that the child NEVER has that right even up to minutes before birth. Such a position clearly comes from ideology rather than anything even remotely scientific, never mind moral. I've even heard otherwise intelligent people claim that there is no life until they take their first breath. We could argue about WHEN life begins, but instead what you will find out is that pro-choice people don't care about that issue at all. Its all about the right to not be inconvenienced right up until 2 minutes before birth and then two minutes AFTER birth scream bloody murder if someone touches the child. We can cut up a fetus into peices while still moving in-utero, but the day after birth if you took a photo of the naked (and living) child they would want you arrested. There are days when people simply disgust me and I despair for a society that proclaims the absolute rights of the child but will mercilessly kill them in-utero all in the name of 'rights'. As a pro-choicer, that seems to be a misrepresentation of my position. And as a statement of you actual position that was a nul argument. Why is it a null argument? You are assigning thoughts and intentions to pro-choicers. You are making the claim that this is how we think. This is being contested by a pro-choicer. It is also contested by me. The onus is on you to back up your claim. You cannot of course, being it is facile to demand that you know what another thinks, when that other is telling you it is not so. If you were so certain of your position, you would not need to make up arguments. If you want to contest my statement then come up with your actual position. Simply saying it isnt your position and nothing else is worthless - and suspicious. Why should i jump through you hoop? You're telling me what i think, i'm telling you that is not what i think. I'm under no expectation to expand just because you have ascribed erroneous ideologies to me. Then my position on Pro-Choicers remains unchallenged - largely because I am correct otherwise someone as obnoxious as you would say something.

Just ignore it maria it went on for hours the other night with peccary posting nonsense. It only trolls to get a reply.

ordinaryguy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 11:42pm:

Clearly the story was bogus. My response has been retracted. Good one, you got me this time. Won't happen again.

The story was NOT bogus. 
This all happened several years ago and my wife subsequently gave birth to a perfectly healthy baby girl - not even a carrier  :)

Some "good" did come from this.  My wife's siblings were tested for the problem, and they were all found to be carriers.  So they were now forewarned of the possibilities and didn't go thru the trauma of losing a baby after 3 days.

Ordinaryguy, if you truly retract your earlier response, perhaps you could also change where you voted in the poll  (its easy to change:)

Oh look cliff just happened to be around at 12.20am. ;D

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 12:22am:

Oh look cliff just happened to be around at 12.20am. ;D

It doesn't really matter whether you believe Cliff or not.

You answered that i his circumstances, you had empathy and no judgement.

My question to you is do you think it is helpful to label abortion murder when it is often used in similar circumstances?

You seem unwilling to reply.

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 12:22am:

Oh look cliff just happened to be around at 12.20am. ;D

AS you are Ordinaryguy.   Is there a reason that I shouldn't be?

Did you correct your position in the Poll?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 7:32am:

____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. There are many who oppose same sex marriage, but you don't hear anyone calling for it to be a crime. Grow up, grub.

There is no point, we have PC now for buggery/sodomy and every other flavor.

Buggery and sodomy are the same thing.

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 12:49am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 7:32am: ____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. There are many who oppose same sex marriage, but you don't hear anyone calling for it to be a crime. Grow up, grub. There is no point, we have PC now for buggery/sodomy and every other flavor.

Ordinaryguy likes the taste:)

(edited ... apologies to Pollie

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 9:35am:

**thread poll hijack** http://www.theteeparty.com/designs/400/eat_me_img1.gif

Yup

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 12:56am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 9:35am: **thread poll hijack** http://www.theteeparty.com/designs/400/eat_me_img1.gif Yup

NO Correction to your Poll opinion OG?

Cliff48 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:00am:

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:56am: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 9:35am: **thread poll hijack** http://www.theteeparty.com/designs/400/eat_me_img1.gif Yup NO Correction to your Poll opinion OG?

I think OG is conflicted. He's been asked a question he cannot answer without making himself look bad.

He's choosing to ignore it.

mothra wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:05am:

Cliff48 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:00am: ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:56am: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 9:35am: **thread poll hijack** http://www.theteeparty.com/designs/400/eat_me_img1.gif Yup NO Correction to your Poll opinion OG? I think OG is conflicted. He's been asked a question he cannot answer without making himself look bad. He's choosing to ignore it.

Can you show me a post where he made himself look good?

Cliff48 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:07am:

mothra wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:05am: Cliff48 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:00am: ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:56am: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 9:35am: **thread poll hijack** http://www.theteeparty.com/designs/400/eat_me_img1.gif Yup NO Correction to your Poll opinion OG? I think OG is conflicted. He's been asked a question he cannot answer without making himself look bad. He's choosing to ignore it. Can you show me a post where he made himself look good?

I got nothing.

Hang about, when he said he was filed with empathy for your story.

Mind you he still used the word "murderer" ... but he did show compassion, before mysteriously retracting it.

We can assume that he has some empathy for certain situations though so, that's something.

Keep chatting to yourself darl.

I am sure someone is thick enough here to believe you.

;D ;D ;D

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:09am:

Keep chatting to yourself darl. I am sure someone is thick enough here to believe you. ;D ;D ;D

Oh i seeee ... i'm Cliff now am i?

Hilarious.

Games aside, you have an answer to the question OG?

mothra wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:11am:

Games aside, you have an answer to the question OG?

and a Poll answer to correct

I don't do trolls sorry, you will have to start trolling someone else that takes your questions remotely serious.

Maybe you could terminate a couple babies last week in one post and say they had zacharies disease like you do.

mothra wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:10am:

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:09am: Keep chatting to yourself darl. I am sure someone is thick enough here to believe you. ;D ;D ;D Oh i seeee ... i'm Cliff now am i? Hilarious.

aaahhh thanks Mothra, I was a lil slow...  I didn't realise that was his implication, and was confused when he noted I posted at 12:20. 

Some idiots will use any excuse to avoid answering questions put to them.

2/10

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:15am:

I don't do trolls sorry, you will have to start trolling someone else that takes your questions remotely serious. Maybe you could terminate a couple babies last week in one post and say they had zacharies disease like you do.

*translate*

I don;t like having my arse handed to me. It makes me feel self-conscious and question myself.

Maybe if i'm asked questions that support the position i have already stated rather than ones that will contradict what i have already stated, i will answer them.

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:15am:

I don't do trolls sorry, you will have to start trolling someone else that takes your questions remotely serious. Maybe you could terminate a couple babies last week in one post and say they had zacharies disease like you do.

How am I a Troll?   I posted a true experience and you called me a liar and a murderer.  Who is the TROLL???

Cliff48 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:17am:

mothra wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:10am: ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:09am: Keep chatting to yourself darl. I am sure someone is thick enough here to believe you. ;D ;D ;D Oh i seeee ... i'm Cliff now am i? Hilarious. aaahhh thanks Mothra, I was a lil slow...  I didn't realise that was his implication, and was confused when he noted I posted at 12:20.  Some idiots will use any excuse to avoid answering questions put to them.

Yes Cliff. That is what he is implying.

See i gave him a wholloping in a thread the other night. He's still stinging.

Cliff48 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:19am:

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:15am: I don't do trolls sorry, you will have to start trolling someone else that takes your questions remotely serious. Maybe you could terminate a couple babies last week in one post and say they had zacharies disease like you do. How am I a Troll?   I posted a true experience and you called me a liar and a murderer.  Who is the TROLL???

He's the troll. And not a very good one at that.

mothra wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:20am:

Cliff48 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:17am: mothra wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:10am: ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:09am: Keep chatting to yourself darl. I am sure someone is thick enough here to believe you. ;D ;D ;D Oh i seeee ... i'm Cliff now am i? Hilarious. aaahhh thanks Mothra, I was a lil slow...  I didn't realise that was his implication, and was confused when he noted I posted at 12:20.  Some idiots will use any excuse to avoid answering questions put to them. Yes Cliff. That is what he is implying. See i gave him a wholloping in a thread the other night. He's still stinging.

I would like to say congratulations... but to give OG a wholloping aint that difficult  :)

Cliff48 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:23am:

mothra wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:20am: Cliff48 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:17am: mothra wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:10am: ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:09am: Keep chatting to yourself darl. I am sure someone is thick enough here to believe you. ;D ;D ;D Oh i seeee ... i'm Cliff now am i? Hilarious. aaahhh thanks Mothra, I was a lil slow...  I didn't realise that was his implication, and was confused when he noted I posted at 12:20.  Some idiots will use any excuse to avoid answering questions put to them. Yes Cliff. That is what he is implying. See i gave him a wholloping in a thread the other night. He's still stinging. I would like to say congratulations... but to give OG a wholloping aint that difficult  :)

Effortless.

As is plainly evidenced by this encounter.

mothra wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:20am:

Cliff48 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:17am: mothra wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:10am: ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:09am: Keep chatting to yourself darl. I am sure someone is thick enough here to believe you. ;D ;D ;D Oh i seeee ... i'm Cliff now am i? Hilarious. aaahhh thanks Mothra, I was a lil slow...  I didn't realise that was his implication, and was confused when he noted I posted at 12:20.  Some idiots will use any excuse to avoid answering questions put to them. Yes Cliff. That is what he is implying. See i gave him a wholloping in a thread the other night. He's still stinging.

Lol you still here chatting with yourself.

You and your only one trolley friend groggery the other night and even he was having a lend of you. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yah you doing so well walloping your own ass and stinging away :D :D :D

Ahhh what Riot you are.

Bring cliff back for some more laughs ;D ;D ;D

Can you answer the question OG?

Where's cliff here cliff....cliffffff ;D ;D ;D

ordinaryguy: Bring cliff back for some more laughs Grin Grin Grin

you are the joke here OG, no one could possibly take you seriously.

If you believe I am a sock, complain to the mods.  But you wont do that, because you will be shown to be wrong.. YET AGAIN!

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:15am:

I don't do trolls sorry, you will have to start trolling someone else that takes your questions remotely serious. Maybe you could terminate a couple babies last week in one post and say they had zacharies disease like you do.

Oh look 1.35am and cliff stays up to support mothra.

You're a riot. ;D ;D ;D

As entertaining as you are YAWN

G,Night Dumb Dumb happy chatting with yourself .....

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

No socks here. Just a guy who won't answer a question because it will incriminate his stated position.

Rather amusing really, how readily they come undone.

ordinaryguy wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 11:42pm:

My response has been retracted. Good one, you got me this time. Won't happen again.

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:37am:

Oh look 1.35am and cliff stays up to support mothra. You're a riot. ;D ;D ;D As entertaining as you are YAWN G,Night Dumb Dumb happy trolling..... ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

He used the same tactic the other night. Myself and another poster were disagreeing with him so we were 'supporting' one another.

He didn't answer any questions put to him then either.

Don;t know why he bother with an opinion forum if he can't handle opposite opinions.

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:37am:

Oh look 1.35am and cliff stays up to support mothra. You're a riot. ;D ;D ;D As entertaining as you are YAWN G,Night Dumb Dumb happy trolling..... ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

roflmao
Mothra doesnt need support against you.  you are just low hanging fruit.  and by LOW  I mean the LOWEST!

Cliff48 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:38am:

ordinaryguy wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 11:42pm: My response has been retracted. Good one, you got me this time. Won't happen again.

So you retract your empathic statement because you suspect it to be untrue?

Too bad. You are on record as stating there are some bona fide cases for abortion.

Now we are just dealing with the fact that you call abortion murder, despite acknowledging that there are bona fide cases for it and that label is highly unhelpful to people in that position.

I am right, of course but your understanding of your error and acceptance of it would be helpful OG.

mothra wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:39am:

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:37am: Oh look 1.35am and cliff stays up to support mothra. You're a riot. ;D ;D ;D As entertaining as you are YAWN G,Night Dumb Dumb happy trolling..... ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz He used the same tactic the other night. Myself and another poster were disagreeing with him so we were 'supporting' one another. He didn't answer any questions put to him then either. Don;t know why he bother with an opinion forum if he can't handle opposite opinions.

Opinion forums are great...  and having opinions questioned is very healthy.  With the right attitude, can learn a lot here...  I dont mean learn and accept other's opinions... just learn to question your own.  sadly OG has the mind of a 13 y.o that thinks he knows it all, and is not open to differing opinions or ideas.  His only defence is attack.  I am sure he loved TA :) 

Cliff48 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:45am:

mothra wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:39am: ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:37am: Oh look 1.35am and cliff stays up to support mothra. You're a riot. ;D ;D ;D As entertaining as you are YAWN G,Night Dumb Dumb happy trolling..... ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz He used the same tactic the other night. Myself and another poster were disagreeing with him so we were 'supporting' one another. He didn't answer any questions put to him then either. Don;t know why he bother with an opinion forum if he can't handle opposite opinions. Opinion forums are great...  and having opinions questioned is very healthy.  With the right attitude, can learn a lot here...  I dont mean learn and accept other's opinions... just learn to question your own.  sadly OG has the mind of a 13 y.o that thinks he knows it all, and is not open to differing opinions or ideas.  His only defence is attack.  I am sure he loved TA :)

Indeed. And i hope your story gives a few right to lifers on here pause for reflection Cliff.

is it worth emailing barnaby a copy?

Cliff48 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:54am:

is it worth emailing barnaby a copy?

To show him how pathetic and out of touch his opinion is?

Sure, but will he read it?

mothra wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:56am:

Cliff48 wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:54am: is it worth emailing barnaby a copy? To show him how pathetic and out of touch his opinion is? Sure, but will he read it?

lolo  prolly not... his staffers will read it and throw it in the bin.

mariacostel wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 9:19am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 9:11am: ____ wrote on Sep 28th, 2015 at 10:19pm: qanda ... barnaby joyce opposes abortion and so supports abortion being a criminal crime. Shame Barnaby, shame. You ultra hypocritical Leftist infanticide protagonists are the shameless ones.  :( Congratulations to Barnaby Joyce for standing up for the inalienable human rights of the unborn child. Abortion is a moral abomination. But just as bad are those that would deny the right to hold such an opinion. And as always, these are the same people that demand everyone embrace gays.

Oh! maria dear, we love your opinions, even though we are yet to agree with one.

See you at the CWA lovey?

mothra wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:46am:

Indeed. And i hope your story gives a few right to lifers on here pause for reflection Cliff.

I think the discussion needs to be a bit more than the right to lifers V the right to deathers.

It is a really difficult issue. In my view neither side is completely right at the extreme ends.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 8:02am:

mothra wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:46am: Indeed. And i hope your story gives a few right to lifers on here pause for reflection Cliff. I think the discussion needs to be a bit more than the right to lifers V the right to deathers. It is a really difficult issue. In my view neither side is completely right at the extreme ends.

....ok hypothetically, say that medical technology advanced to the stage where some sort of incubator was invented so that actually carrying the foetus from conception was no longer required by a female.

You have a little TV screen and you can watch junior developing for 9 months before it 'graduates' and miraculously morphs into a human.

Mum gets bored after 4 weeks of watching and decides to pull the plug.

You happy with that?  :-?




 

Swagman wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 8:43am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 8:02am: mothra wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:46am: Indeed. And i hope your story gives a few right to lifers on here pause for reflection Cliff. I think the discussion needs to be a bit more than the right to lifers V the right to deathers. It is a really difficult issue. In my view neither side is completely right at the extreme ends. ....ok hypothetically, say that medical technology advanced to the stage where some sort of incubator was invented so that actually carrying the foetus from conception was no longer required by a female. You have a little TV screen and you can watch junior developing for 9 months before it 'graduates' and miraculously morphs into a human. Mum gets bored after 4 weeks of watching and decides to pull the plug. You happy with that?  :-?

You have a little TV screen and you can watch junior developing for 9 months before it 'graduates' and miraculously morphs into a human.



A human foetus is human from conception, same with a duck foetus.

Mum gets bored after 4 weeks of watching and decides to pull the plug.

You happy with that?  :-?


....................................

Swagman wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 8:43am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 8:02am: mothra wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:46am: Indeed. And i hope your story gives a few right to lifers on here pause for reflection Cliff. I think the discussion needs to be a bit more than the right to lifers V the right to deathers. It is a really difficult issue. In my view neither side is completely right at the extreme ends. ....ok hypothetically, say that medical technology advanced to the stage where some sort of incubator was invented so that actually carrying the foetus from conception was no longer required by a female. You have a little TV screen and you can watch junior developing for 9 months before it 'graduates' and miraculously morphs into a human. Mum gets bored after 4 weeks of watching and decides to pull the plug. You happy with that?  :-?

you think they abort because they are bored? how convoluted are you people?

Dnarever wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 8:02am:

mothra wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 1:46am: Indeed. And i hope your story gives a few right to lifers on here pause for reflection Cliff. I think the discussion needs to be a bit more than the right to lifers V the right to deathers. It is a really difficult issue. In my view neither side is completely right at the extreme ends.

yes DNA and the convo Mothra and I were having was much more than that.... if you bother to read the whole thread .. instead of picking just one post to attack.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:03am:

A human foetus is human from conception, same with a duck foetus. .

I totally agree with you that a human foetus is a human from conception but not that a duck foetus is a human. :D


Johnsmith wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:32am:

you think they abort because they are bored? how convoluted are you people?

You seem to have difficulties comprehending analogies Johnny?  :D