[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Zippy

wow you're really throwing out some outrageously dumb lines.

Last time you said something I said was "ridiculous" and "horror tactics" I posted an article that shows it actually happens. You gotta admit that excerpt sounds like it's fresh from a science fiction horror book about a future totalitarian society like 1984 and yet it's happening today. I cooked your humble pie, Zippy, and I'm waiting for you to eat it.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Last time you said something I said was "ridiculous" and "horror tactics" I posted an article that shows it actually happens. You gotta admit that excerpt sounds like it's fresh from a science fiction horror book about a future totalitarian society like 1984 and yet it's happening today. I cooked your humble pie, Zippy, and I'm waiting for you to eat it.

Abortion is not about drilling holes into babies heads. The fact you need to resort to such sensationalism just shows that you do not have a sensible, reasoned argument.

Abortion is never gonna be made illegal. Never. You would be much better served just fighting to get the time limit reduced. But no, thats not good enough is it? You'd rather take a more extreme standpoint and parade yourself as some kind of warrior for all lifeforms. But then you seem quite hateful towards women who choose abortion. Hmm.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

We're all connected in this world, honey. If I unintentionally impregnate a woman I certainly won't have any kind of luxury. Maybe next time we're deciding whether or not to go to war we should ignore the females since they have the "luxury" of not doing the fighting? Like I say, we're all connected.

In this day and age with the technology available, the "physical dangers" are at a minimum and if there is a potential danger the body will almost always abort it naturally. And "emotional traumas"? Come on. Like I said earlier, women are raised to be weak people.

You try to spin it like I'm trying to "compel" women like they all innocently and without reason just randomly become pregnant. I don't compel them to have sex so I don't see how I'm compelling them to do anything. You tell me: Are women stupid? Do they not know what may happen if they sleep with a guy? Whenever this debate occurs it's always framed around bodily freedom but it ought to be framed around the freedom to be a slut without consequence because that's what it, for the most part, is about. You show me a rabid pro-choice female freak, and I'll bet money that she's a bona fide slut.

And, yeah, I know I'm gonna get hell from you and others for what I've said here but whatever. I'll take it with a smile.

Have you actually read any of my posts on this subject or are you so entrenched in rabid, bible bashing mode that you see absolutely no grey areas? Not all women get pregnant because they are sluts and are having unprotected sex with gay abandon! There are very many good, strong valid reasons why a woman might want or even need to have an abortion, none of which are any of your's or mine damn business.

The way you talk about women in general betrays your total lack of respect for them and I, for one, am not any sexist pig's "honey", especially one who is still wet behind the ears and hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Zippy

Abortion is not about drilling holes into babies heads. The fact you need to resort to such sensationalism just shows that you do not have a sensible, reasoned argument.

Abortion is never gonna be made illegal. Never. You would be much better served just fighting to get the time limit reduced. But no, thats not good enough is it? You'd rather take a more extreme standpoint and parade yourself as some kind of warrior for all lifeforms. But then you seem quite hateful towards women who choose abortion. Hmm.

Can you read? Abortion can very well be about drilling holes into babies heads because that's what sometimes happens. Babies getting their heads drilled and brains sucked out DOES happen and so it is very sensible and reasonable to throw that in. It does happen. And even if it happens rarely it's still disgusting and appalling how everyone involved acts like it's normal or nothing is wrong about it. You can't dismiss this or belittle this by saying that it happens rarely. This is a moral issue. If there is nothing wrong with one baby getting its skull crushed and its brains removed, then there's nothing wrong if that happens to a million babies.

I wouldn't argue for a time limit reduction because, like I said, I won't play God. Would it be better for the time limit to be reduced? Sure, but that ignores the principle of the matter. You'll call my position extreme but I call it consistent and not contradictory. Most people on abortion have contradictory positions, yourself included. For example, in some US states you'll find someone could be charged with two murders if they murder a pregnant woman and yet that same woman could have legally terminated her own baby on the same day according to state law. I think there are really only two positions you can hold on abortion that are truely consistent and not contradictory: those who think life begins at conception and, as such, abortion should be illegal and those who believe the baby can be aborted a minute before it's delivered because it's the woman's body. Both positions are the only truely principled positions a person could have on this issue even though I find the principles of the latter horrific.

Probably my personal favorite politician of all time, Doctor Ron Paul, wrote a book on his positions and his opinion on abortion was forged early in his life when he inadvertently walked in on an abortion. He saw a baby that was removed and was still alive and crying while everyone in the room acted like they didn't hear it as it slowly died. Someone said earlier that they agree with the US Supreme Court's decision that life only begins when the baby could theoretically live outside the womb. I would like nothing better than for this person and others who share this person's opinion to witness an abortion of a baby that is not developed enough to live outside the womb, but is developed enough to cry for its mother. Would you just sit there and act like nothing was wrong as it cried and slowly died?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Can you read? Abortion can very well be about drilling holes into babies heads because that's what sometimes happens. Babies getting their heads drilled and brains sucked out DOES happen and so it is very sensible and reasonable to throw that in. It does happen. And even if it happens rarely it's still disgusting and appalling how everyone involved acts like it's normal or nothing is wrong about it. You can't dismiss this or belittle this by saying that it happens rarely. This is a moral issue. If there is nothing wrong with one baby getting its skull crushed and its brains removed, then there's nothing wrong if that happens to a million babies.

I wouldn't argue for a time limit reduction because, like I said, I won't play God. Would it be better for the time limit to be reduced? Sure, but that ignores the principle of the matter. You'll call my position extreme but I call it consistent and not contradictory. Most people on abortion have contradictory positions, yourself included. For example, in some US states you'll find someone could be charged with two murders if they murder a pregnant woman and yet that same woman could have legally terminated her own baby on the same day according to state law. I think there are really only two positions you can hold on abortion that are truely consistent and not contradictory: those who think life begins at conception and, as such, abortion should be illegal and those who believe the baby can be aborted a minute before it's delivered because it's the woman's body. Both positions are the only truely principled positions a person could have on this issue even though I find the principles of the latter horrific.

Probably my personal favorite politician of all time, Doctor Ron Paul, wrote a book on his positions and his opinion on abortion was forged early in his life when he inadvertently walked in on an abortion. He saw a baby that was removed and was still alive and crying while everyone in the room acted like they didn't hear it as it slowly died. Someone said earlier that they agree with the US Supreme Court's decision that life only begins when the baby could theoretically live outside the womb. I would like nothing better than for this person and others who share this person's opinion to witness an abortion of a baby that is not developed enough to live outside the womb, but is developed enough to cry for its mother. Would you just sit there and act like nothing was wrong as it cried and slowly died?

I'd love to live in your black and white world where morality is simple and easily defined, I also love that your argument is based around such a small portion of abortions that have no impact on the larger picture. It'd be like me saying 'Abortion should be legal just because sometimes people get raped' which is stupid to base an entire argument on as it only covers a small part of why there should be a choice. You can't base your whole argument around extreme examples because they don't hold true to everyday life. Very few people go 'Oh don't bother using a condom, I can just go for an abortion LOL', most of the time it's an agonizing choice that has to be made and a decision that will live with the woman forever.

It'd be interesting to see if your own convictions would hold up if you were faced with the choice.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'd love to live in your black and white world where morality is simple and easily defined, I also love that your argument is based around such a small portion of abortions that have no impact on the larger picture. It'd be like me saying 'Abortion should be legal just because sometimes people get raped' which is stupid to base an entire argument on as it only covers a small part of why there should be a choice. You can't base your whole argument around extreme examples because they don't hold true to everyday life. Very few people go 'Oh don't bother using a condom, I can just go for an abortion LOL', most of the time it's an agonizing choice that has to be made and a decision that will live with the woman forever.

It'd be interesting to see if your own convictions would hold up if you were faced with the choice.

The only grey area I would concede is when there is good reason to believe the mother's life is in jeopardy. Other than that and rape, I just can't understand how they could go through with such an unnatural and horrific process as abortion when adoption is a perfectly available option. And frankly that's the only humane option. If adoption was not a possibility, I would at least be able to see where people on this thread were coming from. Still maybe not agree with them but at least see where they're coming from.

And I actually am very much in favor of people's bodily freedom, men and women. I'm very Libertarian, hence the name. I think on all body issues, save this one, I'd probably fall into the bodily freedom camp. I think illegal drugs should be made legal. Heck, I think women should be allowed to walk around topless if they want to. But this is the one exception I make because it potentially involves someone else's life.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

The only grey area I would concede is when there is good reason to believe the mother's life is in jeopardy. Other than that and rape, I just can't understand how they could go through with such an unnatural and horrific process as abortion when adoption is a perfectly available option. And frankly that's the only humane option. If adoption was not a possibility, I would at least be able to see where people on this thread were coming from. Still maybe not agree with them but at least see where they're coming from.

And I actually am very much in favor of people's bodily freedom, men and women. I'm very Libertarian, hence the name. I think on all body issues, save this one, I'd probably fall into the bodily freedom camp. I think illegal drugs should be made legal. Heck, I think women should be allowed to walk around topless if they want to. But this is the one exception I make because it potentially involves someone else's life.

Carrying a baby to full term might not be an option either, even if you plan to give the baby up you've still got to carry it for 9 months which some people can't afford to. Like I said before most people don't go into abortions lightly, it's an agonizing decision and a last resort. It's not an easy path.

I understand where you're coming from but I cant agree with it either.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

The only grey area I would concede is when there is good reason to believe the mother's life is in jeopardy. Other than that and rape, I just can't understand how they could go through with such an unnatural and horrific process as abortion when adoption is a perfectly available option. And frankly that's the only humane option. If adoption was not a possibility, I would at least be able to see where people on this thread were coming from. Still maybe not agree with them but at least see where they're coming from.

And I actually am very much in favor of people's bodily freedom, men and women. I'm very Libertarian, hence the name. I think on all body issues, save this one, I'd probably fall into the bodily freedom camp. I think illegal drugs should be made legal. Heck, I think women should be allowed to walk around topless if they want to. But this is the one exception I make because it potentially involves someone else's life.

I think you make very good points actually and I do agree with you. Unfortunately though if abortion was made illegal people would resort to back street jobs again like they did in the past so I don't know is making it illegal the answer. I do however really believe the time limit on having an abortion should be changed. It's just far too high at the moment imo.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

preventing unwanted babies is what the world should focus on

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

preventing unwanted babies is what the world should focus on

yeah, ideally.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

And the "life doesn't begin at conception" theory is just a loophole they create so they can sleep at night and not feel like murderers. Whether or not there is a god, those who say life does not begin at conception will inevitably play god. And that's because life must begin at some point. There must be some point where it, for lack of a better word, graduates from a clump of cells and tissue with no rights to a human being with all rights that you and I have. If that moment is not at conception then perhaps it's the moment the baby is delivered? Perhaps it's the moment when the brain is fully developed? Perhaps it's the moment when it can recognize its mother's voice? Perhaps it's the moment the US Supreme Court ruled life begins which is when the baby could theoritically live outside of the womb? Perhaps it's, as someone commented here, 20 weeks after conception? Whatever it is, those of you who are arrogant enough to say "life doesn't begin at conception" have the responsibility to say when life truly does begin. Whatever that moment is YOU ARE PLAYING GOD. I, on the other hand, refuse to play god and will say life may begin at conception and, that being the case, this baby/fetus should be given the benefit of the doubt.

If that is your belief, that life begins at conception you will also be against the use of some forms of the contraceptive pill, IUD and implanted contraceptives?

After all most of those devices work by making the womb an inhospitable place to the fertilised egg and preventing it from implanting itself into the lining of the womb. That means in your argument that the new life has already begun and the contraceptive pill etc. simply carries out a very early abortion.

The only contraceptives that you would then advocate would be ones that prevent fertilisation, condom, femidom, diaphragm, spermicides and the few pills that either prevent the egg from being released or destroy sperm en route to the unfertilised egg?

That's quite inconvenient for pro lifers who use the pill, isnt it?

[bananarama]

Abortion without proper medical justification is simply cold blooded murder on a par with the mentality of Hitlers Germany wanting to slaughter en mass......

All abortionists should be tried for murder and recieve the same fate as the victims.

We won the war but adopted Hitlers mentality......Modern polititions and supporters of cold blooded slaughter should hang their heads in shame......

[Shasown]

And the award for todays first Godwin goes to... :-

Originally Posted by bananarama

Abortion without proper medical justification is simply cold blooded murder on a par with the mentality of Hitlers Germany wanting to slaughter en mass......

All abortionists should be tried for murder and recieve the same fate as the victims.

We won the war but adopted Hitlers mentality......Modern polititions and supporters of cold blooded slaughter should hang their heads in shame......

[Angus]

Originally Posted by bananarama

Abortion without proper medical justification is simply cold blooded murder on a par with the mentality of Hitlers Germany wanting to slaughter en mass......

All abortionists should be tried for murder and recieve the same fate as the victims.

We won the war but adopted Hitlers mentality......Modern polititions and supporters of cold blooded slaughter should hang their heads in shame......

Melodramatic? Much. Sensationalist? Absolutely. Factually accurate? Not at all. Highly opinionated and judgmental? Obviously.

Fortunately, the fire and brimstone pro-lifers make themselves a laughing stock with these sorts of ridiculously, over the top, personal belief driven, bigoted statements.

[letmein]

Originally Posted by bananarama

Abortion without proper medical justification is simply cold blooded murder on a par with the mentality of Hitlers Germany wanting to slaughter en mass......

All abortionists should be tried for murder and recieve the same fate as the victims.

We won the war but adopted Hitlers mentality......Modern polititions and supporters of cold blooded slaughter should hang their heads in shame......

Goodwin's Law.

[Lee.]

I disagree with abortion, but wouldn't judge anybody who had resorted to such an act if they had very good reason.

I do however think that being able to abort ababy at 24 weeks (or whatever it is) is awful and think the limit should be reduced significantly!

[Angus]

Originally Posted by happyland

I disagree with abortion, but wouldn't judge anybody who had resorted to such an act if they had very good reason.

I do however think that being able to abort ababy at 24 weeks (or whatever it is) is awful and think the limit should be reduced significantly!

Absolutely! The upper limit should be reduced down to around 16 weeks ideally, but anything over 20 weeks is really not on, considering that by that time a woman has had ample time to make an informed decision. As I've said before, I would NEVER ever have considered an abortion for myself, whatever the circumstances, but I would not presume to inflict my beliefs and opinions on other women, whose lives and circumstances I know nothing about.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by angus58

Absolutely! The upper limit should be reduced down to around 16 weeks ideally, but anything over 20 weeks is really not on, considering that by that time a woman has had ample time to make an informed decision. As I've said before, I would NEVER ever have considered an abortion for myself, whatever the circumstances, but I would not presume to inflict my beliefs and opinions on other women, whose lives and circumstances I know nothing about.

But you just did. For a woman 21 weeks into gestation you would be inflicting your opinions and beliefs on them because of what you think should be the "upper limit". What if they want the baby and then 21 weeks into it they change their mind? If it was up to you, they wouldn't have the power to do it. So how is that not inflicting your opinions and beliefs on them?

And frankly I do think it is rather arrogant (and, again, playing god) when people pick and choose an arbitrary time when the right to life of the baby outweights the bodily rights of the woman (in your case, 16 weeks). As a mathematician interested in political issues, I spend a lot of time thinking about the small details of this issue and others. I do not believe I or anyone else has the right (or knowledge) to declare the moment when a clump of cells becomes a life, so I refuse to do it and I think everyone else should.

People here are telling me that abortion is not a black and white issue but I actually agree. The grey area is whether it is a human with a right to life or whether it is not. If it is not a life, the worst thing that will happen is the woman will lose 9 months of bodily freedom but she can adopt it immediately after. But if it is a life, it is murder of the innocent. So, which one is worse: the loss of 9 months of bodily freedom by a woman who knew exactly what may happen when she slept with that guy or the murder of the innocent? If there is any doubt, whatsoever, whether it is a life or not any civilized person ought to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is life. And so the "upper limit" ought to be 0 in any civilized country.

[Tom.]

Originally Posted by angus58

Absolutely! The upper limit should be reduced down to around 16 weeks ideally, but anything over 20 weeks is really not on, considering that by that time a woman has had ample time to make an informed decision. As I've said before, I would NEVER ever have considered an abortion for myself, whatever the circumstances, but I would not presume to inflict my beliefs and opinions on other women, whose lives and circumstances I know nothing about.

If you're going to reduce it down to 16 weeks that immediately removes the choice for some people. My ex didn't find out she was pregnant until 5 months because she didnt show any signs at all, and there are plenty of other people that don't find out within the first 12-16 weeks. That removes the choice for them, or at least doesn't give them a good enough time frame to have a serious think. But I do agree it cannot remain at 24 weeks.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by bananarama

Abortion without proper medical justification is simply cold blooded murder on a par with the mentality of Hitlers Germany wanting to slaughter en mass......

All abortionists should be tried for murder and recieve the same fate as the victims.

We won the war but adopted Hitlers mentality......Modern polititions and supporters of cold blooded slaughter should hang their heads in shame......

I like your style.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by bananarama

Abortion without proper medical justification is simply cold blooded murder on a par with the mentality of Hitlers Germany wanting to slaughter en mass......

All abortionists should be tried for murder and recieve the same fate as the victims.

We won the war but adopted Hitlers mentality......Modern polititions and supporters of cold blooded slaughter should hang their heads in shame......

You're a ray of sunshine aren't you.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Tom.

If you're going to reduce it down to 16 weeks that immediately removes the choice for some people. My ex didn't find out she was pregnant until 5 months because she didnt show any signs at all, and there are plenty of other people that don't find out within the first 12-16 weeks. That removes the choice for them, or at least doesn't give them a good enough time frame to have a serious think. But I do agree it cannot remain at 24 weeks.

That's just my personal opinion in an ideal world - but I would go along with an upper limit of 20 weeks. Most women DO know they are pregnant within the first 2-3 months, that is just a fact, so your ex is one of a minority whose cyle is perhaps not regular or is erratic. There are always going to be exceptions to every rule. However, at the end of the day it is not down to me or any other individual to decide what is best, I'll leave that job to the experts. But I certainly don't think it's helpful to demonise and persecute any woman who, for often very good reasons, is unable to go through with a pregnancy.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

But you just did. For a woman 21 weeks into gestation you would be inflicting your opinions and beliefs on them because of what you think should be the "upper limit". What if they want the baby and then 21 weeks into it they change their mind? If it was up to you, they wouldn't have the power to do it. So how is that not inflicting your opinions and beliefs on them?

And frankly I do think it is rather arrogant (and, again, playing god) when people pick and choose an arbitrary time when the right to life of the baby outweights the bodily rights of the woman (in your case, 16 weeks). As a mathematician interested in political issues, I spend a lot of time thinking about the small details of this issue and others. I do not believe I or anyone else has the right (or knowledge) to declare the moment when a clump of cells becomes a life, so I refuse to do it and I think everyone else should.

People here are telling me that abortion is not a black and white issue but I actually agree. The grey area is whether it is a human with a right to life or whether it is not. If it is not a life, the worst thing that will happen is the woman will lose 9 months of bodily freedom but she can adopt it immediately after. But if it is a life, it is murder of the innocent. So, which one is worse: the loss of 9 months of bodily freedom by a woman who knew exactly what may happen when she slept with that guy or the murder of the innocent? If there is any doubt, whatsoever, whether it is a life or not any civilized person ought to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is life. And so the "upper limit" ought to be 0 in any civilized country.

FGS get a grip man. You don't see the hypocrisy of what you are saying - banging on about the sanctity of human life, but quite adamant and dogmatic that a woman should be treated merely as a breeder and incubator for 9 months, regardless of the physical and mental trauma for HER, and then, according to you, blithely hand over the baby for adoption - talk about simplistic and naive. And you haven't addressed those cases where a woman was raped or a victim of sexual abuse, nor of those cases where the baby will be born to live a "nominal" life of pain or disability or deformity for example. How convenient.

I don't believe in your God my dear so I have not been brainwashed by the bible bashing, fire and brimstone brigade. You don't seem to see how rigidly bigoted and judgmental you are. Thankfully, you and those who think like you will never be able to impose your draconian views about abortion onto free women - we've moved on considerably since the Middle Ages.

As regards an upper limit - it is unrealistic and ridiculous to suggest there should not be a legally agreed one, and MY opinion is that, in an ideal world, it would be no more than 16 weeks. However, I can go along with a limit of 20 weeks, any later than that and a baby is potentially viable outside the womb. I do believe that that gives women more than enough time to make such a life changing and difficult decision. You seem to believe such decisions are easily arrived at when in fact they are the result of much heart searching and heartache, based on all sorts of circumstances and often good reasons. So who the hell are YOU to decide for strangers whose lives you know nothing about? Now THAT is arrogance on a breathtaking scale. You might well be a mathematician, but women are human beings, not statistics.

And once again, not all bloody women are dirty little sluts who go around shagging anything in sight with no thought for the consequences - much as you might like to believe that, being the misogynist your posts reveal you to be.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by angus58

FGS get a grip man. You don't see the hypocrisy of what you are saying - banging on about the sanctity of human life, but quite adamant and dogmatic that a woman should be treated merely as a breeder and incubator for 9 months, regardless of the physical and mental trauma for HER, and then, according to you, blithely hand over the baby for adoption - talk about simplistic and naive. And you haven't addressed those cases where a woman was raped or a victim of sexual abuse, nor of those cases where the baby will be born to live a "nominal" life of pain or disability or deformity for example. How convenient.

Talk about putting words in my mouth. Physical and mental trauma? It's a walk in the park compared to the physical and mental trauma that is put upon the thing that the abortion is done to. That is until it sometimes gets a hole drilled in its head and brains sucked, then I suppose it suffers no more physical and mental trauma.

Originally Posted by angus58

I don't believe in your God my dear so I have not been brainwashed by the bible bashing, fire and brimstone brigade. You don't seem to see how rigidly bigoted and judgmental you are. Thankfully, you and those who think like you will never be able to impose your draconian views about abortion onto free women - we've moved on considerably since the Middle Ages.

My position on abortion is not derived from religion. My position comes from logic and the fact that we come from a society that at least professes to value human life. I am, by far, more of a humanitarian than a religious person but the fact that you would write off anyone with an opinion starkly different to yours as a member of the "bible bashing, fire brimstone brigade" reveals how little you consider the possibility that you may be wrong. That being the case this will be my last post addressed to you in this topic.

Originally Posted by angus58

As regards an upper limit - it is unrealistic and ridiculous to suggest there should not be a legally agreed one, and MY opinion is that, in an ideal world, it would be no more than 16 weeks. However, I can go along with a limit of 20 weeks, any later than that and a baby is potentially viable outside the womb. I do believe that that gives women more than enough time to make such a life changing and difficult decision. You seem to believe such decisions are easily arrived at when in fact they are the result of much heart searching and heartache, based on all sorts of circumstances and often good reasons. So who the hell are YOU to decide for strangers whose lives you know nothing about? Now THAT is arrogance on a breathtaking scale. You might well be a mathematician, but women are human beings, not statistics.

I find it disturbing how you and others only think an abortion should be legal if there is no way it can live outside of the womb. Only when an abortion will not guarantee its death are you not in favor of it. You are a wonderful human being, angus.

Originally Posted by angus58

And once again, not all bloody women are dirty little sluts who go around shagging anything in sight with no thought for the consequences - much as you might like to believe that, being the misogynist your posts reveal you to be.

I'll take being called a "misogynist" by someone like you as a compliment.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Talk about putting words in my mouth. Physical and mental trauma? It's a walk in the park compared to the physical and mental trauma that is put upon the thing that the abortion is done to. That is until it sometimes gets a hole drilled in its head and brains sucked, then I suppose it suffers no more physical and mental trauma.




My position on abortion is not derived from religion. My position comes from logic and the fact that we come from a society that at least professes to value human life. I am, by far, more of a humanitarian than a religious person but the fact that you would write off anyone with an opinion starkly different to yours as a member of the "bible bashing, fire brimstone brigade" reveals how little you consider the possibility that you may be wrong. That being the case this will be my last post addressed to you in this topic.



I find it disturbing how you and others only think an abortion should be legal if there is no way it can live outside of the womb. Only when an abortion will not guarantee its death are you not in favor of it. You are a wonderful human being, angus.




I'll take being called a "misogynist" by someone like you as a compliment.

this is something that annoys me actually, that the the minute you say you're anti-abortion, people accuse you of being religious, like there is no other reason why you would be against it.