Comments on: Click-thru campaigners account for 50% of complaints

By: mediawatchwatch.org.uk » Stabbed in the back

mediawatchwatch.org.uk » Stabbed in the back — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 09:56:09 +0000

[…] became really well known only in the wake of the JS:TO protests, and that that protest was largely coordinated – presumably at some expense – by Premier Christian Radio. Green’s fame stemme […]

By: tom p

tom p — Fri, 27 May 2005 09:29:06 +0000

Even if they wouldn’t have chosen not to be born, until they have attained a level of consciousness, then they are not full human beings. They are little more than tumours at the early stage, which is why I have no problem with abortion laws.
A fertilised embryo is not a human, it’s as simple as that.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Thu, 26 May 2005 12:51:00 +0000

It makes sense, innit?
For ‘suidice’ read ‘suicide’.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Fri, 20 May 2005 09:39:51 +0000

You could call it suidice. There is, though, a conceptual difference, and it would be clearer to employ two separate terms.

Even if the true figure is 90%, that means that one is only 10% likely to be right in choosing that one’s child would not mind being ‘knocked off’.
Even then, the person in question would never become suicidal till later in their life. How many suicidal babies or children has anyone come across? (‘Waaah! Angst! It is enough, I cant hack this world any longer – where are the sleeping pills?’) So 100% (excepting cases of child mortality) would be being robbed of a long period of life which was theirs and which no-one had the right to take away from them.

By: tom p

tom p — Thu, 19 May 2005 08:50:34 +0000

100% – that’s a pretty big figure to be bandying about. What about the attempted suicides who haven’t succeeded yet? What about the miserable people working their way up to it? Even if we write them off, then your figure is still flawed because of course 100% of people alive today haven’t successfully committed suicide. It’s axio-fucking-matic. If a statistician used your logic they’d be run out of town with the sound of mocking laughter from fellow statisticians ringing in their ears.
.
Also, according to you (when ridiculously attempting to claim that there was no such thing as an accidental pregnancy), we know the potential consequences of our actions, and in taking these actions we accept the consequences if they happen. Thus, any road traffic accident victim or death of a fatso through heart disease or a smoker through lung cancer or heart disease is really suicide.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Wed, 18 May 2005 12:29:48 +0000

In any way at all??? In that case it is indistinguishable in this regard from a piece of rock. Is it?

We nake choices for our children which are the best for them in retrospect. You know that babies & young children can’t always make choices either – is it therefore ok to kill them? no – it’s not ok to harm them in even a slight way, so killing is way out of court.

100% of the population would have chosen not to be aborted (given that they have not committed suicide). So this is an instance where it is simple to make a choice on the fetus/baby’s behalf. He/she would certainly choose to live.

By: Andy L

Andy L — Wed, 18 May 2005 10:31:29 +0000

The fetus none because it doesn’t have a brain to make choices with, and is not in any way alive.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Fri, 13 May 2005 17:11:14 +0000

The truth is that if there is a tolerance level then the real speed limit is 80mph.

I guess this point doesnt answer the choice thing. The woman makes 2 choices (because she ‘can’), the baby none (being powerless). Not fair, not loving.

By: tom p

tom p — Fri, 13 May 2005 13:41:18 +0000

The letter of most laws isn’t adhered to, generally. That’s why speed camers have tolerance levels so you can do 5-10 miles an hour above the limit they’re supposed to be enforcing.
The purpose of the law was to ensure that young women didn’t die having back-street abortions. In that sense it’s clearly working.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Fri, 13 May 2005 11:55:40 +0000

It is in theory a false dichotomy. But in practice, can one point to any society where (e.g.) the relaxation of abortion laws has led to a situation where abortion levels are low? Or even where the letter of the law is adhered to at all?