Phanatical
Happy Lala
The babies thank you.
Well as im sure youre aware, in a truly liberalised, deregulated, free-market the populace is considered to make "rational" choices depending on needs. I dont see why there should be a law governing drugs. People can take them if they want. Its called personal freedom, truly democratic by definition. The same goes for RU486.Enlightened_One said:Economically sensible, possibly. But not sensible or justifiable any other way.
Here we go again, the legalise marijuana debate.
Phanatical said:Does a newborn baby have the cognitive faculties to distinguish between people? Does a one year old have the cognitive faculties for empathy?
Does a two year old have the cognitive faculties for compassion?
Interestingly enough popular opinion suggests that not many people argee with you. Life begins at birth and thats why birth is so significant. But then again if your wife shares your belief she will be happy for you to miss the birth since its no biggy.Phanatical said:In many cultures and religions, life begins at conception, and not birth. This happens to be a viewpoint I agree with.
I think youre missing my point completely. I mean, provided a unborn child does not have cognitive capacity to feel pain, then the argument in fact becomes, women should not deprive the future life of their unborn babies by aborting them pre-birth (the inhumane or tortourous aspects negated) . I think of greater concern, in a similar respect, is environemtnal degradation which does the exact same thing over a prolonged and much more serious process of time. Yet, somehow the humanitarian aspects of environmental degradation fall subordianate to the economic benefits of big business who purge the land. You cant have it both ways.Phanatical said:Does a newborn baby have the cognitive faculties to distinguish between people? Does a one year old have the cognitive faculties for empathy?
Does a two year old have the cognitive faculties for compassion?
If you're gonna kill a child, better to do it on the first day. It's the lesser of two evils, in this case. But that's just my personal viewpoint.withoutaface said:Quah do you oppose the morning after pill?
But you'd still allow it?Phanatical said:If you're gonna kill a child, better to do it on the first day. It's the lesser of two evils, in this case. But that's just my personal viewpoint.
What difference does the amount of time in the womb make?Phanatical said:If you're gonna kill a child, better to do it on the first day. It's the lesser of two evils, in this case. But that's just my personal viewpoint.
so you consider the morning after pill to be the killing of a human life? i ask since the morning after pill is a form of contraceptive. it prevents conception from taking place. in which case the pill, condoms, masturbation and menstruation all kill childrenPhanatical said:If you're gonna kill a child, better to do it on the first day. It's the lesser of two evils, in this case. But that's just my personal viewpoint.
Thats not always the case. If taken within 72 hours after intercourse, the pill blocks fertilization or delays ovulation, thereby preventing conception. If fertilization has already occurred, the morning-after pill has no effect.Phanatical said:The morning-after pill doesn't prevent conception. Conception will have occured by that point.
RU486 also interferes with HIV, and may have other uses than an abortion drug.Wooz said:I watched an article on RU486 on the 7:30 report last night on how it is being used to stop the growth of brain tumors and how a woman who has a brain tumor cant get it because it hasnt been registered in australia, thus no dr would pescribe it to her.
Transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1554500.htm
Theres also an organisation called australians against ru486: http://www.aaru486.com.au/