DUP new leader

A good innings from a lower order batsman but he has an advantage because he can chat over the fence to the leader of a national political party.

I'm sure Nige has plenty of inside info over a pint and a trim of his little privet (smiley)
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I don’t disagree with the bulk of what you say SSP, I just found it interesting regarding right to choose.

I find both sides of that debate quite compelling and equally valid. The right of the child vs right of the mother feels like something that ought to be balanced (for example). By contrast the views on race or homosexuality just feel plain wrong.

Of course that’s only my perspective 👍
Click to expand...
It's a nuanced argument about the right of the child and the woman, but in some areas of the world they won't allow for abortion of children being conceived from rape. That can't be right.
 
Wizaard said:
It's a nuanced argument about the right of the child and the woman, but in some areas of the world they won't allow for abortion of children being conceived from rape. That can't be right.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure it’s that straightforward really Wiz.

If you accept the viability of a early term foetus as a human life, then it may well be right.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’m not sure it’s that straightforward really Wiz.

If you accept the viability of a early term foetus as a human life, then it may well be right.
Click to expand...
We'll have to disagree on this one. Especially in that scenario, it really is a woman's right to choose.
 
Wizaard said:
We'll have to disagree on this one. Especially in that scenario, it really is a woman's right to choose.
Click to expand...
It’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. I’ve not offered an opinion either way as such.

You state “It really is a woman’s right to choose” as a matter of fact, but on what basis?

If it was a question of does a woman have the right to choose whether or not the brother of her male attacker should be killed if she is raped, then you wouldn’t, I imagine, be so matter of fact?

So it requires you to downgrade the life of the foetus / child in some way. To dehumanise it, fail to acknowledge its viability surely? If not then you have to accept that it is reasonable and and arguably morally correct to legislate to protect the life of the child.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top