This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
-
Test User
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:07 pm
- Been Liked: 89 times
- Has Liked: 34 times
Post
by Test User » Wed May 15, 2019 10:35 am
I'm often criticised for being argumentative so i decided to post this topic where i'm sure we'll all agree.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
The opinion that a rape victim should be forced to carry and give birth to her rapists baby is an extremist opinion.
-
JarrowClaret
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm
- Been Liked: 343 times
- Has Liked: 195 times
Post
by JarrowClaret » Wed May 15, 2019 10:44 am
Wow what a statement, look as a parent and one that has gone through the pain and agony of a miscarriage (well the Male side at least) I am fundamentally against the idea and practice of abortion. Even me though has to stick my hand up and say there are extreme circumstances that may require an abortion to happen this is one such occasion. Extremist or not I don’t care I think it is just a plain wrong statement.
These 2 users liked this post: dsr Uwe Noble
-
thatdberight
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Post
by thatdberight » Wed May 15, 2019 10:50 am
Test User wrote:I'm often criticised for being argumentative so i decided to post this topic where i'm sure we'll all agree.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
The opinion that a rape victim should be forced to carry and give birth to her rapists baby is an extremist opinion.
I agree with you that it's an extreme opinion both in the literal and pejorative use of the term.
This user liked this post: Uwe Noble
-
Lancasterclaret
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Post
by Lancasterclaret » Wed May 15, 2019 10:51 am
I have my own personal view on abortion but what I would never do is use my personal view on it to legislate or force someone else to make a different choice.
Alabama have gone full DUP here, and its not good.
This user liked this post: Corky
-
Test User
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:07 pm
- Been Liked: 89 times
- Has Liked: 34 times
Post
by Test User » Wed May 15, 2019 10:59 am
Lancasterclaret wrote:I have my own personal view on abortion but what I would never do is use my personal view on it to legislate or force someone else to make a different choice.
Alabama have gone full DUP here, and its not good.
The intent of these laws that these Republican states are churning out isn't to have them enacted immediately, because they know the
Roe v Wade ruling means these extreme abortion restrictions are unconstitutional. The goal is to have them sued to prevent these laws from being enacted, and once it's in the court system it will inevitably end up at the Supreme Court, where they will have another chance at overturning Roe v Wade. And this is why conservatives over there were so adamant that Kavanaugh, despite his lies to them and his history of disrespect for women, must be seated to the court. Because they believe he's an ally in this fight.
-
Damo
- Posts: 4505
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:04 pm
- Been Liked: 1777 times
- Has Liked: 2761 times
Post
by Damo » Wed May 15, 2019 11:02 am
Can see this thread lasting
These 3 users liked this post: Lancasterclaret FactualFrank Test User
-
claptrappers_union
- Posts: 5861
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1766 times
- Has Liked: 353 times
- Location: The Banana Stand
Post
by claptrappers_union » Wed May 15, 2019 11:15 am
JarrowClaret wrote:Wow what a statement, look as a parent and one that has gone through the pain and agony of a miscarriage (well the Male side at least) I am fundamentally against the idea and practice of abortion. Even me though has to stick my hand up and say there are extreme circumstances that may require an abortion to happen this is one such occasion. Extremist or not I don’t care I think it is just a plain wrong statement.
Gone through similar to you, however I believe individuals know they're own limitations, feelings and bodies. If someone feel they can't bring in a new life responsibly or it could cause emotional pain - they have every right to choose. Personally, I'd rather see women have abortions legally, safely with professional aftercare rather than using coat-hangers or chucking themselves down stairs.
This user liked this post: ZizkovClaret
-
Dyched
- Posts: 5946
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:34 am
- Been Liked: 1922 times
- Has Liked: 446 times
Post
by Dyched » Wed May 15, 2019 11:18 am
A woman as the inalienable right to do whatever she likes with her body.
Everybody else can go suck on a grenade
This user liked this post: ZizkovClaret
-
aggi
- Posts: 8818
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
- Been Liked: 2114 times
Post
by aggi » Wed May 15, 2019 11:20 am
This was always the end-game for a lot of people in getting Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.
You do have to look at the people making the decisions and think that maybe this isn't the group that is going to be impacted most by these new laws.
![Capture.JPG](./download/file.php?id=9352&sid=c431efaac793abf2bf430bbe596ea783)
- Capture.JPG (69.21 KiB) Viewed 6833 times
-
claret59
- Posts: 353
- Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:10 pm
- Been Liked: 138 times
Post
by claret59 » Wed May 15, 2019 12:47 pm
Dyched states: 'A woman as the inalienable right to do whatever she likes with her body.'
The problem here are that there are two bodies involved and two innocent victims.
-
NottsClaret
- Posts: 3589
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
- Been Liked: 2595 times
- Has Liked: 1 time
Post
by NottsClaret » Wed May 15, 2019 1:07 pm
A man's responsible for every unwanted pregnancy in the world. Can't wait for an entirely female political body to start passing legislation on what men are allowed to do with their bodies, with 99 year jail terms to enforce their decisions.
-
Squarepusher
- Posts: 287
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:02 pm
- Been Liked: 131 times
- Has Liked: 25 times
Post
by Squarepusher » Wed May 15, 2019 2:37 pm
If blokes could get pregnant, you'd be able to get an abortion at Tesco.
-
Lord Beamish
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 2881 times
Post
by Lord Beamish » Wed May 15, 2019 2:50 pm
If a pregnancy is God’s Will, then so is impotence. Ban Viagra!
-
houseboy
- Posts: 7065
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2238 times
- Has Liked: 1617 times
- Location: Baxenden
Post
by houseboy » Wed May 15, 2019 3:19 pm
Why would anyone, male or female, tell someone else, male or female, what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? Abusing oneself with alchohol or cigarettes is legal. Eating unhealthily and becoming morbidly obese is not against the law. The argument against abortion is largely a religious thing, as is the idea of banning birth control, done to make sure there are plenty of births in that particular religion. Anti-abortion laws (and anti-birth control) pre-date anything to do with actually caring about life (which is a relatively modern idea), so we need to stop fooling ourselves that it is about the unborn child.
As far as the original question is concerned it can only be disgusting in the extreme to force a woman to give birth as a result of rape. The woman didn't ask to be raped and didn't plan the pregnancy and should have the right to an abortion with no questions asked. In the first few weeks of pregnancy there is no 'child' anyway, only the basic concept of a child, in that time period there isn't even a body to speak of. Why is this even being discussed at any time or in any place? Only religious lunatics would pass a law banning abortion after rape (or even at any time to be honest).
This user liked this post: Greenmile
-
South West Claret.
- Posts: 5642
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 pm
- Been Liked: 766 times
- Has Liked: 499 times
- Location: Devon
Post
by South West Claret. » Wed May 15, 2019 3:30 pm
Of course not, that's the type of bone headed narrow minded nonsense that only the Yanks could think of.
-
Test User
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:07 pm
- Been Liked: 89 times
- Has Liked: 34 times
Post
by Test User » Wed May 15, 2019 3:55 pm
South West Claret. wrote:Of course not, that's the type of bone headed narrow minded nonsense that only the Yanks could think of.
Well, not just the yanks, but i get your point. There the only ones i know of who are regressing this far.
-
Corky
- Posts: 1431
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:37 pm
- Been Liked: 535 times
- Has Liked: 414 times
Post
by Corky » Wed May 15, 2019 4:08 pm
claret59 wrote:Dyched states: 'A woman as the inalienable right to do whatever she likes with her body.'
The problem here are that there are two bodies involved and two innocent victims.
And that my friend is where the whole sorry debate begins. Who takes precedence?
-
South West Claret.
- Posts: 5642
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 pm
- Been Liked: 766 times
- Has Liked: 499 times
- Location: Devon
Post
by South West Claret. » Wed May 15, 2019 4:17 pm
Corky wrote:And that my friend is where the whole sorry debate begins. Who takes precedence?
The women as she is usually in the right and can make decisions, the baby can't make decisions for obvious reasons and rapist who is the violator will be punished and probably jailed... next question?
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
-
AlargeClaret
- Posts: 4452
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:55 pm
- Been Liked: 1152 times
- Has Liked: 182 times
Post
by AlargeClaret » Wed May 15, 2019 4:22 pm
Anyone denying a woman an abortion after rape truly deserves to burn in hell for all eternity .
This user liked this post: ZizkovClaret
-
AlargeClaret
- Posts: 4452
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:55 pm
- Been Liked: 1152 times
- Has Liked: 182 times
Post
by AlargeClaret » Wed May 15, 2019 4:24 pm
Squarepusher wrote:If blokes could get pregnant, you'd be able to get an abortion at Tesco.
I think you’ll find Tesco pharmacies happily and legally dispensing the morning after pill which aborts the foetus ( well let’s be honest more like a “ jizz flush “ but ...
-
Test User
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:07 pm
- Been Liked: 89 times
- Has Liked: 34 times
Post
by Test User » Wed May 15, 2019 4:32 pm
AlargeClaret wrote:I think you’ll find Tesco pharmacies happily and legally dispensing the morning after pill which aborts the foetus ( well let’s be honest more like a “ jizz flush “ but ...
I believe it prevents fertilisation of the egg, so there's no foetus. But you can bet those who think women should be forced to bear a child after they've been forced to have sex also oppose contraceptives like the morning after pill.
-
ClaretAndJew
- Posts: 8022
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2819 times
- Has Liked: 503 times
- Location: Earth
Post
by ClaretAndJew » Wed May 15, 2019 4:40 pm
Me and an ex made the decision to abort in 2011. We were in our early 20s and she was in university.
She told me about the pregnancy and how it wasn't the ideal time. I respected her decision and was with her at the hospital during the procedure and the subsequent abortion as it happened.
We donated the fetus for research purposes so hopefully did our bit to help science or someone.
Abortions should be no questions asked in my opinion.
These 2 users liked this post: Lord Beamish Dyched
-
FCBurnley
- Posts: 9820
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:56 pm
- Been Liked: 1997 times
- Has Liked: 1141 times
Post
by FCBurnley » Wed May 15, 2019 8:02 pm
Abortion is a subject that will always cause controversy. I do not believe in abortion on demand, neither do I agree with no abortion at all. There appears to be 3 groups of pregnancies that may or may not require abortions. 1/Pregnancies where the woman is pregnant against her will. Eg Rape or Incest. In this case I believe the woman should have the right to abort if that is her choice. 2/ Pregnancies where life threatening situations to the Mother or Baby occur. I believe these should be decided by Doctor and Mother/Father to be with abortion allowed if necessary. 3/ Regular healthy pregnancies. I believe no abortion should be allowed in this case. This law should be supported by Government provided free contraception. When I was of baby making age the only contraceptives were condoms the thickness of inner tubes !! Today the woman has many contraceptive options. Sure accidents will happen but to be honest there is no need in todays world for unwanted pregnancies.No doubt these comments will not please the pro or anti lobbies but they are my best shot at fairness to all.
-
Test User
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:07 pm
- Been Liked: 89 times
- Has Liked: 34 times
Post
by Test User » Wed May 15, 2019 8:21 pm
FCBurnley wrote:Abortion is a subject that will always cause controversy. I do not believe in abortion on demand, neither do I agree with no abortion at all. There appears to be 3 groups of pregnancies that may or may not require abortions. 1/Pregnancies where the woman is pregnant against her will. Eg Rape or Incest. In this case I believe the woman should have the right to abort if that is her choice. 2/ Pregnancies where life threatening situations to the Mother or Baby occur. I believe these should be decided by Doctor and Mother/Father to be with abortion allowed if necessary. 3/ Regular healthy pregnancies. I believe no abortion should be allowed in this case. This law should be supported by Government provided free contraception. When I was of baby making age the only contraceptives were condoms the thickness of inner tubes !! Today the woman has many contraceptive options. Sure accidents will happen but to be honest there is no need in todays world for unwanted pregnancies.No doubt these comments will not please the pro or anti lobbies but they are my best shot at fairness to all.
I agree with everything aside from no optional abortion. Contraceptives should be provided freely to reduce the need for abortions but i see no reason to deny an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy to a woman who doesn't or no longer wants the child. I think the standard is 20 weeks of pregnancy and that's a perfectly reasonable amount of time to let someone decide.
-
FCBurnley
- Posts: 9820
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:56 pm
- Been Liked: 1997 times
- Has Liked: 1141 times
Post
by FCBurnley » Wed May 15, 2019 9:52 pm
Test User wrote:I agree with everything aside from no optional abortion. Contraceptives should be provided freely to reduce the need for abortions but i see no reason to deny an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy to a woman who doesn't or no longer wants the child. I think the standard is 20 weeks of pregnancy and that's a perfectly reasonable amount of time to let someone decide.
I think it is time people stopped using abortion as a contraceptive. With all the contraceptive options available, unwanted pregnancies should be a thing of the past. People need to be responsible for their own actions
-
Test User
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:07 pm
- Been Liked: 89 times
- Has Liked: 34 times
Post
by Test User » Wed May 15, 2019 10:16 pm
FCBurnley wrote:I think it is time people stopped using abortion as a contraceptive. With all the contraceptive options available, unwanted pregnancies should be a thing of the past. People need to be responsible for their own actions
OK. I don't think many people are using abortion as a contraceptive. I'm not sure why exactly you think a significant number of people are. The morning after pill is used quite widely, but then that's not an abortion, despite what some would have you believe.
There are plenty of good reasons why a woman might change her mind about a pregnancy that aren't treating it as a contraception, and i would rather be sure that those women have access to save abortion procedures rather than force them to carry a baby they either don't want or can't afford for reasons that have emerged after falling pregnant just because i don't want someone else using it as a contraceptive.
Sure, this way means that some people misuse it, but that's just something we have to deal. Like all rights, some people will abuse them.
-
dsr
- Posts: 15218
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
- Been Liked: 4571 times
- Has Liked: 2263 times
Post
by dsr » Wed May 15, 2019 10:54 pm
My own view is that the law should allow abortion in case of rape. My personal view is that in theory a woman should carry the baby to term, but in practice I doubt I would be able to do that myself if I was a woman, and I certainly wouldn't condemn or criticiise a woman who didn't.
But in the wider issue, there are as ever two/three camps who will never agree because there is no possible compromise.
1. Pro-abortion: those who believe that the mother is not carrying a human being.
2. Pro-abortion: those who believe that the mother is carrying a living human being, but that human being's life is disposable in a given set of circumstances.
3. Anti-abortion: those who believe that the mother is carrying a human being whose life is worth saving (except perhaps in exceptional circumstances. Like rape.)
-
Test User
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:07 pm
- Been Liked: 89 times
- Has Liked: 34 times
Post
by Test User » Thu May 16, 2019 12:39 am
dsr wrote:My own view is that the law should allow abortion in case of rape. My personal view is that in theory a woman should carry the baby to term, but in practice I doubt I would be able to do that myself if I was a woman, and I certainly wouldn't condemn or criticiise a woman who didn't.
But in the wider issue, there are as ever two/three camps who will never agree because there is no possible compromise.
1. Pro-abortion: those who believe that the mother is not carrying a human being.
2. Pro-abortion: those who believe that the mother is carrying a living human being, but that human being's life is disposable in a given set of circumstances.
3. Anti-abortion: those who believe that the mother is carrying a human being whose life is worth saving (except perhaps in exceptional circumstances. Like rape.)
If you think those are the only three camps then Alabama would like to have a word.
-
exilecanada
- Posts: 830
- Joined: Sat May 12, 2018 4:08 pm
- Been Liked: 235 times
- Has Liked: 21 times
Post
by exilecanada » Thu May 16, 2019 1:57 am
If Kentucky, Tennessee and others in the deep south bible belt follow Alabama’s lead, look for the ‘Useless State of Merica’ population to triple in the next few generations.
-
Greenmile
- Posts: 3165
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 1081 times
- Has Liked: 4254 times
Post
by Greenmile » Thu May 16, 2019 6:50 am
dsr wrote:My own view is that the law should allow abortion in case of rape. My personal view is that in theory a woman should carry the baby to term, but in practice I doubt I would be able to do that myself if I was a woman, and I certainly wouldn't condemn or criticiise a woman who didn't.
But in the wider issue, there are as ever two/three camps who will never agree because there is no possible compromise.
1. Pro-abortion: those who believe that the mother is not carrying a human being.
2. Pro-abortion: those who believe that the mother is carrying a living human being, but that human being's life is disposable in a given set of circumstances.
3. Anti-abortion: those who believe that the mother is carrying a human being whose life is worth saving (except perhaps in exceptional circumstances. Like rape.)
Nobody is “pro-abortion”. Some folk just believe that women should have autonomy over their own bodies (along with any foetus - not human being - that may be contained therein).
I’m sure I’ve told you this before, but true to form, you keep peddling the same lies.
These 3 users liked this post: Lord Beamish BurningBeard Corky
-
Test User
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:07 pm
- Been Liked: 89 times
- Has Liked: 34 times
Post
by Test User » Thu May 16, 2019 2:03 pm
Greenmile wrote:Nobody is “pro-abortion”. Some folk just believe that women should have autonomy over their own bodies (along with any foetus - not human being - that may be contained therein).
I’m sure I’ve told you this before, but true to form, you keep peddling the same lies.
Some people don't understand that it's possible to oppose abortion while also believing it should be legal.
-
BurningBeard
- Posts: 381
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:31 pm
- Been Liked: 196 times
- Has Liked: 158 times
Post
by BurningBeard » Thu May 16, 2019 2:09 pm
dsr wrote:My own view is that the law should allow abortion in case of rape. My personal view is that in theory a woman should carry the baby to term, but in practice I doubt I would be able to do that myself if I was a woman, and I certainly wouldn't condemn or criticiise a woman who didn't.
But in the wider issue, there are as ever two/three camps who will never agree because there is no possible compromise.
1. Pro-abortion: those who believe that the mother is not carrying a human being.
2. Pro-abortion: those who believe that the mother is carrying a living human being, but that human being's life is disposable in a given set of circumstances.
3. Anti-abortion: those who believe that the mother is carrying a human being whose life is worth saving (except perhaps in exceptional circumstances. Like rape.)
No value judgements here at all.
-
Falcon
- Posts: 3213
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:40 pm
- Been Liked: 892 times
- Has Liked: 1169 times
- Location: Proudsville
Post
by Falcon » Thu May 16, 2019 4:07 pm
As with Northern Irish women going to England to get their abortions, people will simply travel to get the procedure done.
I feel for the young girls who have no means of transport, and are too ashamed to speak to their family about it.
-
ŽižkovClaret
- Posts: 7040
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2167 times
- Has Liked: 3100 times
- Location: Praha
-
Contact:
Post
by ŽižkovClaret » Thu May 16, 2019 4:11 pm
aggi wrote:This was always the end-game for a lot of people in getting Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.
You do have to look at the people making the decisions and think that maybe this isn't the group that is going to be impacted most by these new laws.
Capture.JPG
Until one of them inevitably chucks one up a female employee then has some miraculous road to Damascus moment....
-
ŽižkovClaret
- Posts: 7040
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2167 times
- Has Liked: 3100 times
- Location: Praha
-
Contact:
Post
by ŽižkovClaret » Thu May 16, 2019 4:12 pm
claret59 wrote:Dyched states: 'A woman as the inalienable right to do whatever she likes with her body.'
The problem here are that there are two bodies involved and two innocent victims.
The victims being who?
Hypothetically, a 6 week old bunch of cells and a rapist?
-
ŽižkovClaret
- Posts: 7040
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2167 times
- Has Liked: 3100 times
- Location: Praha
-
Contact:
Post
by ŽižkovClaret » Thu May 16, 2019 4:16 pm
Falcon wrote:As with Northern Irish women going to England to get their abortions, people will simply travel to get the procedure done.
I feel for the young girls who have no means of transport, and are too ashamed to speak to their family about it.
Or where a member of their family is the cause of the thing....
-
Test User
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:07 pm
- Been Liked: 89 times
- Has Liked: 34 times
Post
by Test User » Thu May 16, 2019 4:19 pm
Falcon wrote:As with Northern Irish women going to England to get their abortions, people will simply travel to get the procedure done.
I feel for the young girls who have no means of transport, and are too ashamed to speak to their family about it.
Yep. And those who want to but don't will tend to be the poorest. Which means laws like these increase children in poverty. The same people forcing these laws on women are the same people who think welfare should be cut and that Americas poor people are enjoying an easy ride.
-
ElectroClaret
- Posts: 17935
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:07 pm
- Been Liked: 4068 times
- Has Liked: 1853 times
Post
by ElectroClaret » Thu May 16, 2019 4:39 pm
This law is only partly to do with abortion.
It is all part of a far wider agenda by the fundamentalist right wing nutjobs in the US, particularly in the southern States, to hijack all aspects of law making, both at state and federal levels.
This attempt to replace existing abortion laws is a "canary in the mine" probe to see how far they can push things. So if this gets enacted, get ready for things like anti gay and transgender legislation, in fact against all minorities that don't conform to their twisted "morality".
Ably assisted by the f***wit in the White House.
These 2 users liked this post: Corky Claret-On-A-T-Rex
-
Greenmile
- Posts: 3165
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 1081 times
- Has Liked: 4254 times
Post
by Greenmile » Thu May 16, 2019 4:56 pm
Test User wrote:Some people don't understand that it's possible to oppose abortion while also believing it should be legal.
..and some people do, but pretend not to so they can make an entirely disingenous argument.
-
Test User
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:07 pm
- Been Liked: 89 times
- Has Liked: 34 times
Post
by Test User » Thu May 16, 2019 5:19 pm
ElectroClaret wrote:This law is only partly to do with abortion.
It is all part of a far wider agenda by the fundamentalist right wing nutjobs in the US, particularly in the southern States, to hijack all aspects of law making, both at state and federal levels.
This attempt to replace existing abortion laws is a "canary in the mine" probe to see how far they can push things. So if this gets enacted, get ready for things like anti gay and transgender legislation, in fact against all minorities that don't conform to their twisted "morality".
Ably assisted by the f***wit in the White House.
It's a stated aim that these laws are intended to be challenged in court in order to overturn Roe v Wade.
It's how they managed to absolutely gut the Voting Rights Act which has allowed some of the most blatant targeted voter disenfranchisement practices you'll see outside of tinpot dictatorships.
This is how you attack a democracy. You don't do it with bombs, you do it by undermining it from the inside.
-
claret59
- Posts: 353
- Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:10 pm
- Been Liked: 138 times
Post
by claret59 » Thu May 16, 2019 8:15 pm
There was a time when abortion was illegal in recognition of the child in the womb having no voice or 'choice.' If there was such a choice would it choose for its own death? Six weeks is NOT a bunch of cells it is a formed baby with all of the characteristics it would have if it went to full term. All it does after six weeks is grow and develop the body it already has.
Abortion , in some circumstances , in this country can be carried out up to the point of being born. (I think it was President Clinton who passed partial birth abortion into law, the wilful and lawful killing of a child in the very act of being born!) but thankfully this was rescinded by a later President,) , this is not six weeks but nine months, and the manner of killing is grotesque.
The more we sanitise abortion by removing the humanity of the unborn the easier it is to carry out its death.
All of us posting on here were once six weeks old in the womb but thankfully our parents/ mothers did not have us aborted.
-
Greenmile
- Posts: 3165
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 1081 times
- Has Liked: 4254 times
Post
by Greenmile » Thu May 16, 2019 8:51 pm
claret59 wrote:... Six weeks is NOT a bunch of cells it is a formed baby with all of the characteristics it would have if it went to full term...
Do characteristics such as arms, legs, ears, eyes, a brain or a head not count then?
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy ... -pregnant/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
An embryo (not even a foetus yet) at 6 weeks does not yet have “humanity”, no matter what they might try to tell you in church, or on Fox News. It does have a tail, though, which is pretty cool.
For balance, at 9 months, the embryo / foetus has very much grown into a human, but I’m fairly sure (though I’m willing to be corrected by someone better informed than you obviously are) that abortions are only available after about 20 weeks in the UK if there is a serious risk to the life of the mother. The phrase “partial birth abortion” relates to the specific procedure carried out - it doesn’t mean abortions carried out during the birthing process (ie at 9 months).
This user liked this post: Lord Beamish
-
Test User
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:07 pm
- Been Liked: 89 times
- Has Liked: 34 times
Post
by Test User » Thu May 16, 2019 9:28 pm
Greenmile wrote:Do characteristics such as arms, legs, ears, eyes, a brain or a head not count then?
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy ... -pregnant/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
An embryo (not even a foetus yet) at 6 weeks does not yet have “humanity”, no matter what they might try to tell you in church, or on Fox News. It does have a tail, though, which is pretty cool.
For balance, at 9 months, the embryo / foetus has very much grown into a human, but I’m fairly sure (though I’m willing to be corrected by someone better informed than you obviously are) that abortions are only available after about 20 weeks in the UK if there is a serious risk to the life of the mother. The phrase “partial birth abortion” relates to the specific procedure carried out - it doesn’t mean abortions carried out during the birthing process (ie at 9 months).
There are people (*****, i call them) who like to spread the lie that partial birth abortions are carried out at the whims of the doctor and patient, and that anyone who supports a women's right to choose are fully supporting of partial birth abortions to everyone for every reason. We just love murdering babies, they believe.
Not that partial birth abortions are in any way murder, of course. Its' not even a medically accepted term, but it is used to describe a procedure that women choose to go through when they're experiencing a miscarriage but want the fetus to remain intact, or to protect themselves from injury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_di ... extraction" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But facts dont' matter do many in this debate.
-
dsr
- Posts: 15218
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
- Been Liked: 4571 times
- Has Liked: 2263 times
Post
by dsr » Thu May 16, 2019 11:51 pm
Greenmile wrote:Nobody is “pro-abortion”. Some folk just believe that women should have autonomy over their own bodies (along with any foetus - not human being - that may be contained therein).
I’m sure I’ve told you this before, but true to form, you keep peddling the same lies.
Of course people who want abortion to be legal are pro-abortion. They are in favour of abortion. Saying they aren't is as nonsensical as saying that people who in favour of the death penalty don't want to hang anyone,.
As for the idea that a foetus isn't a human being- that's an opinion. I'm not aware of you ever telling me why a foetus is not human, though I do remember imploding turtle telling me that science has conclusively proved that it isn't human at 6 weeks, it is human at birth, and at some point (he doesn't know when) something happens (he doesn't know what) that turns it from non-human to human. Maybe that's what you were thinking of.
But what you certainly have in common with imploding turtle is belief in your own omniscience. He also thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is a liar.
-
Test User
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:07 pm
- Been Liked: 89 times
- Has Liked: 34 times
Post
by Test User » Thu May 16, 2019 11:59 pm
dsr wrote:Of course people who want abortion to be legal are pro-abortion. They are in favour of abortion. Saying they aren't is as nonsensical as saying that people who in favour of the death penalty don't want to hang anyone,.
Interesting, because there's a lot of pro-life and pro death penalty overlap among their supporters.
I'm in favour of abortion being legal, safe and rare. I oppose abortion though, generally speaking. These aren't contradictory beliefs. There are a lot of things that i personally oppose but believe that they should also be legal. Religion being one example i'm sure you can relate with. I oppose your religion. I think it's stupid beyond belief, as i think other religions are stupid beyond belief. But i'm fully supportive of your right to practice it.
So yes, it's perfectly possible to support a woman's right to choose while also opposing the choice they sometimes make.
These 3 users liked this post: Greenmile Caballo Falcon
-
Greenmile
- Posts: 3165
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 1081 times
- Has Liked: 4254 times
Post
by Greenmile » Fri May 17, 2019 6:48 am
dsr wrote:Of course people who want abortion to be legal are pro-abortion. They are in favour of abortion. Saying they aren't is as nonsensical as saying that people who in favour of the death penalty don't want to hang anyone,.
As for the idea that a foetus isn't a human being- that's an opinion. I'm not aware of you ever telling me why a foetus is not human, though I do remember imploding turtle telling me that science has conclusively proved that it isn't human at 6 weeks, it is human at birth, and at some point (he doesn't know when) something happens (he doesn't know what) that turns it from non-human to human. Maybe that's what you were thinking of.
But what you certainly have in common with imploding turtle is belief in your own omniscience. He also thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is a liar.
Do you think supporting Blackburn Rovers should be made illegal? If not, by your reasoning, that makes you “pro-Blackburn Rovers”. You’re basically coming out to everyone as a horse-botherer.
Edit - and I don’t think everyone who disagrees with me is a liar. I just think
you are a liar. The most dishonest person I’ve ever interacted with, in fact.
This user liked this post: Lord Beamish
-
Lord Beamish
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 2881 times
Post
by Lord Beamish » Fri May 17, 2019 7:42 am
Greenmile wrote:Do you think supporting Blackburn Rovers should be made illegal? If not, by your reasoning, that makes you “pro-Blackburn Rovers”. You’re basically coming out to everyone as a horse-botherer.
Edit - and I don’t think everyone who disagrees with me is a liar. I just think you are a liar. The most dishonest person I’ve ever interacted with, in fact.
The religious tend to be practiced sophists on debates like these.
This user liked this post: Greenmile
-
AndrewJB
- Posts: 3808
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
- Been Liked: 1159 times
- Has Liked: 754 times
Post
by AndrewJB » Fri May 17, 2019 2:14 pm
dsr wrote:Of course people who want abortion to be legal are pro-abortion. They are in favour of abortion. Saying they aren't is as nonsensical as saying that people who in favour of the death penalty don't want to hang anyone,.
As for the idea that a foetus isn't a human being- that's an opinion. I'm not aware of you ever telling me why a foetus is not human, though I do remember imploding turtle telling me that science has conclusively proved that it isn't human at 6 weeks, it is human at birth, and at some point (he doesn't know when) something happens (he doesn't know what) that turns it from non-human to human. Maybe that's what you were thinking of.
But what you certainly have in common with imploding turtle is belief in your own omniscience. He also thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is a liar.
I don't know anyone who would describe themselves as 'pro abortion', but instead 'pro choice' in the matter.
-
Uwe Noble
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 5:47 pm
- Been Liked: 111 times
- Has Liked: 286 times
Post
by Uwe Noble » Fri May 17, 2019 7:44 pm
aggi wrote:This was always the end-game for a lot of people in getting Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.
You do have to look at the people making the decisions and think that maybe this isn't the group that is going to be impacted most by these new laws.
Capture.JPG
What a wuss you are. Playing the feminist game. Please grow a pair. By the way it was a female governor who signed this law off. Men have rights here as well as women and of course above all the unborn child.