Legal authorization and consent form for abortions

Temujin

Well-known member
How? The point put to you was that the human being in the womb is the human being in the womb whether I call it a person or you don't.
Untrue. Have you forgotten already what you said? Unable or too idle to scroll back a few posts?
Only opinion about the use of a word, the human being in the womb suffers because you dont like attributing the word 'person' to it
The difference therefore is your use of the word person. As to when the human being can feel pain, and therefore whether it suffers is a subsequent point you have just made, hence your tap dancing. As to your subsequent point, Most of the research I have seen says the baby or foetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, which doesn't help your defence of the UK abortion up to 24 weeks. So what is the point of your tap dancing?
You don't even know what tap dancing is. Or perhaps you just didn't read my post. Try again.

You are desperate... unless you have any statements to the contrary from him. Lets see them Temujin seeing as you keep spouting these claims.

On the contrary, you got caught out. You cited those who made the 1967 law and when I quoted what they have subsequently said to undermine your claims, you dont like it
The situation has changed, not just since the Act was introduced, but also since 2007. The vast majority (85 %) of abortions are now medically induced, 88% occur before week 10. In 2007 more than 60%of abortions were surgical. Most women are either married or with partners. The average age is increasing with very few abortions now for under 18s. Abortion rates for those under 23 are dropping, while for women over 35 they are rising. Comments made 14 years ago, no matter who made them, are just not relevant to today's situation. Sorry, but 24 year old newspaper articles are not a basis for criticism.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Untrue. Have you forgotten already what you said? Unable or too idle to scroll back a few posts?
In what way untrue? When discussing the life of the human being in the womb did you not say the human being isnt a person. Because that was my point. The difference therefore is your use of the word person.
Also to when the human being can feel pain, and therefore whether it suffers is a subsequent point you have just made, hence your tap dancing. As to your subsequent point, Most of the research I have seen says the baby or foetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, which doesn't help your defence of the UK abortion up to 24 weeks. So what is the point of your tap dancing?

The situation has changed, not just since the Act was introduced, but also since 2007.
Yes I know, I told you that.
The vast majority (85 %) of abortions are now medically induced, 88% occur before week 10. In 2007 more than 60%of abortions were surgical.
Not Lord steel's point. You made the claim that they knew what they were doing and I have shown you it wasnt what Lord Steel who lead the Act envisaged. Your reply doesn't address the refutation of your claim.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
In what way untrue? When discussing the life of the human being in the womb did you not say the human being isnt a person. Because that was my point. The difference therefore is your use of the word person.
Now you don't even read what you have written, let alone what I have. You state quite clearly that the unborn human being suffers because I don't choose to call it a person. That isn't just untrue, it's ridiculous.
Also to when the human being can feel pain, and therefore whether it suffers is a subsequent point you have just made, hence your tap dancing. As to your subsequent point, Most of the research I have seen says the baby or foetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, which doesn't help your defence of the UK abortion up to 24 weeks. So what is the point of your tap dancing?
Over 99% of abortions occur before 20 weeks. Over 88% before ten weeks. A high proportion of abortions after 20 weeks are due to gross malformation of the foetus or danger to the woman or both. Your point about suffering is irrelevant.

Not Lord steel's point. You made the claim that they knew what they were doing and I have shown you it wasnt what Lord Steel who lead the Act envisaged. Your reply doesn't address the refutation of your claim.
Shrug. The Act works well. It has adapted to changing social attitudes and conditions. There is absolutely no chance that it will be repealed. You believe that it is challenged by a newspaper article written 14 years ago. You are delusional.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Now you don't even read what you have written, let alone what I have.
Well it was about what you had written I was referring you to. Since you were arguing that you don't think the human being in the womb is a person, I am sure you made it quite clear that was part of the reason you support pro-choice abortion.

You state quite clearly that the unborn human being suffers because I don't choose to call it a person.
Nope. Never said that or implied it, and quite the contrary I said "and therefore whether it suffers is a subsequent point you have just made"
Again you are unable to follow a conversation.

Shrug. The Act works well. It has adapted to changing social attitudes and conditions. There is absolutely no chance that it will be repealed. You believe that it is challenged by a newspaper article written 14 years ago. You are delusional.
Nope. Not Lord Steel's point. You made the claim that they knew what they were doing and I have shown you it wasn't what Lord Steel who lead the Act envisaged. Your reply doesn't address the refutation of your claim.

All your claims get refuted and you learn NOTHING!
 

BMS

Well-known member
Liar. You said this:
You are unable to debate honestly, let alone follow a conversation. When you can stop lying about what you have said, even when it is clear and on the record, you can resume. I don't talk to liars.
That is what you implied. We were saying the person in the womb is killed in pro-choice abortion and you said it isn't a person. You then mentioned suffering. I assumed they were in support of your pro-choice abortion position. Am I right?
 

BMS

Well-known member
You lied when you said this:
You also lied when you denied saying it. Will you admit that you were "mistaken" or will you keep weaseling?
The I have no idea what your objections to the use of the word 'person' for the unborn human being, or 'suffering' were for.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
The I have no idea what your objections to the use of the word 'person' for the unborn human being, or 'suffering' were for.
Then I suggest you reread the thread from the point you made the untrue statement I refer to. I make my objections quite clear in a number of posts.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Then I suggest you reread the thread from the point you made the untrue statement I refer to. I make my objections quite clear in a number of posts.
Obviously not making it clear. You might like to help by addressing my question, because I have no intension of trying to mis represent you.
That is what you implied. We were saying the person in the womb is killed in pro-choice abortion and you said it isn't a person. You then mentioned suffering. I assumed they were in support of your pro-choice abortion position. Am I right?
If I am right then I am correct to say "Only opinion about the use of a word, the human being in the womb suffers because you dont like attributing the word 'person' to it" If I am not correct why did you object to person applied to the unborn human being and subsequently refer to suffering?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Obviously not making it clear. You might like to help by addressing my question, because I have no intension of trying to mis represent you.
That is what you implied. We were saying the person in the womb is killed in pro-choice abortion and you said it isn't a person. You then mentioned suffering. I assumed they were in support of your pro-choice abortion position. Am I right?
If I am right then I am correct to say "Only opinion about the use of a word, the human being in the womb suffers because you dont like attributing the word 'person' to it" If I am not correct why did you object to person applied to the unborn human being and subsequently refer to suffering?
The first mention of suffering is this untrue statementb
Only opinion about the use of a word, the human being in the womb suffers because you dont like attributing the word 'person' to it
You made it, not me. All my posts mentioning suffering are in rebuttal of that point. Once again you "misrepresent"

I used to be of the opinion that the Pro-life position was honest but mistaken. You are just mistaken.
 

BMS

Well-known member
The first mention of suffering is this untrue statementbYou made it, not me. All my posts mentioning suffering are in rebuttal of that point. Once again you "misrepresent"

I used to be of the opinion that the Pro-life position was honest but mistaken. You are just mistaken.
I have no idea what you are trying to imply
 
Top