Conjoined twins, 2 heads, 1 body

[Robin Sisland]

A straw man argument? I've not misrepresented what you say. I have also refuted your position, which is another sign that you don't understand the concept of a straw man. I don't think you have the slightest understanding of what a straw man actually is?

A straw man argument is where one participant in an argument misrepresents what the other has said and 'defeats' the misrepresented argument.
You attempted to argue with me over the woman's religious beliefs which I had to repeatedly point out made no difference to the legal position.

Robin, I feel you need to consider the way you speak to people. More than one person has been justifiably cross with you lately.

More accurately, one. And it was unjustified, being based on his assertion that as I wasn't English I didn't have the right to disagree with him. Actually I am, not that it makes any difference.

Perhaps if you didn't act so pompously (unjustifiably so in my view) this would have ended in a courteous manner.

Go back and count how many personal comments you've directed at me. And how many I've directed at you (clue-0).

Anyway, I'm not going to answer you again because to do so would break terms and conditions of GOT.

You haven't answered a single question I've asked you.

 

[Goat]

Drop it, lid.

 

[Robin Sisland]

Sorry, I'm just not used to people getting so hung up on legality when discussing this kind of thing. My point was simply that as the law, or formulation of the law, serves up some very difficult moral questions, so do things like the Hippocratic Oath. Particularly with issues like abortion, you won't often find people ready to accept general rules. They prefer to rely on their own reasoning and intuition, which tend to be very situation specific.

I agree, there are very difficult moral questions. My point is that if you want to change the law from what it is currently you need to find very good answers to those questions. Without a very broad consensus in favour of change the tendancy will always be to support the status quo, or at least allow it continue.
To save you (and anyone else) wading through three pages of this, the only points on which I disagree with Nebbiolo, are how you go about deciding which unborn foetuses will enjoy what he considers to be an "acceptable quality of life" and which won't. I don't understand how he proposes to do that, and he won't tell me.