These child-murdering whores (are you getting a hint as to which side of the debate I am on?) are spouting more filth to get abortion limits reduced and make child murder on-demand easier (because a birth would clash with the slut's holiday in Ibiza?)

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/10403496.stm

When you have no sense of the value of human life this is what you get -

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10384460.stm

What a disgusting person you are.

Moderators?

ITK I fail to see what you think you are achieving by your posts.

You seem to revel in the persona of someone who thinks he is always right, but who actually just trades in stereotypes and clichés (benefit scroungers, evil Jews...)

I suggest you write a column in the Daily Mail, tho that may stretch your intellect a bit too far.

Regarding this piece:

personally I am uneasy with the idea of abortion, but I am not going to say it should be banned- I am really not knowledgeable enough, and would not think I had the authority to say to a woman who had been raped that she should give birth to the 'fruit' of that 'union'.

My feelings are and always have been - it should be the woman's choice.

To all of the above ....

You are entitled to your opinions (and I am entitled to ignore them).

JK says - "woman's right to chose". Does the father have NO rights? - let alone the child?

A woman DOES have the right to chose - which contaception she uses.
Far too many see abortion as a simple "option" and many many people find the "choice" of killing (esp children) violently unacceptable. (You will ALL be aware that most of my posts are about the evils of wars / killing etc).

When abortion was introduced it was only allowed in case a woman may die during childbirth (the sensible Northern Irish still adopt this position). Gradually these abortionists have "whittled away" at the law until it is virtually abortion-on-demand (because it clashed with the Ibiza holiday !!!)

Plissken said - "What a disgusting person you are". For protecting the innocent and defenceless? What a weird unbalanced person YOU must be !

David said - "personally I am uneasy with the idea of abortion, but I am not going to say it should be banned".

Well, David, I AM !
If we all sit back and let this process continue we will have "abortion" right up till the moment of birth. (If any of you had even bother to read the "Roman" piece you would have realised that the Romans (apparently) considered children up to the age of 2 years old as "non persons". Thats what the abortionists would really like. Have a child and kill it when you get fed up (or when it clashed with the next trip to Ibiza).

Locked Out said - "on what is usually a board where a high premium is placed on humanity".

Surely there can be no greater humanity that the sanctity of life ?

EVERY society that has ever treated human life with such disregard has been wiped-out (I do not claim it was by divine intervention, but you never know !)

Surely we are on a very slippery slope ?

"at it again?" EXPLAIN.

Not one of your best ones ITK,but while I may not agree with it at least we give you the chance to say it.
Afraid it'll not fade away Locked Out,but may well grow into a wider debate.

Innocent Accused wrote:
Not one of your best ones ITK,but while I may not agree with it at least we give you the chance to say it.

I think you will find there are alot of people who think (on this subject) exactly like me.

If JK does not want me to post he has only to say, and he'll never hear from me again, but I WILL NOT "temper" my posts to suit the sensibilities of those who would prefer to "keep quiet" and hope the subject (and others similar) will go away. To remain silent is to be complicit.

I rarely post "on a whim" but on a long held sense of conviction. I am of an age where the opinions of others matter little ... all that really matters is that I am at peace with myself, and with my God (whoever he may be).

Anti abortionists or pro lifers have always rightly held strong views as have my side - I'm far from strongly in favour but think it is and should be a woman's right and that the man's few seconds of casual excretion counts for very little. My final words on the topic - Vera Drake.

angel wrote:
"at it again?" EXPLAIN.

Continuing with their demands for even wider availability of abortion, with few or no restrictions.

They have "whittled away" from the original principle on which abortion was legalized (only allowed in cases where a woman's life was in danger) to the point where it is almost available on demand. There are many who have made a healthy "living" out of this sordid business.

The problem for the pro-abortionists is that there is no "clear dividing line" which must not be crossed (all that matters is what they want - whatever is convenient to them).

I am very clear in my barrier. To prevent conception taking place is one thing (no human life has been created) but once that HAS taken place ... where do you stop ? 10 weeks? 20 weeks ? 38 weeks ? A few months after birth when you decide you don't want the child anymore ?

My post was likening the above confusion with the stance of the Romans (see linked piece in the original post) where they considered babies up to 2 years old to be "non-persons" to be killed whenever it suited.

I can understand the logic - although I don't agree with it. A baby, after all, simply sleeps, eats and sh*ts - there is little intellectual activity going on. But, if you follow this train through where would you draw a dividing line? When a child can talk? When it passes an exam ?

This is a problem for the pro-abortionists ... they have no clear dividing lines and will consequently "push" for whatever suits them - even to the point of taking human life.

Can there be any greater selfishness ?

Might lead me to becoming blacklisted here again, but I have a lot of sympathy with what your are saying ITK.

I studied the issue of abortion at university. It's a VERY complex issue. Unfortunately, this reality has been masked by the hellfire evangelical brigade who turn it into a clueless 'abortion is a sin' debate.

Peter Singer, the greatest practical moral philosopher of the 20th century, can only morally justify abortion by likewise justifying infantacide.

To dismiss it as a 'women's right', as most feminists are want to do, is not only wrong, it's rather chilling when you consider there is a defenceless human life involved.

And this is what disturbs me about the feminist attitude to abortion. They're not interested in the morality involved in killing a human being at all. And I wouldn't give any credence whatsoever to 'research' like this that conveniently justifies their self-interested demands. I was reading another study only the other week that claimed that fetuses have memories. But 24 week old unborn babies can't feel pain??

Unfortunately (at least if you're a man or believe in justice) we live in a world in which the moral agenda is now controlled near absolutely by women - women who appear to regard men as dogs and children merely tools to promote their own reproductive interests with. Women can watch 4 year olds being traumatised on national television reality shows for adult entertainment, men have to fear the iron boot coming into their homes at 4 in the morning if they EVER click once on a picture of a woman in a school uniform. Women can kill their unborn children at will, and you're a misogynist if you so much as claim that there might be any ethical issues involved. Men are classed as the worst subhuman child abusers if they so much as admit that a 17 year old girl, 9 years post pubescent, is rather sexy.

Auschwitz here we come.

You know what, ITK? I'm not going to bother with you anymore.

Much as I choose to ignore the hate filled rantings of certain UK newspapers, I think I shall do the same with regards to your posts.

You're infected with something, mate.

Ah well now the thread takes an interesting turn and I DO believe that women, with the majority not having much time for sex and doing it just to please the male and to create babies, will ultimately and very soon get a social ban on all sex.
Procreation will be by artificial insemination only.

Same as JK..woman's right to do with her own body etc.

I know 2 Catholic woman who personally say they do not agree with abortion, would never have one but still believe a woman has a right to choose.

my point is that, although in normal, verbal conversation with ITK I may find some common ground, he started this thread in such an obnoxious, venomous tone that it made me instantly want to disagree with him.

Note to ITK- you may have some valid points, but if you start off subjects by calling people 'These child-murdering whores' what do you think you're going to achieve? Who are you hoping to convert?

Why not try arguing your point reasonably?

You'll only alienate people with your current style.

I DO believe that women, with the majority not having much time for sex and doing it just to please the male and to create babies, will ultimately and very soon get a social ban on all sex.
Procreation will be by artificial insemination only.

I agree that this is how things are shaping up, and also by the way, this is why women are happier in anti-sex conservative islamic countries than they are in the 'liberated' west (despite what chivalrous white knight Islamaphobes wish to believe).

But there are a couple of things that give me hope.

Technology can change everything - particularly reproductive technology. It's a common view that the introduction of the contraceptive pill changed society, and in fact, triggered second wave feminism.

In the next few decades we will see many such game changing technological developments. For example, only last week the FDA gave approval to a medication that increases female libido.

We really can't predict what the future will hold. Only that it will be very, very different to today.

The other hope is that there is a large and growing 'men's rights' movement emerging. Unsurprisingly, this movement is highly conservative and reactionary at the moment, but that is likely to change.

The reality that it is feminists who have perverted their own noble cause who are largely responsible for the growing 'anti-sex' trends in society. This has been masked rather by the Bush Neo-con religious loons being in power in America. Obama's election of the Femi-Nazi Elena Kagan as supreme court judge might be what it takes to wake men up to what women are doing to them (her first act was to rule that sex offenders can be held indefinately by the state AFTER they have served their sentances).

There are nearly a million sex offenders now in America (the vast majority men who have broken laws created or lobbied for by women). A couple of states have recently ruled that the death penalty can be used for non-fatal sex offences - in fact, one state tried to introduce it for the crime of viewing child pornography. Sooner or later, men are going to realise what is happening to them. ...That is, of course, unless the sexist and degrading white knight mentality, expressed by BR in another post, is so genetically ingrained in men that we would chivalrously hold open the doors of our own execution chambers for the feminists who are leading us into them.

david wrote:
my point is that, although in normal, verbal conversation with ITK I may find some common ground, he started this thread in such an obnoxious, venomous tone that it made me instantly want to disagree with him.

Note to ITK- you may have some valid points, but if you start off subjects by calling people 'These child-murdering whores' what do you think you're going to achieve? Who are you hoping to convert?

Why not try arguing your point reasonably?

You'll only alienate people with your current style.

Quite possibly, David ... but look at it another way ... unless you GRAB attention (must be my marketing background) there is more than a small chance that you will get no attention at all !

After all, am I not doing just what John & Yoko did ?

Plissken wrote:
You know what, ITK? I'm not going to bother with you anymore.

Much as I choose to ignore the hate filled rantings of certain UK newspapers, I think I shall do the same with regards to your posts.

This weekend is turning out better than expected !

Blackit wrote:
Might lead me to becoming blacklisted here again, but I have a lot of sympathy with what your are saying ITK.

Well, if we get both get banned, Blackit, for speaking the truth and daring to challenge the audacity of child murderers, at least we'll be in good company.

Welcome to the world of the sane !