Scucca

Its all a snip obvious, but unfortunately morality coercion has a habit of destroying any opportunity of rational thought

__________________

Monk-Eye

"Wishful Thinking"

I wager that at least half of all people voting democrat, and at least half of those voting republican, wish the argument would go away (as an incontrovertible right to private property), so that they can, in good conscience, cast a vote for a republican party that finally represents itself as having, at least on this issue, pulled its head out of its @$$.

If it makes any difference, contesting homosexual marriage, as a discretionary positive right, has nothing to do with abortion, eventhough some might mistakingly consider the two consistent with each other.

__________________
Hanged Man
Melpomene

Scucca

Once we're past the morality coercion, the debate gets more interesting. One might argue that there is an unholy alliance between feminists and the medical profession, given the common enemy of the pro-life stormtrooper. Once that common enemy does the decent thing and disappear into the "O dear" history books, that alliance will crumble. On one side we have the medical profession concentration of the maximising of the quality of "abortion services". On the other, we have the feminists seeing these professions as mere technicians who should only have a limited role in what should be seen as a women-centred service

OKgrannie

I guess the abortion question went away.

__________________
The greatest danger to liberty lurks in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.---Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

Ethereal

No, you were simply proven wrong numerous times and refused to admit it.

Scucca

Spiffing playground tactics!

The desire to minimise abortion numbers should ensure that the morality coercion angle is relegated to our primitive past

Felicity

In addition to Ethereal's accurate assessment, this Scucca posting style is another reason the forum has been less active...

That says nothing. Translated in to "real people talk"--it says, "Wanting fewer abortions should make guilt obsolete." That means NOTHING and is BORING.

__________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die. ~*Leonardo Da Vinci*~

OKgrannie

I think it says that inducing guilt in an attempt to discourage abortions is ineffective, and that we must find other methods to be successful. Because you don't understand what the poster is saying doesn't mean it is meaningless or boring. IAC, the forum is not dying because I have been proved wrong.

Scucca

Morality coercion has perhaps temporarily restricted Felicity's 'translation' abilities. I think we can agree that there is a common aim amongst the pro-choice and rational pro-life elements (sadly a small minority): i.e. the minimisation of the number of abortion. However, given the pro-life position has been desperately corrupted by extremists motivated by nothing more than their warped moral code, it is has been left to the pro-choicers to deliver successful abortion reduction policy. A cross-country comparison of abortion rates supports this view: with nations with more liberal abortion legislation, on the whole, achieving lower abortion rates. A powerful pro-life movement will ironically only maintain the demand for abortion. Shame on them!

Felicity

Exactly HOW is that different than my translation? I was a tad more succinct--however, it still says nothing. And actually, his statement makes very little sense despite your attempt to inject a cogent thought into his gibberish.