h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Anyway, I conceded because I couldn't be bothered having yet another argument with the moral majority"

Gosh, that's the first time I've been accused of being a member of the moral majority

Seems a shame to have read this far then lose my place...
I may have a comment later.
Or I may not.

I'm sorry everyone. I simply have no time to read the backlog on a long thread like this all the time. This talk is way too fast for me. Sorry, can't keep up. Bye!

You started it!

How unkind of me is it to observe that there seem to be three different attitudes to discussions one cannot win: to stay and try to defend a weak position, to stay and debate and maybe change one's position publicly, and to cut and run?

I confess I respect those who take the middle option the most, and rather unkindly tend to assume that those who cut and run are conceding defeat without grace or learning.

Yep.

I thought it was unkind of me.

Sorry, and all that.

B

Partial birth abortion is just a hook that anti-choice people use to try to get abortion regulated more in the United States. It's not a real issue.

This post has been removed.

As has already been pointed out, whether or not a specific killing is also a murder depends on the legal context. Murder is a premeditated unlawful killing. Bush et al argue that their war is legal. I acknowledge that whether or not is is legal is a debatable point.

I am not certain what the status is of the defence that someone was following military orders, but I would not call soldiers murderers unless they kill unlawfully - killing POWs for example.

It may feel all warm and virtuous to stoke one's anger and call the US murderers, how exactly does it help resolve the issues surrounding the war to do so?

B

My feelings on Partial Birth Abortion is that it should always be legal, as should any other type of abortion at any other time. My argument is simple. Adult chimpanzees can pass tests of self-awareness and intelligence that a two-year old human can't.

As long as its legal to kill or do medical testing on a chimpanzee, there is no good argument for why it shouldn't be legal to do it on a much less inteligent and self-aware human fetus.

No, I seriously don't have the time. To do pretty much anything on h2g2 anymore. I may pop in once a month or something, but I haven't got the time to keep up with this conversation for shure. If anybody can answer my original challenge though, email me: [email protected]

But I do really believe, as the bill says that "A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited"

Then you really should read the backlog before stating it again.

This particular form of termination is only be used when medically necessary, for one of the following conditions:

The foetus is already dead
The foetus will not survive ANY kind of delivery
The mother will not survive ANY kind of delivery
The mother will be disabled by any kind of delivery

Oh, and the foetus must also have developed to the point where it is necessary for the mother to physically give birth, i.e. foetal development past the point where other termination methods can no longer be applied.

This is a last resort.

Perhaps you need to SEE some of the fetuses that are in these situations

The pictures used to explain *always have a fully formed ,normal appearing baby*

The head & spine are not always recognizable. A head & spine NOT always enclosed in skin or skull. A partial head. A spine that is twice as long as it should be and exposed to air....
Those are some easier to explain examples

Nerd42:

Don't bother reading the backlog. It would be a waste of your time. Just read your own posts, 252 and 253. Read them as if someone else wrote them, like I did...

In post 1, and again in post 252, you posed a challenge. And in post 252 and 253, you made it clear that
(a) you are not really interested in anyone else's opinions and
(b) your mind is already made up and you can't be bothered gathering enough information to change it.

You have posed no "challenge" in this thread. You've made an immature, adolescent attempt at a fundamentalist political statement about an issue you don't even understand, and you've been exposed as not having the conviction to back it up or even pay attention to the argument.

Stop wasting our time.

H.

*nods in approval*
hoovooloo statement

>(b) your mind is already made up and you can't be bothered gathering enough information to change it.

That's pretty much everyone's position on abortion. The only reason to argue about abortion is for the joy of it.