Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion

No, you're just making a useless debating point. This is real life and death, you do have an opinion, you know that it would be an enormous wrong to kill a baby just before birth. 'Your' opinion is short hand for society's opinion. If your own opinion mirrored sociey's we would allow abortion at term and that would be murder.

Utter crap. The killing of babies at term is a universally abhorrent idea. You do not actually believe what you are saying.Unless, of course, you're a psychopath. In which case you're right, but need close watching.

Who has the right to make a decision about locking someone up for a crime? For enforcing a speed limit? For preventing smoking in public places? Why do you think this decision is outwith public policy? You finally got off the fence. Are you sure you think it right to allow a woman to kill her baby a moment before birth? Really?

You have introduced a qualifyer. I did not and neither has Percy. Percy's only concern has been whether a foetus is life. As do most modern societies. But note, the law is there to protect the foetus from a mother's (non-medical) choice to kill the foetus after that point. All other things being equal, a mother killing her baby a moment prior to birth would be breaking the law. Percy and Jar disagree with that law. You and I do not.

But the law that you say you agree with *is* based on a timeline. Well that's jolly useful on a debate forum. The world will just have to get along without your contributions to public health policy.

So the only opinion you have about a woman deciding to kill her unborn baby 1/10 of a second before it is born is that you have no opinion.But 1/10 of a second later you do? Or do you not?

You think that killing a baby 1/10 of a second before it is born is different from killing a baby 1/10 of a second after?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

With 1/10 of a second, the topic is killing. I understand why you wish to hide behind semantics but that's all you're doing.But if you insist, you think it ok to abort a foetus 1/10 second before birth but that it is wrong to kill a baby 1/10 of a second afterwards?

So you feel that its entirely up to the woman if she kills/aborts her baby 1/10 of a second before birth and you feel ok with that?

That's all irrelevant Phat. His position is that it's none of his business, the mother can do as she sees fit. So the question becomes why should she be allowed to kill her baby 1/10 second before it is born but not 1/10 of a second after. (Assuming this is purely an elective abortion.). Yes. Though that point will change as medical knowledge changes. Again, assuming a purely elective procedure.

Do you say the same about a mother who kills her child 1/10 of a second after birth. If not why not?

Talking to you and Jar is like trying to hold on to a greased pig.Neither you nor I know when life begins and we never will. But that is irrelevant because we have to decide anyway. (We being society). The question is about whether a woman should be allowed to electively abort her foetus or not. And if so, when. I don't care about when life begins! It's you that seems to think that accademic question matters to the decision. How many fucking times does this have to be said. No-one knows when life begins and we never will.So let me try again. Do you believe that a woman should be able to abort her foetus just before it is born. To avoid further obfuscation and avoidance, I do not mean for medical reasons.

Tens of thousands of women do this. They decide that having an unplanned child right now would be inconvenient for whatever reason. I'm not saying anything about complications such as rape, medical emergencies or foetuses found to be with life damaging deformities. I'm trying to deal only with elective abortion and what people feel about it.

Which is why I didn't ask you that question. This is the question I asked. Do you say the same about a mother who kills her child 1/10 of a second after birth. If not why not?

It was jar's timetable. He's now got it down to 1/1000 of a second. I'm happy to take whatever he offers. The point is not about exact timing, it's about what is different about a baby immediately before birth that makes it allowable to kill it?Of course I'm assuming that Jar believes that it's not ok to kill a baby immediately after birth. If he's not then he's a psychopath but at least he's consistent.(I shouldn't have to sat this but I will, I'm assuming there are no medical problems to blur the decision.)