# Protect A Woman's Right to Choose



## Guineveretoo (May 19, 2008)

*Tomorrow - Tuesday 20 May, from 5.30pm onwards
Defend 24 Weeks 
No reduction in abortion time limit
Old Palace Yard, outside Parliament — opposite St. Stephen’s Entrance
Tube: Westminster *

On Tuesday 20 May, from 7pm, members of parliament will debate and vote on the anti-abortion amendments to the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill. The key amendments aim to lower the time limit for abortion. Make sure your voice is heard by MPs ahead of the vote and by the media.

This vote is taking place much earlier than expected and with very little notice. In the limited time available, it is vital that everyone who supports a woman’s right to choose does everything they can to show their opposition to any reduction in the time limit. Please attend this crucial protest — and encourage your trade union, women’s group, student union or other organisation to send a presence. 

We say: women must come first.
There is no significant scientific or medical support for any reduction in the time limit. Yet a handful of anti-abortionists are using downright propaganda and misinformation, hoping to intimidate and mislead MPs into attacking women’s rights. An overwhelming majority of the public supports the right to choose: MPs should uphold choice and vote down amendments by Nadine Dorries and any anti-abortion MPs.

Less than two per cent of abortions take place after 20 weeks. If successful, a lowering of the abortion time limit would be devastating for a small number of women in difficult, unforeseeable and individual circumstances and would encourage further anti-abortion attacks. Contrary to anti-abortion hype, research shows there has been no increase in survival rates for births under 24 weeks. There is opposition to any lowering of the time limit from the British Medical Association, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, British Association of Perinatal Medicine, Royal College of Nursing, TUC and national trade unions, the Department of Health and MPs across all three major parliamentary political parties.


Write to your MP
If you haven't already, now is the time to write to, email, phone or visit your MP in advance of the vote on in the evening on 20th May to urge them to vote against any amendment to lower the abortion time limit. A model letter and information on how to identify and contact your MP is available on the campaign website www.abortionrights.org.uk. 

Funds needed
Abortion Rights urgently needs financial support in organising this protest and in covering the costs of the campaign that has been organised. You can help by making a donation online or by cheque to ‘Abortion Rights’ and encouraging your organisation to do so. You can also help by joining and by your organisation affiliating to Abortion Rights.


----------



## Playmaker (May 19, 2008)

This is important, and I will be going down after work.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 20, 2008)

Playmaker said:


> This is important, and I will be going down after work.



And me if I can.  We should tell these fuckers to get their rosaries away from womens ovaries.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

> We say: women must come first.



I say the unborn child must always come first.

Abortion is a shame on our society.

*runs for cover*


----------



## zenie (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I say the unborn child must always come first.
> 
> Abortion is a shame on our society.
> 
> *runs for cover*


 
Do you really think that or are you trying to be funny?


----------



## innit (May 20, 2008)

Playmaker said:


> This is important, and I will be going down after work.



I will be going too


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

zenie said:


> Do you really think that or are you trying to be funny?



I truly believe that.


----------



## editor (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I truly believe that.


That'll be because it wouldn't be you having to carry around and care for  baby for the rest of your life, eh?


----------



## editor (May 20, 2008)

Oh, Eme says she's going too!


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

editor said:


> That'll be because it wouldn't be you having to carry around and care for  baby for the rest of your life, eh?



No. That'll not be it. Eh?


----------



## editor (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> No. That'll not be it. Eh?


So why do you think you can impose your moral opinion on someone else?


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

editor said:


> So why do you think you can impose your moral opinion on someone else?



Who said it was a _moral_ opinion? 

And how is it being "imposed" anymore than the opinion of the OP and those who will attend that event?


----------



## innit (May 20, 2008)

editor said:


> Oh, Eme says she's going too!



I shall text her


----------



## _angel_ (May 20, 2008)

24 weeks is a long time for a 'social' abortion (ie not because there's something wrong with the baby)

I'd support lowering it a bit but making abortion available on demand, on the nhs and not having women having to wait weeks.


----------



## baldrick (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Who said it was a _moral_ opinion?
> 
> And how is it being "imposed" anymore than the opinion of the OP and those who will attend that event?


Because it's a choice.

If the law was the way you want it, there would be no choice.

Fairly obvious, innit?


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

^ That's a bit muddled, really. 

The way the law stands at present imposes the opinions and actions of the pro-abortion lobby on the unborn child.


----------



## baldrick (May 20, 2008)

Perhaps.  But i think the mother's welfare should come first.


----------



## innit (May 20, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> 24 weeks is a long time for a 'social' abortion (ie not because there's something wrong with the baby)
> 
> I'd support lowering it a bit but making abortion available on demand, on the nhs and not having women having to wait weeks.



Did you read the article on today's vote in G2 yesterday?  I thought it was excellent.  Here is a link.

In particular this part is relevant to your post -



> Many of those who have late-term abortions are the most vulnerable: teenagers who didn't realise that they were pregnant until five months' gestation; women with learning disabilities; those using methadone in drug rehabilitation programmes, which puts a halt to your periods. Women like the one I read of recently, whose partner started beating her up when she became pregnant, and who feared she would never be able to escape him if she had his baby. (In more than 30% of domestic violence cases, the abuse started during pregnancy.) Women who have suffered a severely traumatic episode - the death of a partner, or a child, for instance - who fear that the stress might affect foetal development. The BPAS has just published a 28-day audit of late-term abortion requests, to be distributed to MPs. The stories include that of a woman with two small daughters from a previous marriage, who had an unplanned pregnancy with her current partner, which he urged her to continue. She then found out that he was abusing her daughters. As Ann Furedi of BPAS says, the stories "provide a really stark contrast to the abstract, philosophical and rather sterile discussion about viability and not viability. What this does is to take it woman by woman. The challenge that we're putting to MPs is to look at this and think about it - what makes you think that the lives of these women would have been better if they'd had to continue their pregnancy? We're talking about women who, by their own admission, are saying, 'I cannot cope with having this child'."


----------



## zenie (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> ^ That's a bit muddled, really.
> 
> The way the law stands at present imposes the opinions and actions of the pro-abortion lobby on the unborn child.


 

and why shouldn't it? It's my body and I'll do what I like with it


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> ^ That's a bit muddled, really.
> 
> The way the law stands at present imposes the opinions and actions of the pro-abortion lobby on the unborn child.



what pro abortion lobby?


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

baldrick said:


> Perhaps.  But i think the mother's welfare should come first.



Welfare vs rights?

It's a tough one and it's an emotive issue. It's an issue which has caused me major headaches most of my life.

These threads appear. I pop-up. Get flamed. And so it goes until next time.

I can't support abortion, abortionists or those who choose to have abortions. I haven't heard a convincing argument for abortion. Still to be convinced otherwise.



zenie said:


> and why shouldn't it? It's my body and I'll do what I like with it



Your body and property rights. Interesting.


----------



## baldrick (May 20, 2008)

What would be a convincing argument to you?  I'd be interested to hear it.


----------



## zenie (May 20, 2008)

toggle said:


> what pro abortion lobby?


 

I think he means pro choice but it sounds better (for him) to say pro-_abortion!!!!_


----------



## eme (May 20, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> 24 weeks is a long time for a 'social' abortion (ie not because there's something wrong with the baby)



I don't think there's a distinction is there? 
The point of this is that there is no new medical reason why this limit should be raised or lowered. The survival rates haven't changed since this was last under discussion. 

There are, however an awful lot of MPs going on the moral angle, which is interfering with the rights of women to have a choice of what happens to their bodies / unborn children (and I doubt very much that a decision to terminate at 24 weeks is going to be one you take lightly) and this is what I take issue with.

I shall very much be there.


----------



## editor (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I can't support abortion, abortionists or those who choose to have abortions. I haven't heard a convincing argument for abortion. Still to be convinced otherwise.


Maybe if you're carrying a child after being raped you might think of a reason.

Or if you were 16, poor with no family support and were facing a desperate  life of limited opportunities thanks to a long since departed boyfriend.


----------



## innit (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Your body and property rights. Interesting.



Well yes, very.  It's the foundation on which she can be equal with a man.  Very interesting indeed.


----------



## zenie (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Your body and property rights. Interesting.


 
yeh it is my body and my property and your point is? 

Or were you at the receiving end of a woman thinking 'fuck bringing a baby into the world, I'm not ready to have a kid and the dad's an arsehole who can't be trusted to bring up a kid?'


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

zenie said:


> I think he means pro choice but it sounds better (for him) to say pro-_abortion!!!!_



I could be harsher and say _pro-murder_; but that usually leads to a thtread meltdown. Abortion is abortion. 

The _choice_ is what one makes, the _abortion _is what one has and the outcome is the death of a child.


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Welfare vs rights?
> 
> It's a tough one and it's an emotive issue. It's an issue which has caused me major headaches most of my life.
> 
> ...



no one supports abortions, they support the woman's right to choose an abortion, to control her own body. Suggesting supporting abortions would suggest that we think abortions are a good thing. I support good sex education, I support ending the moralistic shite that stops kids getting good sex education.

It is simply that forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy because you insist on imposting your own moral views upon her is utterly abhorrent.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

editor said:


> Maybe if you're carrying a child after being raped you might think of a reason.
> 
> Or if you were 16, poor with no family support and were facing a desperate  life of limited opportunities thanks to a long since departed boyfriend.




Lame. Tired.


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

zenie said:


> I think he means pro choice but it sounds better (for him) to say pro-_abortion!!!!_



i know that, i'm just calling him on his bullshit


----------



## zenie (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I could be harsher and say _pro-murder_; but that usually leads to a thtread meltdown. Abortion is abortion.
> 
> The _choice_ is what one makes, the _abortion _is what one has and the outcome is the death of a child.


 
But you'd get laughed at because that's not what it's called, didn't you get the memo?


----------



## innit (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I could be harsher and say _pro-murder_; but that usually leads to a thtread meltdown. Abortion is abortion.
> 
> The _choice_ is what one makes, the _abortion _is what one has and the outcome is the death of a child.



The outcome is the termination of a pregnancy.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 20, 2008)

89% of abortions are carried out prior to 13 weeks. The very small number of late abortions are being used by those opposed to abortion per se as way of pushing debate and legislation in the direction they want (against a woman's right to choose). Late abortions are a non-issue; the provision of good quality, appropriate, sustained support for families is.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

toggle said:


> It is simply that forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy because you insist on imposting your own moral views upon her is utterly abhorrent.



And the act of terminating a life is not abhorrent? Bizarre.


----------



## _angel_ (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Lame. Tired.



Are you denying that women do get pregnant after being raped?


----------



## zenie (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Lame. Tired.


 
they're valid reasons as were mine. 




			
				innit said:
			
		

> Well yes, very. It's the foundation on which she can be equal with a man. Very interesting indeed.


 
misogyny works in funny ways ey?


----------



## Thora (May 20, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> 24 weeks is a long time for a 'social' abortion (ie not because there's something wrong with the baby)
> 
> I'd support lowering it a bit but making abortion available on demand, on the nhs and not having women having to wait weeks.



24 weeks is a long time, but the way I see it no one is thinking, "oh, I won't have an abortion at 8 weeks - I'll wait til 24".  If you find yourself in the position of being 24 weeks pregnant and needing an abortion, I'm guessing you have a pretty good reason.  Rather than reducing the limit, we should be making it easier for women (especially young or vulnerable women) to access abortions with as little fuss as early as possible.


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> And the act of terminating a life is not abhorrent? Bizarre.



the act of forcing a woman to continue being assaulted daily, to damage her health and possibly kill her is far worse.


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

Thora said:


> 24 weeks is a long time, but the way I see it no one is thinking, "oh, I won't have an abortion at 8 weeks - I'll wait til 24".  If you find yourself in the position of being 24 weeks pregnant and needing an abortion, I'm guessing you have a pretty good reason.  Rather than reducing the limit, we should be making it easier for women (especially young or vulnerable women) to access abortions with as little fuss as early as possible.




Exactly. The effect of limitations is usually an attack on the most vulnerable.


----------



## _angel_ (May 20, 2008)

Thora said:


> 24 weeks is a long time, but the way I see it no one is thinking, "oh, I won't have an abortion at 8 weeks - I'll wait til 24".  If you find yourself in the position of being 24 weeks pregnant and needing an abortion, I'm guessing you have a pretty good reason.  Rather than reducing the limit, we should be making it easier for women (especially young or vulnerable women) to access abortions with as little fuss as early as possible.



I definitely agree with the latter part. I do think that once someone's got to 24 weeks they might as well carry on and have the baby adopted.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

Ah. So soon into the thread and already we're hearing the scrapping of the bottom of the barrel as the apologists scrabble for something new to say.

Anything new to say?

No. Thought not.

If anyone does come up with a coherent argument for abortion, which also deals with the right to life and the rights of an unborn child, I'm all ears.

Thank you for reading.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 20, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Are you denying that women do get pregnant after being raped?



If I was raped, I'd be testing for pregnancy at the earliest possible time and would not wait 24 weeks before making my decision to keep or abort.

(This is about the lenght of time not the right to abortion, right?)


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Ah. So soon into the thread and already we're hearing the scrapping of the bottom of the barrel as the apologists scrabble for something new to say.
> 
> Anything new to say?
> 
> ...



only drivel i see here is yours.

you not only have nothing new to say, you appear to have nothing to say


----------



## _angel_ (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Ah. So soon into the thread and already we're hearing the scrapping of the bottom of the barrel as the apologists scrabble for something new to say.
> 
> Anything new to say?
> 
> ...



You haven't explained how it's okay to force a woman- or girl, possibly very young- to go thru a pregnancy as a result of a rape.


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> The _choice_ is what one makes, the _abortion _is what one has and the outcome is the death of a child.



a foetus or an embyro is not a child.


----------



## innit (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> If anyone does come up with a coherent argument for abortion, which also deals with the right to life and the rights of an unborn child, I'm all ears.
> 
> Thank you for reading.



The right to life is a human right, pertaining to *people* not foetuses.

I imagine the vast amount of women having abortions are actually thinking about the interests of a potential child and the life it might have.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> You haven't explained how it's okay to force a woman- or girl, possibly very young- to go thru a pregnancy as a result of a rape.



**yawns**

Everything collapses into the rape/assault/mentally handicapped-disabled child in the womb routine, doesn't it?

Simple questions - where or how does a 'right' consist in? And where or how does a woman's 'right' [or 'rights'] have precedent over a child's?


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I definitely agree with the latter part. I do think that once someone's got to 24 weeks they might as well carry on and have the baby adopted.




even in cases where the baby is severely disabled and will die at or shortly after birth? or where to continue the pregnancy could case the woman to die?


----------



## baldrick (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Ah. So soon into the thread and already we're hearing the scrapping of the bottom of the barrel as the apologists scrabble for something new to say.
> 
> Anything new to say?
> 
> ...


What kind of new do you want?

I could tell you how it feels to be pregnant with a baby that I didn't want but i suspect your empathy for a woman in my position is very limited.

It comes to something when _killing your own baby_ is the least worst option 

so take your sanctimony elsewhere, please.


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

innit said:


> The right to life is a human right, pertaining to *people* not foetuses.
> 
> I imagine the vast amount of women having abortions are actually thinking about the interests of a potential child and the life it might have.



a significant number of women who have abortions already have carried a pregnancy to term.


----------



## Thora (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> **yawns**
> 
> Everything collapses into the rape/assault/mentally handicapped-disabled child in the womb routine, doesn't it?
> 
> Simple questions - where or how does a 'right' consist in? And where or how does a woman's 'right' [or 'rights'] have precedent over a child's?



A woman has a right not to have anything in her womb that she doesn't want there imo.


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> If I was raped, I'd be testing for pregnancy at the earliest possible time and would not wait 24 weeks before making my decision to keep or abort.
> 
> (This is about the lenght of time not the right to abortion, right?)



even if you were a teeenager and were being sexually abused?


----------



## zenie (May 20, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> If I was raped, I'd be testing for pregnancy at the earliest possible time and would not wait 24 weeks before making my decision to keep or abort.
> 
> (This is about the lenght of time not the right to abortion, right?)


 
well, you might not know you'd been raped tbh. 




			
				_angel_ said:
			
		

> You haven't explained how it's okay to force a woman- or girl, possibly very young- to go thru a pregnancy as a result of a rape.


 
he can't. My guess is that an ex of his has had a termination in the past and that's why he feels so emotive about it, but it's not his body and until that foetus is born it is the property of the woman as has been found in courts of law all over the world.


----------



## _angel_ (May 20, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> even in cases where the baby is severely disabled and will die at or shortly after birth? or where to continue the pregnancy could case the woman to die?



That's a medical reason, then, not a 'social' one.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Ah. So soon into the thread and already we're hearing the scrapping of the bottom of the barrel as the apologists scrabble for something new to say.
> 
> Anything new to say?
> 
> ...



Explain what exactly this right to life is and what it is attached to. You might like to consider that some estimates place the 'natural' abortion rate as high as 60%; what about right to life in those cases?


----------



## spring-peeper (May 20, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> even if you were a teeenager and were being sexually abused?



Sexually abused girls don't know they are preggers until they are over 20 weeks???


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

baldrick said:


> so take your sanctimony elsewhere, please.



Because I disagree with you, I'm necessarily sanctimonious or misognistic?


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon> okay, say abortion was outlawed, as it is in ireland. women would have to travel, therefore the poorest would be unable to obtain an abortion. women would go back to the old illegal back street abortion or the hot bath and gin method. do you think that by making abortion illegal, it will stop?


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Explain what exactly this right to life is and what it is attached to. You might like to consider that some estimates place the 'natural' abortion rate as high as 60%; what about right to life in those cases?



I think you've missed the point.


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> Sexually abused girls don't know they are preggers until they are over 20 weeks???



i didn't know until I was about 18 weeks, and I already have 2 kids. that's the effect of having absolutely no morning sickness at all and periods that come when they feel like it.


----------



## baldrick (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Because I disagree with you, I'm necessarily sanctimonious or misognistic?


No, but your view is very black and white.

Life isn't like that.  Do you not care about the women involved? It doesn't seem like you do tbh.


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> Sexually abused girls don't know they are preggers until they are over 20 weeks???




they may know, but if your father was the abuser, wouldn't you be even a little bit scared?


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> lightsoutlondon> okay, say abortion was outlawed, as it is in ireland. women would have to travel, therefore the poorest would be unable to obtain an abortion. women would go back to the old illegal back street abortion or the hot bath and gin method. do you think that by making abortion illegal, it will stop?



Good point. And here's the rub. I think I started off by saying that abortion is a shame on our _society_. It's tough, for sure.


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> That's a medical reason, then, not a 'social' one.



i'm sure that very few late term abortions are for "social" reasons


----------



## innit (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I think you've missed the point.



I don't think you are mentally capable of understanding his point


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I think you've missed the point.



No...you haven't thought through the logic of your choice to attach rights to something that has no means of exercising them, and to do so in one situation and not another. You'd be better off asking yourself why you have made the choices you have regarding abortion, and what effects would the imposition of your choices have on others.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 20, 2008)

I know kids who's daddy's got them pregnant at 14-15 - they knew they were preggers.

And - yes they were very, very scared.  Both aborted within the first month or so.

Daddy continued to play even after the abortion.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

baldrick said:


> No, but your view is very black and white.
> 
> Life isn't like that.  Do you not care about the women involved? It doesn't seem like you do tbh.



It is a black and white PoV, I agree. I don't see how it could be anything else. Again - happy to be persuaded otherwise.

As to caring about women, or women who have had an abortion, I'm not sure I follow you. What I'm driving at is the society we live in and _the potential our society has_, there need be no reason, no reason at all, for a woman to need to seek an abortion.

Placing one person's life over another's is a sticky wicket, IMHO.


----------



## trashpony (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Ah. So soon into the thread and already we're hearing the scrapping of the bottom of the barrel as the apologists scrabble for something new to say.
> 
> Anything new to say?
> 
> ...



I wasn't going to wade into this discussion seeing as you and I have already had this conversation _ad infinitum_. I see that you haven't got anything new to say either. But that doesn't stop you going over and over your old ground. 

You're the one who's dull I'm afraid.


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

.


----------



## baldrick (May 20, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> I know kids who's daddy's got them pregnant at 14-15 - they knew they were preggers.
> 
> And - yes they were very, very scared. Both aborted within the first month or so.
> 
> Daddy continued to play even after the abortion.


christ almighty.  see, it _does_ happen lightsout


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Good point. And here's the rub. I think I started off by saying that abortion is a shame on our _society_. It's tough, for sure.



abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. It wouldn't take me 5 minutes to find 15 different herbal remedies for unwanted pregnancy. many of which have considerable historical use and many of which are highly toxic. 

making abortion illegal wouldn't stop abortion, it would simply leave women without the money to see a proper doctor vulnerable to quacks with knitting needles or coathangers or old wives tales about poisonous plants.

The only reason I can see for making abortion illegal under these circumstances is that the people campaigning for this see potential death as an appropriate punishment to women who get pregnant.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> And the act of terminating a life is not abhorrent? Bizarre.



It all depends on when you define life as beginning.  Some religions take the view that life begins when a baby is capable of independent life which can be in the modern world after 25/26 weeks or in more primitive societies the definition is after the head has emerged from the vagina.  Some paths take the view that life begins at conception which seems too early to me as this proto baby hasn't got what it takes to be considered as life in any meaningful form.

I've been in the position where an ex lost a much wanted by both of us baby in the early stages of pregnancy and it was to us as much a loss as if the baby had died at birth or later.

If it was a situation where the baby was not wanted or the parent(s) were not able to care for and love the baby as it should be then the path of least wrong is to offer safe legal timely terminations.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No...you haven't thought through the logic of your choice to attach rights to something that has no means of exercising them, and to do so in one situation and not another. You'd be better off asking yourself why you have made the choices you have regarding abortion, and what effects would the imposition of your choices have on others.



 A right is only a right if the person to whom it pertains is personally capable of exercising it? Doubtful.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> A right is only a right if the person to whom it pertains is personally capable of exercising it? Doubtful.



That's not what I said, read the whole of the post.

To make this easier for you; you choose to attach rights to some foetuses and not others; if they are all of presumably similar worth then why not intervene as vigorously as possible in all cases of 'natural' abortion? The answer is because that is obviously a ridiculous position to take, negating the rights of women as it does. Which leaves you in a position where it isn't abortion that you're objecting to but rather a woman's choice as opposed to something we call 'nature'; you seem to have it in for some pregnant women rather than wanting to protect the vast majority of unborn children. Why you've made this choice is something you might want to consider.


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> .
> 
> As to caring about women, or women who have had an abortion, I'm not sure I follow you. What I'm driving at is the society we live in and _the potential our society has_, there need be no reason, no reason at all, for a woman to need to seek an abortion.



so you are going to eliminate:

complications which mean that the mother's live is endangered
mental health problems
sexual abuse
rape
contraceptive failure

do you think that pregnant women who find out that they have cancer shouldn't have treatment because the foetus will be endangered?


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

toggle said:


> The only reason I can see for making abortion illegal under these circumstances is that the people campaigning for this see potential death as _an appropriate punishment to women who get pregnant_.



A while back you wrote that_ I_ was writing/speaking drivel.


----------



## baldrick (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> As to caring about women, or women who have had an abortion, I'm not sure I follow you. What I'm driving at is the society we live in and _the potential our society has_, there need be no reason, no reason at all, for a woman to need to seek an abortion.
> 
> Placing one person's life over another's is a sticky wicket, IMHO.


What is this potential you speak of? I think you need to explain.

I think we're coming from this at fundamentally different directions.   I think abortion is fundamental for women's rights in society as independent people who are capable of dictating thier own choices in life.  You think the unborn child's rights are more important.

I see no way for us to be reconciled


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> A while back you wrote that_ I_ was writing/speaking drivel.



you could perhaps read and respond to the WHOLE POST.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

Louis MacNeice said:


> That's not what I said, read the whole of the post.



I have and there's little there, tbh. And I'm not sure what you mean by _one situation and not another_?


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

Louis MacNeice said:


> That's not what I said, read the whole of the post.



seems to have trouble doing that


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

toggle said:


> you could perhaps read and respond to the WHOLE POST.



1. don't shout.

2. Are you always so paranoid as to believe there is a section of society out to punish women? Life must a brutal place through your eyes.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

baldrick said:


> What is this potential you speak of? I think you need to explain.
> 
> I think we're coming from this at fundamentally different directions.   I think abortion is fundamental for women's rights in society as independent people who are capable of dictating thier own choices in life.  You think the unborn child's rights are more important.
> 
> I see no way for us to be reconciled



I fear you may be right.

Where two 'rights' clash, who is going to play Solomon, IYSWIM?


----------



## innit (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I have and there's little there, tbh. And I'm not sure what you mean by _one situation and not another_?



I knew you wouldn't be able to understand it 



lightsoutlondon said:


> 2. Are you always so paranoid as to believe there is a section of society out to punish women? Life must a brutal place through your eyes.



There are numerous sections of society who want to punish women, the pro-life lobby is just one.


----------



## Thora (May 20, 2008)

Just in terms of practicality, I don't see how it's possible to force women to carry something in their bodies that they don't want.  Even if safe, legal abortions are banned, desperate women will find unsafe, illegal methods.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

innit said:


> I knew you wouldn't be able to understand it
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous sections of society who want to punish women, the pro-life lobby is just one.



Blimey. That is pretty paranoid. These massed ranks of "moral majority"-ers, or Mary Whitehouse-types, all out to get 'women'.

I may be able to understand it, if you explain how I'm applying it to one situation and not another. Which 'another'? Have I missed a post?


----------



## zenie (May 20, 2008)

Would you rather women had a bottle of gin and a hot bath Lightsout?

how do you feel about contraception?


----------



## spring-peeper (May 20, 2008)

Thora said:


> Just in terms of practicality, I don't see how it's possible to force women to carry something in their bodies that they don't want.  Even if safe, legal abortions are banned, desperate women will find unsafe, illegal methods.



Then you would support a woman's right to have an abortion _after_ 24 weeks?


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> 1. don't shout.
> 
> 2. Are you always so paranoid as to believe there is a section of society out to punish women? Life must a brutal place through your eyes.



i've already explained that, go back and read the whole post again.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> Then you would support a woman's right to have an abortion _after_ 24 weeks?



I don't think she's saying that.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 20, 2008)

How long after anyway? A hard and fast limit is always going to have something arbitrary about it.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

toggle said:


> i've already explained that, go back and read the whole post again.



Lmao? What? Are you my mother? Erm... 

What next? Go and tidy my room?!


----------



## _angel_ (May 20, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> i'm sure that very few late term abortions are for "social" reasons



I think you can have a medical termination right up to the end. We *are* talking about (a very small number to be sure) of late term social abortions.

I think these late term abortions hand the argument to the pro lifers gift wrapped. 

At 24 weeks you really are talking about a baby, that might even be breathing, not a bundle of cells at only a few weeks of pregnancy. This is the difference.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I have and there's little there, tbh. And I'm not sure what you mean by _one situation and not another_?



To make this easier for you; you choose to attach rights to some foetuses and not others; if they are all of presumably similar worth then why not intervene as vigorously as possible in all cases of 'natural' abortion? The answer is because that is obviously a ridiculous position to take negating the rights of women as it does. Which leaves you in a position where it isn't abortion that you're objecting to but rather a woman's choice as opposed to something we call 'nature'; you seem to have it in for some pregnant women rather than wanting to protect the vast majority of unborn children. Why you've made this choice is something you might want to consider.


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Lmao? What? Are you my mother? Erm...
> 
> What next? Go and tidy my room?!



learn to read properly would be a good start


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I fear you may be right.
> 
> Where two 'rights' clash, who is going to play Solomon, IYSWIM?



I'm not Solomon but in this case the judgement is easy.  You give the weight in the judgement to the woman who is carrying the unwanted bunch of cells.  Its the woman who can speak about her circumstances not a dumb bunch of cells.

I'm in favour of a womans right to choose even though I crave children of my own and know that I can never satisfy that craving and have had a pregnancy go wrong.

I refuse to use my own pain to chain others to the agenda of the Catholic church.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

Louis MacNeice said:


> To make this easier for you; you choose to attach rights to some foetuses and not others; if they are all of presumably similar worth then why not intervene as vigorously as possible in all cases of 'natural' abortion? The answer is because that is obviously a ridiculous position to take negating the rights of women as it does. Which leaves you in a position where it isn't abortion that you're objecting to but rather a woman's choice as opposed to something we call 'nature'; you seem to have it in for some pregnant women rather than wanting to protect the vast majority of unborn children. Why you've made this choice is something you might want to consider.



Your thinking on _abortion_ and _choice_ is very very muddled.


----------



## El Jefe (May 20, 2008)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Why you've made this choice is something you might want to consider.



And when you've done that, lightsout, you can square it with your claims to be an anarchist.


----------



## _angel_ (May 20, 2008)

toggle said:


> i didn't know until I was about 18 weeks, and I already have 2 kids. that's the effect of having absolutely no morning sickness at all and periods that come when they feel like it.



With respect, that's still quite a bit different from 24 weeks. 24 weeks would be a clearly showing bump.

These women that go into labour without realising they're pregnant (unless they're mentally incapacitated) amaze me.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

toggle said:


> learn to read properly would be a good start



Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> With respect, that's still quite a bit different from 24 weeks. 24 weeks would be a clearly showing bump.



bollocks


----------



## _angel_ (May 20, 2008)

toggle said:


> bollocks



You wouldn't be showing at 24 weeks? I know I was!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Your thinking on _abortion_ and _choice_ is very very muddled.



Your inability/unwillingness to work through the logic of your position isn't helped by the terseness of your replies; it's almost as if you don't want to think too hard about it.


----------



## zenie (May 20, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> With respect, that's still quite a bit different from 24 weeks. 24 weeks would be a clearly showing bump.
> 
> These women that go into labour without realising they're pregnant (unless they're mentally incapacitated) amaze me.


 
My firend's sister was a size UK6 and gave birth at 14, she went to the AandE with backache 

She never showed and says she had periods all the way through, didn't know she was pregnant!


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Your inability/unwillingness to work through the logic of position isn't helped by the terseness of your replies; it's almost as if you don't want to think too hard about it.



That's because your position is incoherent. You're confusing a natural bodily function with a (one would assume) conscious choice; regardless of circumstance or cause.


----------



## innit (May 20, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> You wouldn't be showing at 24 weeks? I know I was!



I know a woman who found out she was pregnant at 24 weeks.  In the previous week she had seen both her mother and numerous close friends, none of whom noticed she was pregnant.  She was very embarrassed about it until she spoke to a GP who found out she was pregnant at 7 months.


----------



## _angel_ (May 20, 2008)

zenie said:


> My firend's sister was a size UK6 and gave birth at 14, she went to the AandE with backache
> 
> She never showed and says she had periods all the way through, didn't know she was pregnant!



Was the baby remarkably small? You'd have thought someone a size 6 the baby would be enormous on!

I know women can have periods thru a pregnancy. I had one at least last time. (And I'm irregular too)


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> At 24 weeks you really are talking about a baby, that might even be breathing, not a bundle of cells at only a few weeks of pregnancy. This is the difference.


great bma article on this here: http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/AbortionTimeLimits~Factors~viability

of those born at 24 weeks only 3% have no disability at age 6.  1% at 23 weeks, 0 at 22.


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> You wouldn't be showing at 24 weeks? I know I was!



well, that's ok then, all women are like you.


----------



## zenie (May 20, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Was the baby remarkably small? You'd have thought someone a size 6 the baby would be enormous on!
> 
> I know women can have periods thru a pregnancy. I had one at least last time. (And I'm irregular too)


 
No the baby was about 7 pounds 

I can't say for sure that she didn't have periods or know -she was only 14 and very scared when she went into terrible bachache/labour....


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> That's because your position is incoherent. You're confusing a natural bodily function with a (one would assume) conscious choice; regardless of circumstance or cause.



It's not my position that is incoherent. You write about a 'natural bodily function'; but they (the causes of 'natural abortions are many) are like any number of 'natural bodily functions' which we choose to intervene in everyday. What we don't do is pass legislation to make all people who could benefit from them use asthma inhalers or wear hearing aids...and we don't do that because it would be a ridiculous overriding of people's rights to control over their own lives and bodies.

If you could mount a coherent and persuasive argument that placed the rights of the unborn child, as you choose to describe it, before those of the mother, then you should try to intervene on their behalf against the 'natural bodily function'. If not then it isn't abortion and unborn children that are your real concern, but rather the choices made by some women about what to do with their bodies...which is a bit odd.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 20, 2008)

You've missed the point_ entirely_. Convenient. You confuse categorical imperatives with rights and morals and nature.

Anyway. It's been a bit more civilised than these threads usually are. As someone previously posted, it's a subject which causes me all sorts of problems with my wider beliefs. This kind of thread is a red rag to me. 

I'm back in my box and off for a haircut. Ta for reading.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 20, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> You've missed the point_ entirely_. Convenient. You confuse categorical imperatives with rights and morals and nature.
> 
> Anyway. It's been a bit more civilised than these threads usually are. As someone previously posted, it's a subject which causes me all sorts of problems with my wider beliefs. This kind of thread is a red rag to me.
> 
> I'm back in my box and off for a haircut. Ta for reading.



No it's you who are choosing to hive off 'nature' into some imagined box where you don't have to worry about it. All I'm doing is pointing this out and what it means for your anti-abortion position.

Have a good hair cut, although why you chose to intervene in the natural bodily function of growing your hair is beyond me?

Take care - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 20, 2008)

Ignoring the controversy on this thread for now, just to urge those people who do support a woman's right to choose to come along to this rally. It hasn't been very well advertised in the union movement, so we need to get it publicised as widely as possible!


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 20, 2008)

Bumping it, because it starts in 10 minutes! See some of you there.


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

you can watch the debate on the bbc site now!


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

claire curtis thomas is barking mad


----------



## innit (May 20, 2008)

The demonstration was great - can't believe how great the turnout was!  I think the organiser said there was over 1,000 at the most (although that could be complete cack tbf as I couldn't hear her very well from where I was.

Was lovely to see eme and another actionette there, sorry we didn't see you Guineveretoo


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 20, 2008)

I was there, and I saw the two actionettes, but when I went over to say hi to them a bit later, I couldn't find them. Carole from Big Brother tried to sell me a Socialist Worker paper


----------



## innit (May 20, 2008)

They didn't stay long - they had to go to dance practice.  I stayed to the end though.

I thought I recognised the SW lady but I couldn't think why   now I know!


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

vote in a couple of minutes


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 20, 2008)

I'd be very surprised if the limit is lowered- there is still a strong pro-choice majority in the HOC


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 20, 2008)

Widdecombe sounds and looks more of a nutjob than she has ever done!!

EDIT: it is hard to believe in 2008 our MPs still vote by walking through a lobby and being counted by other MPs!!


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

clause 1 (12 week limit) being voted on now.


----------



## eme (May 20, 2008)

prize for most ridiculous quote ever: 

In modern Britain the most dangerous place to be is in your mother's womb. It should be a place of sanctity
Edward Leigh
Conservative MP


----------



## Prince Rhyus (May 20, 2008)

The whole idea of abortion is something that does disturb me. However, I don't think the solution is to reduce the time limit nor prohibit abortions. 

My concern is over why so many people are in the situation where they need to have an abortion, and what more can be done to reduce the number of people who find themselves getting into that situation in the first place.

Yes, I would like to see the number of people having abortions fall.

No, I do not believe that prohibiting abortions nor reducing time limits is the answer.

The answer is a damn sight more complicated. More research needs to be done into how people find themselves in a situation where they feel the need to have an abortion and work backwards from there to nip the whole thing in the bud.

Some might say it's sex education. Others might say it's because a woman feels that she cannot cope with bringing up a child in the society that she finds herself in. (House prices and cost of living - and the break down of society's informal support networks for example.)


----------



## Thora (May 20, 2008)

eme said:


> prize for most ridiculous quote ever:
> 
> In modern Britain the most dangerous place to be is in your mother's womb. It should be a place of sanctity
> Edward Leigh
> Conservative MP



You have to laugh, eh


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 20, 2008)

Leigh is a prize twit- he is on the authoritarian right 'cornerstone' wing of the party, and is opposed to gay rights as well as abortion


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

eme said:


> prize for most ridiculous quote ever:
> 
> In modern Britain the most dangerous place to be is in your mother's womb. It should be a place of sanctity
> Edward Leigh
> Conservative MP



more emotive bullshit from a moron


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 20, 2008)

I'll eat my laptop if Leigh's amendment, 12 weeks, comes anywhere near passing.

Be interesting to see how close the 22 weeks vote is- hopefully not very.....


----------



## mentalchik (May 20, 2008)

Prince Rhyus said:


> The answer is a damn sight more complicated. More research needs to be done into how people find themselves in a situation where they feel the need to have an abortion and work backwards from there to nip the whole thing in the bud.
> 
> Some might say it's sex education. Others might say it's because a woman feels that she cannot cope with bringing up a child in the society that she finds herself in. (House prices and cost of living - and the break down of society's informal support networks for example.)




Some might say it's coz she just doesn't want to be pregnant !

(flippant)

Human beings are fallible, they make mistakes and sometimes they might have things forced upon them or be ignorant.......


----------



## spanglechick (May 20, 2008)

eme said:


> prize for most ridiculous quote ever:
> 
> In modern Britain the most dangerous place to be is in your mother's womb. It should be a place of sanctity
> Edward Leigh
> Conservative MP



see - you could go some way to claim that the most dangerous medical period of a woman's life is preganancy - and while it's true, it's facile and disingenuous to say so in a denate of this nature...  debating skills of a petualnt sixteen year old, the anti-choice lot....


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

12 week result:

ayes: 71
noes: 393


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 20, 2008)

71-393 pretty convincing defeat...

about voting 170 mps missing though, if my maths is right....


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

some of the missing could've "matched up" though


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 20, 2008)

indeed, sarah.


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

84 vs 387 for 16 weeks.


----------



## trashpony (May 20, 2008)

20 weeks rejected


----------



## mentalchik (May 20, 2008)

:d


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 20, 2008)

trashpony said:


> 20 weeks rejected


Indeed, but 190 mps backed it. I wonder how many will back 22 wks.....


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 20, 2008)

eme said:


> prize for most ridiculous quote ever:
> 
> In modern Britain the most dangerous place to be is in your mother's womb. It should be a place of sanctity
> Edward Leigh
> Conservative MP


don't forget, Leigh is the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons, one of the most important poisitions within our chamber of representatives.


----------



## innit (May 20, 2008)

so it was 190 / 274 (or thereabouts) ?   A big rise from 84 / 387


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 20, 2008)

190/ 320 odd IIRC


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

.


----------



## ethel (May 20, 2008)

173 vs. 309 on 21 (? whatever clause 8 was) weeks  soundly defeated.


----------



## trashpony (May 20, 2008)

173/309 against 22 weeks. Lots of abstainers clearly


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 20, 2008)

22 week vote hasn't happened yet!


----------



## trashpony (May 20, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> 22 week vote hasn't happened yet!



Yes it has I think  It says on my BBC stream 'all other attempts to reduce limits from 24 weeks have been rejected'

Oh I see - all other except the 22 

What did they just vote on then?


----------



## innit (May 20, 2008)

It hasn't I don't think - have been watching it live streaming and they are dividing


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 20, 2008)

Anyone with a decent computer (unlike me on the borrowed laptop) can watch the divisions live on parliament.tv


----------



## innit (May 20, 2008)

The noes have it   

Fucking close at 233 / 304

Would love to think that the amazing turnout at the demo this evening influenced a few votes


----------



## trashpony (May 20, 2008)

innit said:


> The noes have it
> 
> Fucking close at 233 / 304
> 
> Would love to think that the amazing turnout at the demo this evening influenced a few votes



I'd like to think so too  What a fucking relief. Right I really am going to bed now.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 20, 2008)

Are you saying they voted against reducing the upper limit???


----------



## trashpony (May 20, 2008)

Sweaty Betty said:


> Are you saying they voted against reducing the upper limit???



Yep - it's staying at 24 weeks


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 20, 2008)

Phew!  

My laptop froze half way through that sodding vote being reported!


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 20, 2008)

Potentially could have been a different story under a tory government, but the battle is won for now.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 20, 2008)

trashpony said:


> Yep - it's staying at 24 weeks



Oh cool

I got a bit confuzzled


----------



## toggle (May 20, 2008)

innit said:


> The noes have it
> 
> Fucking close at 233 / 304
> 
> Would love to think that the amazing turnout at the demo this evening influenced a few votes



well done, wish i could ahve been there.


----------



## innit (May 20, 2008)

trashpony said:


> What a fucking relief.



Indeed 

What a great result for women.  Night all.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 20, 2008)

innit said:


> Indeed
> 
> What a great result for women.  Night all.



Yes indeed, when i saw some christian bod on the news earlier sprouting on about how women are choosing men over babies and this is the underlying problem i just pissed off to do some ovrdue filing shaking my head!!!


Well done womens choices!!!!


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 20, 2008)

Great result.  Now what needs to be done is to remove the requirement for two doctors.


----------



## soulman (May 20, 2008)

Meanwhile hybrid human/other animal embryos are being created...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 20, 2008)

Great result!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 20, 2008)

soulman said:


> Meanwhile hybrid human/other animal embryos are being created...



What's wrong with that?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 20, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> What's wrong with that?



Nothing imo.  Provided that they stop at the stage when it is just an amorphous bunch of cells.

Concieveably it could break the commandment not to mix two types of seed in one field but its only a tenuous link with that commandment.  Besides that the commandment to save life takes precedence over everything else.


----------



## treefrog (May 20, 2008)

Thank fuck for that, I can go to bed happy.


----------



## soulman (May 20, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> What's wrong with that?



I'm guessing those scientists will need human embryos and/or other 'fetal material'. Call me cynical, in fact call me anything you want...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 20, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> What's wrong with that?


you have got to admit its an interesting juxtaposition to what prompted today's vote in some ways. maybe not necessary for discussion here but all the same.

eta: and not for the rather ghoulish reasons expressed above perchance but a valid observation imo.


----------



## tangentlama (May 21, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Great result.  Now what needs to be done is to remove the requirement for two doctors.



That change is not for women's benefit - that's for the service's benefit, so they can not pay that the wage of that second doctor and cut their costs. 
I'm not so sure about changing this aspect of the procedure.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 21, 2008)

The waiting time for terminations on the NHS is a problem - the teenage daughter of a friend of mine, having made the very difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy (which took her several weeks, because it is not an easy decision to make, even for a teenager who gets pregnant with another teenager who she has only just met) was told she would have to wait several weeks before she could have the abortion. She completely freaked out at the thought of waiting so long, and, luckily, had the support of her parents and grandparents, who paid for her to go private. She is someone who was still under the care of the nhs pyschiatric service following an overdose a few months before, and clearly was hardly able to look after herself, never mind a baby. I can't bear to think what would have happened to her and the child if she had been forced to go through with it. I think she may have taken another overdose and, having been thwarted before, may have been successful the second time.

The two doctors aspect is not a problem - if anything, it ensures people are not taking this too lightly, and surely no-one wants it to be a decision or a procedure taken lightly!  There is a huge problem with the waiting list, and I was seriously shocked when I found out how long that poor girl detailed above was being expected to wait!  Once the horrible decision is taken, so long as the doctors are confident it has been taken and is the right decision, action needs to follow swifly!


----------



## toggle (May 21, 2008)

tangentlama said:


> That change is not for women's benefit - that's for the service's benefit, so they can not pay that the wage of that second doctor and cut their costs.
> I'm not so sure about changing this aspect of the procedure.



So you think it acceptable that any women getting a termination is required to have 2 doctors sign a paper to say she will go balmy if she doesn't terminate? i'ts bullshit and unnecessary


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 21, 2008)

toggle said:


> So you think it acceptable that any women getting a termination is required to have 2 doctors sign a paper to say she will go balmy if she doesn't terminate? i'ts bullshit and unnecessary



Agree.  The two doctors requirement treats women as if they are children.  

Personally I think the 2 medics thing was put there to silence some of the objections of the anti choice mob back in the sixties.


----------



## trashpony (May 21, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> The waiting time for terminations on the NHS is a problem - the teenage daughter of a friend of mine, having made the very difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy (which took her several weeks, because it is not an easy decision to make, even for a teenager who gets pregnant with another teenager who she has only just met) was told she would have to wait several weeks before she could have the abortion. She completely freaked out at the thought of waiting so long, and, luckily, had the support of her parents and grandparents, who paid for her to go private. <snip>



Average NHS waiting time is 7 weeks.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 21, 2008)

I agree that the two doctors requirement is an anachronism, but I don't think it is the biggest problem with the provision of abortions in this country. I am much more concerned at there being a waiting list, even when two doctors have agreed that a young person's life and wellbeing is at risk if the pregnancy continues.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 21, 2008)

trashpony said:


> Average NHS waiting time is 7 weeks.




And that is terrifying! I honestly think that young woman I referred to above (and who I accompanied to the private clinic to have the termination, so I know how freaked out she was) might have killed herself if she had had to wait several weeks after making the decision.


----------



## zenie (May 21, 2008)

trashpony said:


> Average NHS waiting time is 7 weeks.


 

yeh it's far too long, means you're aborting at roughly 12 weeks so you're feeling pregnant, causes totally unnecessary suffering to the patient.

Great result last night, am pleased about that


----------



## toggle (May 21, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Agree.  The two doctors requirement treats women as if they are children.
> 
> Personally I think the 2 medics thing was put there to silence some of the objections of the anti choice mob back in the sixties.



I agree, it was there to try to show that we would have abortions provided on 'medical grounds' not abortion on demand. 2 doctors so women couldn't just go to a sympathetic doctor who believed in their right to terminate, they had to get 2 to agree to their being 'medical grounds'.


----------



## toggle (May 21, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> I agree that the two doctors requirement is an anachronism, but I don't think it is the biggest problem with the provision of abortions in this country. I am much more concerned at there being a waiting list, even when two doctors have agreed that a young person's life and wellbeing is at risk if the pregnancy continues.



A waiting list is a big concern, but the 2 doctors requirement is far more easily fixed. 

Personally, I think more than a weeks wait should be considered completely unacceptable.


----------



## ethel (May 21, 2008)

trashpony said:


> Average NHS waiting time is 7 weeks.


where's that from. i'm sure i read 3 weeks yesterday. still too long though.


----------



## _angel_ (May 21, 2008)

toggle said:


> A waiting list is a big concern, but the 2 doctors requirement is far more easily fixed.
> 
> Personally, I think more than a weeks wait should be considered completely unacceptable.




Yes. Seven weeks is totally unacceptable.. how traumatic must that be, having a baby growing inside you knowing it's going to be terminated..

Do they do this on purpose as some punishment or hope it'll change the minds of girls to keep the baby?


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 21, 2008)

If anyones interested, the 71 MPs who wanted a 12 week limit are listed here

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2008-05-20&number=199&display=allvotes&sort=vote


----------



## _angel_ (May 21, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> If anyones interested, the 71 MPs who wanted a 12 week limit are listed here
> 
> http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2008-05-20&number=199&display=allvotes&sort=vote



My local MPs on there. He's a serious catholic so what can you do about it?


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 21, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> My local MPs on there. He's a serious catholic so what can you do about it?



You can ask him whether he was representing the views of his constituency when he voted, or only his personal views. You could even point out to him that you find it disappointing that he voted against the wishes of the majority of his constituents, and tell him that you voted for him last time (if you did), but that you would not be voting for him in the future...


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 21, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> My local MPs on there.



So is mine 


> so what can you do about it?



Since mine has a whopping Tory majority, proberbly not much


----------



## _angel_ (May 21, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> You can ask him whether he was representing the views of his constituency when he voted, or only his personal views. You could even point out to him that you find it disappointing that he voted against the wishes of the majority of his constituents, and tell him that you voted for him last time (if you did), but that you would not be voting for him in the future...



I believe the vote is meant to be a personal one anyway.

He's retiring q soon. He's a fairly good MP otherwise and prolly better than the nu Lab drone they're parachuting in.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 21, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I believe the vote is meant to be a personal one anyway.
> 
> He's retiring q soon. He's a fairly good MP otherwise and prolly better than the nu Lab drone they're parachuting in.



Yeah, there was no whip. If I were you, I wouldn't bother to do anything anyway - I wasn't being entirely serious. It's just that there are things we can do with our MPs, if we choose, and sometimes they make a difference. 

*shrug*


----------



## ethel (May 21, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> If anyones interested, the 71 MPs who wanted a 12 week limit are listed here
> 
> http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2008-05-20&number=199&display=allvotes&sort=vote



east lothian question!

northern irish mps voting on something that doesn't affect them. argh!

and they all voted for it


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 21, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> east lothian question!
> 
> northern irish mps voting on something that doesn't affect them. argh!
> 
> and they all voted for it



Or in this case the east antrim question 

Yes I noticed the NI mps voted. I think the DUP actually have a party whip on this issue.

I wondered if the SDLP would be more liberal, but it seems not. I guess that makes all the NI parties anti-abortion, even early abortions.......


----------



## ethel (May 21, 2008)

yup, therefore the law will probably never be changed. the SDLP have a very misleading name


----------



## trashpony (May 21, 2008)

I have just discussed this subject with my parents (dad 76, mum 74). They both think that men should not be allowed to vote on what happens to a woman's body. 

I love my parents


----------



## equationgirl (May 21, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> **yawns**
> 
> Everything collapses into the rape/assault/mentally handicapped-disabled child in the womb routine, doesn't it?
> 
> Simple questions - where or how does a 'right' consist in? And where or how does a woman's 'right' [or 'rights'] have precedent over a child's?



Lightsoutlondon, I normally have a great deal of respect to you, but not on this issue.

You will never know the trauma of being raped and the further trauma of becoming pregnant. Please have some sympathy for those women that choose not to have a daily reminder of their rapist looking back at them.

Have some compassion for fuck's sake.


----------



## Meltingpot (May 21, 2008)

trashpony said:


> I have just discussed this subject with my parents (dad 76, mum 74). They both think that men should not be allowed to vote on what happens to a woman's body.
> 
> I love my parents



It isn't just the woman's body though, there's at least a potential life developing inside it. That's why this issue is so emotive.

I think the existing law is about right; the latest date should be fixed at the time where the foetus is able to survive outside the woman's body.

Pace the above; obviously in the case of rape a woman's right to an abortion should be absolute for the reason equationgirl mentioned.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 21, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> *Tomorrow - Tuesday 20 May, from 5.30pm onwards
> Defend 24 Weeks
> No reduction in abortion time limit
> Old Palace Yard, outside Parliament — opposite St. Stephen’s Entrance
> ...




If less than two percent of abortions occur after twenty weeks, then there will be little to no harm done if such a monstrosity as abortion after 20 weeks, is no longer allowed.

20 weeks to decide constitutes choice. 5 months.


----------



## tangentlama (May 22, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> If less than two percent of abortions occur after twenty weeks, then there will be little to no harm done if such a monstrosity as abortion after 20 weeks, is no longer allowed.



That 2% are not 'frivolous demands' though - they belong to the 'extremely serious risk to mother' or 'foetus dead in the womb' or 'severe disability detected'



> 20 weeks to decide constitutes choice. 5 months.


20 weeks is half the 40 week gestation therefore approx 4.5 months. 

Also, yet again I see little, if any discussion on the role of the MALE in this process. Anyone would think women got pregnant all by themselves. Until male sex education and male attitudes are improved, I don't think women's lot will be improved.

At no point should the unborn life be held as more important than the mother. Until our abortion services are improved, then the limit should remain. There is little point in reducing the time limit until that time.


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> If anyones interested, the 71 MPs who wanted a 12 week limit are listed here
> 
> http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2008-05-20&number=199&display=allvotes&sort=vote



out of curiosity...wonder how many of them are women? 


in the US you have to wait 48 hours then you can have your procedure...i know its different because of free health care in the UK etc..

the NHS waiting time is shameful....i can't imagine how many people have probably been emotionally scarred by having to wait that long.

politicians are such fuckin' bastards.


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2008)

MightyAphrodite said:


> out of curiosity...wonder how many of them are women?
> 
> 
> in the US you have to wait 48 hours then you can have your procedure...i know its different because of free health care in the UK etc..
> ...



I did a visual count last night - think there were six women on the list. 

Someone asked where I got the 7 week figure from - it was quoted somewhere else but I'll see if I can find the source. I hope you're right and waiting times are only 3 weeks. Well, not 'only' but you know what I mean


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> You will never know the trauma of being raped and the further trauma of becoming pregnant. Please have some sympathy for those women that choose not to have a daily reminder of their rapist looking back at them.



What % of abortions are as the result of *actual* rape, rather than the woman deciding that the sex wasn't that good after all, or she was drunk, and regrets it in the morning?

Whilst I would agree with you that abortion in the case of actual, proven rape is "ok", surely you have to admit that most abortions are down to regret or convenience?

Education and abstinence is the way forward.  Don't get pregnant unnecessarily in the first place, then abortion need not become an issue.


----------



## Pieface (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What % of abortions are as the result of *actual* rape, rather than the woman deciding that the sex wasn't that good after all, or she was drunk, and regrets it in the morning?
> 
> Whilst I would agree with you that abortion in the case of actual, proven rape is "ok", surely you have to admit that most abortions are down to regret or convenience?
> 
> Education and abstinence is the way forward.  Don't get pregnant unnecessarily in the first place, then abortion need not become an issue.




you're despicable


----------



## zenie (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What % of abortions are as the result of *actual* rape, rather than the woman deciding that the sex wasn't that good after all, or she was drunk, and regrets it in the morning?
> 
> Whilst I would agree with you that abortion in the case of actual, proven rape is "ok", surely you have to admit that most abortions are down to regret or convenience?
> 
> Education and abstinence is the way forward. Don't get pregnant unnecessarily in the first place, then abortion need not become an issue.


 
1/10


----------



## Thora (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What % of abortions are as the result of *actual* rape, rather than the woman deciding that the sex wasn't that good after all, or she was drunk, and regrets it in the morning?
> 
> Whilst I would agree with you that abortion in the case of actual, proven rape is "ok", surely you have to admit that most abortions are down to regret or convenience?
> 
> Education and abstinence is the way forward.  Don't get pregnant unnecessarily in the first place, then abortion need not become an issue.



Bollocks.  Either abortion is ok or it isn't.  If it's ok in case of rape, it's ok in every circumstance.  If it's ok to have one abortion it's ok to have 10 abortions.

Nothing changes about the foetus based on whether it was a product of rape, or the morals or age of the mother or anything like that.  That's what I don't understand about people who think abortion is ok so long as the mother is "innocent" in some way.  It doesn't make any difference to the foetus


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

PieEye said:


> you're despicable



... and you're completely avoiding the reality of the situation.

Actual rape/sexual assault is far, far more than a woman simply changing her mind a week or so later.


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What % of abortions are as the result of *actual* rape, rather than the woman deciding that the sex wasn't that good after all, or she was drunk, and regrets it in the morning?



what.the.fuck.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Thora said:


> Bollocks.  Either abortion is ok or it isn't.  If it's ok in case of rape, it's ok in every circumstance.  If it's ok to have one abortion it's ok to have 10 abortions.



Fair enough then.  Ban abortions totally.

Why is it always about the woman, and never the child or the father's rights?


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> If less than two percent of abortions occur after twenty weeks, then there will be little to no harm done if such a monstrosity as abortion after 20 weeks, is no longer allowed.
> 
> 20 weeks to decide constitutes choice. 5 months.



You never bother to read threads do you, you arrogant tosser.  The reasons for abortion being necessary to 24 weeks were discussed in detail days ago.

Wanker.


----------



## zenie (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why is it always about the woman, and never the child or the father's rights?


 

Because it's the woman's body it's all happeneing to. The point at which men or foetuses can look after themselves and don't require the services of a womb for 9 months then they get a choice. That's just the way it is, how it should be, and how it will stay.


----------



## Looby (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What % of abortions are as the result of *actual* rape, rather than the woman deciding that the sex wasn't that good after all, or she was drunk, and regrets it in the morning?
> 
> Whilst I would agree with you that abortion in the case of actual, proven rape is "ok", surely you have to admit that most abortions are down to regret or convenience?
> 
> Education and abstinence is the way forward.  Don't get pregnant unnecessarily in the first place, then abortion need not become an issue.



I hope you're just a really shit troll and that you don't really hold these views because that woule make you a vile, odious cunt.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What % of abortions are as the result of *actual* rape, rather than the woman deciding that the sex wasn't that good after all, or she was drunk, and regrets it in the morning?
> 
> Whilst I would agree with you that abortion in the case of actual, proven rape is "ok", surely you have to admit that most abortions are down to regret or convenience?
> 
> Education and abstinence is the way forward.  Don't get pregnant unnecessarily in the first place, then abortion need not become an issue.



What do you think gives you the right to say this?

On a message board with so many posters, it must be obvious that there are many men and women who have been directly affected by this emotional issue.  You have got no right to say such offensive things where it will obviously be read by many women who have had abortions.

"Pro-life" (fucking retarded phrase if you ask me) views seem to go hand in hand with a desire to punish and condemn women.

As someone (Baldrick??) said earlier in the thread, it comes to something when terminating your own pregnancy, your own child, seems like the least worst thing you can do.  Noone ever *wants* to have an abortion.


----------



## Thora (May 22, 2008)

zenie said:


> Because it's the woman's body it's all happeneing to. The point at which men or foetuses can look after themselves and don't require the services of a womb for 9 months then they get a choice. That's just the way it is, how it should be, and how it will stay.



Nicely put 

The rights of a woman to her own body trump that of anyone else, including the father or the foetus.  Tbh I'm of the opinion that if you want it out of your womb you should be able to have it out at any time.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

zenie said:


> That's just the way it is, how it should be, and how it will stay.



In your opinion.  I tend to think differently.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

sparklefish said:


> I hope you're just a really shit troll and that you don't really hold these views because that woule make you a vile, odious cunt.



I have as much right to hold my views as you do yours.  Deal with it.


----------



## El Jefe (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> ... and you're completely avoiding the reality of the situation.
> 
> Actual rape/sexual assault is far, far more than a woman simply changing her mind a week or so later.



You really need a fucking slap


----------



## zenie (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> In your opinion. I tend to think differently.


 

No, not just in my opinion actually, it's the law.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

Thora said:


> Nicely put
> 
> The rights of a woman to her own body trump that of anyone else, including the father or the foetus.  Tbh I'm of the opinion that if you want it out of your womb you should be able to have it out at any time.



Me too.... on balance.... I believe we have the right to choose so I can't see any logical limit on that - if you believe it's so, then you believe it's so.  If you think it should be limited, then at some level you don't really think it's ok.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I have as much right to hold my views as you do yours.  Deal with it.



You don't have the right to express your views offensively when you know that for many this is not a theoretical debate but relates to their lives.


----------



## zenie (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> "Pro-life" (fucking retarded phrase if you ask me) views seem to go hand in hand with a desire to punish and condemn women.


 

Pro-*life* doesn't seem to think about the 'host mothers' *life* does it?


----------



## Thora (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> Me too.... on balance.... I believe we have the right to choose so I can't see any logical limit on that - if you believe it's so, then you believe it's so.  If you think it should be limited, then at some level you don't really think it's ok.



I think it's such incredible arrogance that anyone would presume they were more able to make a decision about a woman, her body, and her foetus than she is   It's not a nice decision, and she may make a decision you disagree with, but how anyone can think they have any right to make that decision for her baffles me


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Thora said:


> The rights of a woman to her own body trump that of anyone else, including the father or the foetus.



... except, of course, you won't get anything IN there except with the assistance of a man somewhere along the line.

A baby is NOT a woman's property.  It's joint property between both the male and female involved in the procreation, and thus the male should have a say over what happens.

Don't like that fact?  Then don't have sex in the first place.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 22, 2008)

tangentlama said:


> At no point should the unborn life be held as more important than the mother. Until our abortion services are improved, then the limit should remain. There is little point in reducing the time limit until that time.



Very good point.  There should be no contemplation of a reduction in the abortion time limit until we have an abortion service that doesn't involved the sort of waits that are the norm at the moment.  Even then I'd allow doctors to perform later abortions if there was really no alternative.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> You don't have the right to express your views offensively when you know that for many this is not a theoretical debate but relates to their lives.



Why is fact offensive?


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

zenie said:


> No, not just in my opinion actually, it's the law.



Maybe at this point in time, but laws can change.


----------



## El Jefe (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why is fact offensive?



You're not providing facts, you're providing vicious, judgemental bullshit.


----------



## Thora (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> ... except, of course, you won't get anything IN there except with the assistance of a man somewhere along the line.
> 
> A baby is NOT a woman's property.  It's joint property between both the male and female involved in the procreation, and thus the male should have a say over what happens.
> 
> Don't like that fact?  Then don't have sex in the first place.



So, if I decide I don't want it in MY body anymore, I can take it out and hand it over to the man?  He's more than welcome to deal with it


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> ... except, of course, you won't get anything IN there except with the assistance of a man somewhere along the line.
> 
> A baby is NOT a woman's property.  It's joint property between both the male and female involved in the procreation, and thus the male should have a say over what happens.
> 
> Don't like that fact?  Then don't have sex in the first place.



If you read the thread, you would see that zenie already pointed out that in law, the foetus remains the woman's property until birth.  Fact 

The woman has to bear all the physical (psychological, social, economic) consequences of the conception and she gets to choose.  You cannot have equality for women any other way.

but then you don't want equality for women do you?


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> You're not providing facts, you're providing vicious, judgemental bullshit.



Really?  So, if you were a man, and your partner was pregnant but didn't want the baby, you'd be happy for her to abort it without you having any say over the matter?


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Thora said:


> So, if I decide I don't want it in MY body anymore, I can take it out and hand it over to the man?  He's more than welcome to deal with it



Perhaps you should have been a little more careful and not gotten pregnant in the first place?

Pills, condoms, abstinence... all perfectly valid birth control options.


----------



## El Jefe (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Really?  So, if you were a man, and your partner was pregnant but didn't want the baby, you'd be happy for her to abort it without you having any say over the matter?



My happiness or otherwise wouldn't be the main factor. 

Are you seriously suggesting I should compel a woman to have a baby she doesn't want because I do?


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> but then you don't want equality for women do you?



Equality works both ways.  People tend to forget that.

It takes two people to make a baby.  Equal rights mean an equal say in what happens.


----------



## El Jefe (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Perhaps you should have been a little more careful and not gotten pregnant in the first place?
> 
> Pills, condoms, abstinence... all perfectly valid birth control options.



Post reported. You're totally out of order now, you're potentially insulting a large number of posters with this vicious attitude


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Perhaps you should have been a little more careful and not gotten pregnant in the first place?
> 
> Pills, condoms, abstinence... all perfectly valid birth control options.



All can fail (even abstinence)


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Equality works both ways.  People tend to forget that.
> 
> It takes two people to make a baby.  Equal rights mean an equal say in what happens.



Equality works *all* ways, noone who cared about equal rights could ever forget that.

The day when both people have equal responsibility for the welfare of a foetus (ie when we start growing them in tanks) will be the day both people have an equal say.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> Are you seriously suggesting I should compel a woman to have a baby she doesn't want because I do?



If you're happy with that situation then that's up to you.  I would be devastated if someone I was in a long term relationship with decided to murder our child before birth simply through 'convenience'.

As I've said before, there are many ways not to get pregnant.  Sure, accidents do happen, but if you aren't ready to have children together then perhaps you aren't ready to be having sex?


----------



## zenie (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> ... except, of course, you won't get anything IN there except with the assistance of a man somewhere along the line.
> 
> A baby is NOT a woman's property. It's joint property between both the male and female involved in the procreation, and thus the male should have a say over what happens.
> 
> Don't like that fact? Then don't have sex in the first place.


 
Oh men are more than happy to assist although IME less than happy to commit to bringing up a child caused by accidental pregnancy.

A baby is a woman's property whether you like it or not, it's up to women what they do with their bodies, and their choice as to what grows in it. 

A fact? ROFL, now I'd say that was your opinion, because it's definitley not a fact. 

I presume you agree with contraception though? 



ajdown said:


> Maybe at this point in time, but laws can change.


 
So you admit it's not just my opinion. Women will always have abortions, better that they do it safely and legally than in some back street. 

Or would you rather go back to the days where unmarried women were ferried off to live in a home til they had their babies,at which point they were then taken off them and abused in childrens homes?


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Perhaps you should have been a little more careful and not gotten pregnant in the first place?
> 
> Pills, condoms, abstinence... all perfectly valid birth control options.



please tell me youre on a windup.


----------



## Looby (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I have as much right to hold my views as you do yours.  Deal with it.



I'd question your right to fucking breathe at the moment. You're a waste of perfectly good oxygen.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> Post reported. You're totally out of order now, you're potentially insulting a large number of posters with this vicious attitude



Why is holding what appears to be an unpopular round here - *but perfectly legal* - viewpoint, offensive?


----------



## zenie (May 22, 2008)

sparklefish said:


> I'd question your right to fucking breathe at the moment. You're a waste of perfectly good oxygen.


 
hehehe


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

zenie said:


> I presume you agree with contraception though?



Sex is a perfectly natural and normal thing.  I have no problem with contraception if people want sex whilst minimising the risk of pregnancy.

I'm not a Catholic


----------



## El Jefe (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why is holding what appears to be an unpopular round here - *but perfectly legal* - viewpoint, offensive?



because it's entirely disrespectual to - and inconsiderate of - the experiences of presumably dozens of women on these boards.

It is possible to hold your views and not express them in so callous a manner.

Difficult, but possible.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

MightyAphrodite said:


> please tell me youre on a windup.



You have a problem with contraception?


----------



## Thora (May 22, 2008)

zenie said:


> So you admit it's not just my opinion. Women will always have abortions, better that they do it safely and legally than in some back street.
> 
> Or would you rather go back to the days where unmarried women were ferried off to live in a home til they had their babies,at which point they were then taken off them and abused in childrens homes?



Back street abortions and child abuse   Pro-life types really _care_ about women and children.


----------



## zenie (May 22, 2008)




----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why is holding what appears to be an unpopular round here - *but perfectly legal* - viewpoint, offensive?



The way you are expressing it, for example the presumption that women who have abortions have not even tried to use contraception, is very offensive to women.


----------



## Looby (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Sex is a perfectly natural and normal thing.  I have no problem with contraception if people want sex whilst minimising the risk of pregnancy.
> 
> I'm not a Catholic



So what if that contraception fails?


----------



## zenie (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Sex is a perfectly natural and normal thing. I have no problem with contraception if people want sex whilst minimising the risk of pregnancy.
> 
> I'm not a Catholic


 

But some forms of contraception cause abortion, are they ok then?


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Equality works both ways.  People tend to forget that.
> 
> It takes two people to make a baby.  Equal rights mean an equal say in what happens.



a man gets the final say in what happens during a pregnancy when he's the one who is pregnant


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

sparklefish said:


> So what if that contraception fails?



You have to have a baby 

ajdown said so


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You have a problem with contraception?



no...i have a problem with someone who thinks they have some sort of ownership over a womans body just because shes pregnant.

and i have a problem with someone saying they wouldnt want their partner to  'murder' their child when theyre talking about abortion....


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> because it's entirely disrespectual to - and inconsiderate of - the experiences of presumably dozens of women on these boards.



I don't know most of the people round here, and presumably neither do most others.

In no way can a poster be held responsible if someone reading a post here gets upset over something they have posts.

Now, if I said something blatantly racist or homophobic or whatever that presumably not only breaks these board's rules but possibly real laws as well, that's a different matter.

Having a - round here - unpopular opinion on convenience abortions is not illegal or, as far as I can tell, against  any board rules.

As for 'not in such an offensive manner' ... well perhaps some of those disagreeing with me would do well to remember that in their posts which are pretty darn close to being hate speech.


----------



## El Jefe (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I don't know most of the people round here, and presumably neither do most others.
> 
> In no way can a poster be held responsible if someone reading a post here gets upset over something they have posts.
> 
> ...



here's some hate speech:

you're a vile, misogynist prick.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

Thora said:


> Back street abortions and child abuse   Pro-life types really _care_ about women and children.



They only care in so far as they want to control them, imho.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> The way you are expressing it, for example the presumption that women who have abortions have not even tried to use contraception, is very offensive to women.



Nobody else is choosing to differentiate between rape based abortions and convenience abortions though, it's all about the "womans right to choose" as per the thread title.

A woman can choose not to have sex, or to use contraception, risk getting pregnant, or choose to get pregnant.

Those are the choices.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> They only care in so far as they want to control them, imho.



So... you're saying women have no control over whether they ever have sex?


----------



## Thora (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> They only care in so far as they want to control them, imho.



I want to know if these anti-choice types are going to find me a flat, a pram, childcare and counselling (for both of us presumably) when I have my unwanted baby?


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> They only care in so far as they want to control them, imho.



or punish them for wanting to have sex, or even actually enjoying it.


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Nobody else is choosing to differentiate between rape based abortions and convenience abortions though, it's all about the "womans right to choose" as per the thread title.
> 
> A woman can choose not to have sex, or to use contraception, risk getting pregnant, or choose to get pregnant.
> 
> Those are the choices.



And if she chooses to have sex and she gets pregnant, she can have an abortion. That's also a choice. You left that off your list.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I don't know most of the people round here, and presumably neither do most others.
> 
> In no way can a poster be held responsible if someone reading a post here gets upset over something they have posts.
> 
> ...



What do you think is a "convenience" abortion?

This artificial line seems to have been drawn between medical and "social" abortions - I believe all abortions are medical abortions because no woman would take that step unless she really believed that continuing the pregnancy would cause serious harm to her or the potential child.

For instance a woman in a violent relationship who fears an endless life of abuse for her and a child if she cannot make a clean break from that partner - or a desperate young woman, without the support of a partner, who will either take her life if she cannot end the pregnancy or will seriously endanger her life by trying to induce a miscarriage.

Both those would be medical abortions in my eyes.

The woman who has an abortion for "convenience" is a misogynistic fiction.


----------



## _angel_ (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> *What % of abortions are as the result of *actual* rape, rather than the woman deciding that the sex wasn't that good after all, or she was drunk, and regrets it in the morning?*
> Whilst I would agree with you that abortion in the case of actual, proven rape is "ok", surely you have to admit that most abortions are down to regret or convenience?
> 
> Education and abstinence is the way forward.  Don't get pregnant unnecessarily in the first place, then abortion need not become an issue.




Why don't you tell us. Perhaps you agree with that BNP idiot who takes the laughably low rape conviction stat as evidence that 90 odd % of women who say they have been raped are lying sluts?


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Nobody else is choosing to differentiate between rape based abortions and convenience abortions though, it's all about the "womans right to choose" as per the thread title.
> 
> A woman can choose not to have sex, or to use contraception, risk getting pregnant, or choose to get pregnant.
> 
> Those are the choices.



So you think only a rape survivor can have an abortion?

What about a rape survivor who *can't prove she was raped*, ie the vast majority?

A woman who was raped by a friend or her own partner, can she abort?

It is a ridiculous distinction.

Nobody forces men to take the physical, mental, emotional, social, economic consequences of unwanted pregnancies.  Women have to - that's biology, and that's why we need to be able to choose.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

trashpony said:


> And if she chooses to have sex and she gets pregnant, she can have an abortion. That's also a choice. You left that off your list.



It is an option... but surely a careless one?  I can't imagine choosing to have an abortion to be an easy decision so why put yourself through it by choice?


----------



## zenie (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I don't know most of the people round here, and presumably neither do most others.
> 
> In no way can a poster be held responsible if someone reading a post here gets upset over something they have posts.


 
Yeh they can. 



ajdown said:


> Now, if I said something blatantly racist or homophobic or whatever that presumably not only breaks these board's rules but possibly real laws as well, that's a different matter.


 
So you think it's ok to be a controlling misogynist? 



ajdown said:


> Having a - round here - unpopular opinion on convenience abortions is not illegal or, as far as I can tell, against any board rules.


 
Using launguage such as murder would get your head kicked in in the real world, but hiding behind a screen is easy for cowards. 



ajdown said:


> As for 'not in such an offensive manner' ... well perhaps some of those disagreeing with me would do well to remember that in their posts which are pretty darn close to being hate speech.


 
You come on a thread publicising a demo for pro-choice, if you're pro life then start your own thread, or are you too chicken because you know the backlash it would recieve? Are you that dense that you thought you'd receive a glowing welcome? 

In fact go and post on the daily mail boards, you'd fit right in over there.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> Nobody forces men to take the physical, mental, emotional, social, economic consequences of unwanted pregnancies.  Women have to - that's biology, and that's why we need to be able to choose.



You honestly don't think that men are affected when their partner is pregnant?


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> It is an option... but surely a careless one?  I can't imagine choosing to have an abortion to be an easy decision so why put yourself through it by choice?



AAAAAARGH you TWAT!

That is a horrible, terrible thing to say!


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> It is an option... but surely a careless one?  I can't imagine choosing to have an abortion to be an easy decision so why put yourself through it by choice?



because not having an abortion is a worse choice for her?


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

zenie said:


> Using launguage such as murder would get your head kicked in in the real world, but hiding behind a screen is easy for cowards.



I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people throwing actual offensive personal insults directly at me would fall into that category too.

Thankfully I'm not a violent person.


----------



## Thora (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> The woman who has an abortion for "convenience" is a misogynistic fiction.



The term "convenience abortion" seems to suggest that going through a pregnancy and having a child is just a bit inconvenient.  Even if it's a planned and wanted pregnancy, I think most people would agree there's a little more to it than that.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You honestly don't think that men are affected when their partner is pregnant?



They can be, or they can fuck off and leave her to deal with it on her own for the rest of her life (whether she continues or terminates).  They have that choice.

We need a choice too.


----------



## zenie (May 22, 2008)

Thora said:


> I want to know if these anti-choice types are going to find me a flat, a pram, childcare and counselling (for both of us presumably) when I have my unwanted baby?


 

So do I!  Although I don't expect a U turn on abortion laws will suddenly change our government's view on single mothers and the welfare state. _They're just leeches, they got pregnant on purpose!!_


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> They can be, or they can fuck off and leave her to deal with it on her own for the rest of her life (whether she continues or terminates).  They have that choice.
> 
> We need a choice too.



If the father chooses to abandon the woman and their unborn child, then I would say that he does forfeit any say in their future.  Either that, or let the CSA go after him.

But, if the father is very much part of that woman's life, then I think he does need to have a say in the situation.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If the father chooses to abandon the woman and their unborn child, then I would say that he does forfeit any say in their future.  Either that, or let the CSA go after him.
> 
> But, if the father is very much part of that woman's life, then I think he does need to have a say in the situation.



OK, so now the categories of women who you graciously permit the right to choose includes rape survivors and "abandoned women".

It's as though you only feel comfortable with choice being available to beaten-down "victims" - as if you somehow feel threatened by the idea of an empowered woman.


----------



## zenie (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Either that, or let the CSA go after him.


 
ROFLMAO, you haven't really thought this argument through. As anyone who's ever dealt with the shambles that is the CSA would never give it as an option to a woman.

LOL tbh.


----------



## _angel_ (May 22, 2008)

zenie said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It would seem so.

Casual homophobia seems to slip thru quite a bit too.*


* in these boards in general, not specific to this thread.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> as if you somehow feel threatened by the idea of an empowered woman.



Why should it threaten me?


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why should it threaten me?



You tell me!  But you don't seem able to cope with the idea that we can take control of our lives and not all end up tied down with babies.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> You tell me!  But you don't seem able to cope with the idea that we can take control of our lives and not all end up tied down with babies.



Doesn't bother me in the slightest if women do or don't have children, or do or don't have a job, or whatever.  

It is only relevant in the case of the woman that I am in a relationship with at that time, and that our important goals in life are similar (ie if one really wants kids and the other doesn't, it's going to be a constant source of conflict).


----------



## D (May 22, 2008)

I also find this distinction between "medical" and "social" abortions fascinating.

Yes, there are some abortions performed because they are deemed medically necessary (e.g. the woman will die if she attempts to carry the baby to term), but there is no such thing as a "social abortion" anymore than there is, say, a "social biopsy".  An abortion is a medical procedure.

I believe that abortions should be available to all women for any reason.  Broken condom, forgot to use a condom, made a mistake.  I am not an advocate FOR abortion.  I am an advocate of informed choices regarding one's health.

Would those folks opposed to making abortion a legal, safe choice for women also oppose treating someone for a broken arm because that person got drunk and fell down the stairs instead of having their arm broken by a violent mugger? I presume not.  I also presume that said critics of safe, legal, accessible abortion procedures would claim that the distinction here is that a broken arm involves the life of only one person whereas an abortion involves the lives of two.

And that is where the discussion becomes one entirely of contestable moral opinion and psychology.  Nothing to do with black-and-white science (if such a thing as "black-and-white science" can be said to exist).

I sympathize with anti-choice/anti-abortion/pick-your-rhetoric folks.  If I thought that people were needlessly murdering kids (and using public funds or receiving my tacit consent to do so) I'd be pretty distraught too.

Oh, wait, that's already happening in so many other ways - thank you, military/global economic policy/etc.

But seriously, I sympathize.  I just don't agree and, ultimately, I don't care about your personal moral angst.  I believe in safe, legal abortion on demand.  I recognize that we live in a morally ambiguous world.  Big shocker, not everyone agrees on the question of whether a fetus is a child and whether/when it is to be considered one.  I just hope that for as long as I live and thereafter the law stays on my side.

I'm sure there are steadfastly pro-choice women who are quick to anthropomorphize the things growing in their bellies when they become pregnant.  I'm sure there are women who are staunch opponents of abortion who at various times think of the fetuses they carry as some sort of "thing" overtaking their uterus(es), not their darling children (to be).

But the law doesn't need to concern itself with the psychology of pregnancy.  The law needs to protect the lives of actual women faced with actual decisions.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

D said:


> The law needs to protect the lives of actual women faced with actual decisions.



In the vast majority of cases, the law isn't protecting the "lives" of pregnant women. It's just giving them a legal option to do something that is socially convenient for them.

By contrast, the law as it stands greatly imperils the lives of unborn children, who may be killed with impunity unless the law is changed to prohibit it.


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> ... except, of course, you won't get anything IN there except with the assistance of a man somewhere along the line.
> 
> A baby is NOT a woman's property.  It's joint property between both the male and female involved in the procreation, and thus the male should have a say over what happens.
> 
> Don't like that fact?  Then don't have sex in the first place.



maybe the man should've put on a condom.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> What do you think is a "convenience" abortion?
> 
> This artificial line seems to have been drawn between medical and "social" abortions - I believe all abortions are medical abortions because no woman would take that step unless she really believed that continuing the pregnancy would cause serious harm to her or the potential child.



Obviously complete rubbish.

I know several women who have had abortions (sometimes more than one each) because having a child at that time would have interfered with their education or careers.

While circumstances do of course vary, these are intelligent women from middle-class backgrounds who would have had the emotional and financial support available had they chosen to have the child.


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> The way you are expressing it, for example the presumption that women who have abortions have not even tried to use contraception, is very offensive to women.




and why is the presumption that the contraception issue is entirely down to women? it really angers me that some men presume that they don't have an equal responsibility.


----------



## D (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> In the vast majority of cases, the law isn't protecting the "lives" of pregnant women. It's just giving them a legal option to do something that is socially convenient for them.
> 
> By contrast, the law as it stands greatly imperils the lives of unborn children, who may be killed with impunity unless the law is changed to prohibit it.



I don't think the law has any responsibility towards potential children (i.e. ones that don't exist).  Perhaps the law should also have a position then, on people who, say, live on a diet of fast food.  If they one day should decide to have children, the lives of those children will be endangered because their parents did what was "socially convenient".

Our values on this matter will never coincide.  Que sera, sera.

I hope never to have an abortion, but should I decide to do so one day, I ask that you step away from the clinic door.


----------



## D (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Obviously complete rubbish.
> 
> I know several women who have had abortions (sometimes more than one each) because having a child at that time would have interfered with their education or careers.
> 
> While circumstances do of course vary, these are intelligent women from middle-class backgrounds who would have had the emotional and financial support available had they chosen to have the child.



Do they know you think of them as murderers?


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Nobody else is choosing to differentiate between rape based abortions and convenience abortions though, it's all about the "womans right to choose" as per the thread title.
> 
> A woman can choose not to have sex, or to use contraception, risk getting pregnant, or choose to get pregnant.
> 
> Those are the choices.



what about cases where your partner is abusive? where the mother's mental or physical health is at risk. oh, hang on, that is the law. the doctors have to sign that a women's mental or physical health is more at risk by her continuing with the pregnancy than having a termination.

you make it sound like women treat abortion lightly.

you twat.


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> What do you think is a "convenience" abortion?
> 
> This artificial line seems to have been drawn between medical and "social" abortions - I believe all abortions are medical abortions because no woman would take that step unless she really believed that continuing the pregnancy would cause serious harm to her or the potential child.
> 
> ...




exactly


----------



## D (May 22, 2008)

*by the way...*

my favorite term for anti-choice/anti-abortion/anti-whatevers is, far and away, "fetus fetishists".

I wouldn't necessarily recommend it for, say, judicial rulings; but it's great for demos.


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> It is an option... but surely a careless one?  I can't imagine choosing to have an abortion to be an easy decision so why put yourself through it by choice?



even if contraception is used? how is that being careless?


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

D said:


> I don't think the law has any responsibility towards potential children (i.e. ones that don't exist).



This is clearly the crux of the matter for many if not most people. If you view abortion as killing a child then you're probably against it. If you view it as something else, it probably doesn't matter.

I'd be interested in your opinion as to when a "potential child" becomes an actual one, with an independent right to life that should be protected by the law.



D said:


> Perhaps the law should also have a position then, on people who, say, live on a diet of fast food.  If they one day should decide to have children, the lives of those children will be endangered because their parents did what was "socially convenient".



Um, how?



D said:


> Our values on this matter will never coincide.  Que sera, sera.



Stranger things have happened. People do change their views, you know.



D said:


> I hope never to have an abortion, but should I decide to do so one day, I ask that you step away from the clinic door.



I see little merit in _preventing _people exercising their legal rights. By the same token I have absolutely no problem exercising mine, including expressing my opinion on the law and the actions of individuals.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

D said:


> Do they know you think of them as murderers?



Murder is a legal term. Abortion is legal in this country and therefore by definition not murder.

They are aware of my opinions, yes.


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

on a related note. one of the MP's involved in the debate made a very good point. the morning after pill should be available free from all pharmacies and school nurses,. not for £25! free. they should be given to women pre emptively so that they have it in their bathroom cupboard just in case.


----------



## D (May 22, 2008)

*re the mythology of convenience*

I would argue that living women - even middle class ones!  - are entitled to education and professional opportunity.  No man (except, maybe the two transmen I know of who decided to birth children) will ever have those things impeded by having to carry a child to term and care for it as its mother thereafter.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

D said:


> I would argue that living women - even middle class ones!  - are entitled to education and professional opportunity.



Education and professional opportunities are good things. I can see no reason why they should supersede an individual's right to life. There is a scale of rights and the right to life is at the very top, to be set aside only in the case of most extreme necessity for the greater good.



D said:


> No man (except, maybe the two transmen I know of who decided to birth children) will ever have those things impeded by having to carry a child to term and care for it as its mother thereafter.



Of course not. But people (men and women) set aside their personal preferences and expected advantages all the time for various reasons, including to have children.


----------



## D (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> This is clearly the crux of the matter for many if not most people. If you view abortion as killing a child then you're probably against it. If you view it as something else, it probably doesn't matter.



As I implied in my first post on this thread.

I think it's entirely up to a woman - and where applicable - her partner to determine whether/when a fetus she's carrying is her child.  I couldn't begin to determine that for someone else.  And I certainly wouldn't accuse a woman who'd miscarried or had a stillborn of accidentally killing her baby, no matter where she was in the course of pregnancy.

untethered - sorry, I should have said "killers" not murderers, but it doesn't much matter


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Stranger things have happened. People do change their views, you know.



Somehow I doubt you'll ever be anything other than a misogynistic homophobic bigot.  But we can always hope.


----------



## D (May 22, 2008)

Plus, I'd be highly amused if a random person on the internet were able to convince me - former co-director of a non-profit that assists women in obtaining legal, safe, affordable abortions - that I should switch camps.

But, yeah, maybe I'll wake up and give birth to Jesus's son or something one day.

Stranger things have happened.

I bet if I subsist on a diet of fast food it'd help.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> and why is the presumption that the contraception issue is entirely down to women? it really angers me that some men presume that they don't have an equal responsibility.



It's both partner's responsibility.  Condoms aren't expensive or difficult to come by (or in, for that matter).


----------



## D (May 22, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> on a related note. one of the MP's involved in the debate made a very good point. the morning after pill should be available free from all pharmacies and school nurses,. not for £25! free. they should be given to women pre emptively so that they have it in their bathroom cupboard just in case.



I had to use the morning after pill last year after a broken condom incident.  I was amazed by the acrobatics involved.  Living in Germany, I had to get a doctor's prescription to provide to the pharmacist and pay ... I can't remember how much now.

I was pretty surprised - I'd have thought things would have been a little more progressive in Berlin.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

D said:


> Plus, I'd be highly amused if a random person on the internet were able to convince me - former co-director of a non-profit that assists women in obtaining legal, safe, affordable abortions - that I should switch camps.



Would it be fair to say that you're closed-minded, then?

You entirely discount the possibility that you will continue to examine your ethical framework and its consequences?


----------



## D (May 22, 2008)

That's not what I said.

But if you'd like to call me closed-minded, go right ahead.


----------



## D (May 22, 2008)

rhyme!


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

D said:


> I think it's entirely up to a woman - and where applicable - her partner to determine whether/when a fetus she's carrying is her child.



Does the partner get a veto, then? If he's entitled to make a determination, it has little value if it can't be enforced.

Quite clearly this is a matter on which society should and does have a collective view as embodied in the law. As a society, we hold that the unborn child is not a child up to a certain limit, or if it is, it's one that unlike other human beings, is not entitled to live on its own merits.



D said:


> I couldn't begin to determine that for someone else.



On the contrary, an unborn child must always not be a child in your view if killing it is ever right. Unless, perhaps, you're happy for children to be killed. Are you?


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

D said:


> That's not what I said.
> 
> But if you'd like to call me closed-minded, go right ahead.



Then perhaps you could explain better how you're open-minded but still discount the possibility that you could change your view.


----------



## D (May 22, 2008)

What was the demo like on Tuesday?


----------



## Fruitloop (May 22, 2008)

At what point do you think a zygote is a child untethered? From the moment an egg is fertilised? Or is every sperm sacred?


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> At what point do you think a zygote is a child untethered? From the moment an egg is fertilised? Or is every sperm sacred?



From the moment of conception.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Obviously complete rubbish.
> 
> I know several women who have had abortions (sometimes more than one each) because having a child at that time would have interfered with their education or careers.
> 
> While circumstances do of course vary, these are intelligent women from middle-class backgrounds who would have had the emotional and financial support available had they chosen to have the child.



You mention interrupting education which makes it sound as though these women were rather young.

Why do you assume that these women would not have been desperate and fearing for their own mental health at the prospect of having to abandon their ambitions, maybe forever, due to an unplanned pregnancy?

Why should an intelligent middle-class woman be any more able to cope on her own?  Why do you assume a middle class woman would be financially supported by her family - perhaps they would not wish to support her, perhaps she would not be able to take their support.

Why do you assume they did not take a long look at themselves, their emotional strength, financial position, their capacity to be a good and loving parent (not easy when it's planned) before deciding that they did not have enough to offer an unborn child at that stage in their lives?


----------



## Fruitloop (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> From the moment of conception.



Hmm, well you really aren't going to find too much support for that idea. I mean a fertilised zygote is a potential child, granted, but also a potential miscarriage, a potential still-birth, a potential not very much at all.

Is this view religiously inspired, i.e. does it relate to a fertilised embryo having a soul, or is it purely a matter of potential development?


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 22, 2008)

I have't read all of the last couple of pages, but I want to share some of my personal experiences, particularly because of the unpleasant interventions from ajdown which remind me of people I have had the misfortune to deal with over the years.

I vehemently support a woman's right to choose, and was not only at the rally the other evening, but have been at many similar rallies over the years, and, when I wa Nalgo/UNISON, directly involved in fights against a particularly nasty individual who was on the UNISON NEC on a "pro-life" ticket.

I have had a termination, which happened when I was young, and which was one of the most difficult decisions I had to make, and which was not taken lightly. It was also one of the most horrible experiences of my life, and I am happy to know that the procedures are much easier these days.

I have also accompanied many women whilst they had terminations, including one recently, and in no case was the decision to terminate the pregnancy taken lightly. I mentioned the most recent one of these earlier in the thread, where the child of a close friend of mine, had a termination paid for by her grandparents, after weeks of agonising.

I am also the proud great aunt of a small baby which was born to my niece following a contraception failure, and outwith an established relationship. My niece, despite being still at university, made a considered and thoughtful decision to keep that child, and did so with the full support of her parents and the rest of her family, as well has her university and her friends. That's great, and I am really proud of her, and totally adore my grand niece. You see - that was her choice and was made in a considered way and in the full knowledge of the alternatives and the consequences.

28 years ago, I found myself unexpectedly pregnant by an established partner - we were living together. I exercised my choice on that occasion, and decided not to terminate the pregnancy. The father of that child wanted me to have an abortion, and spent the next 8 years telling everyone that, as far as he was concerned, his daughter didn't exist because, if he had had a say, the pregnancy would have been terminated. This was before the CSA existed, before anyone makes mention of that.  I, therefore, became a single parent, and my daughter was brought up without her biological father. You see - I made that choice, too. Does ajdown think that I should have terminated that pregnancy because the father said so?  

It's my body, my mistake, my accident, or my child. I will choose whether to go ahead with a pregnancy and everything that involves - the physical risk and the emotional risk during the pregnancy, and the difficulty of bringing up a child, which is not always easy. I was on benefits for years, even when I was working full time, and have struggled many times. I have never regretted that decision at that time, because it was my choice, and I will fight for the right of others to exercise that choice.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> You mention interrupting education which makes it sound as though these women were rather young.



I was talking about university (including postgraduate) education, not GCSEs.



innit said:


> Why do you assume that these women would not have been desperate and fearing for their own mental health at the prospect of having to abandon their ambitions, maybe forever, due to an unplanned pregnancy?



I assumed nothing. In some cases this happened at a time when I knew them and was aware of their situation. In others, they had recounted it to me later. None of them cited any fear for their mental health.



innit said:


> Why should an intelligent middle-class woman be any more able to cope on her own?  Why do you assume a middle class woman would be financially supported by her family - perhaps they would not wish to support her, perhaps she would not be able to take their support.



It just happened to be the case in the cases I know.



innit said:


> Why do you assume they did not take a long look at themselves, their emotional strength, financial position, their capacity to be a good and loving parent (not easy when it's planned) before deciding that they did not have enough to offer an unborn child at that stage in their lives?



Because of what they told me. And yes, there is an argument to say that someone that wants to complete their PhD more than they want to be a mother probably wouldn't be a wonderful mother anyway, which I suppose is why they had an abortion.

It doesn't make it either right or necessary, though.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> Hmm, well you really aren't going to find too much support for that idea.



The value of an idea can't be measured entirely by its popularity, but nonetheless there are millions of people in this country and billions in the world that share this view.



Fruitloop said:


> I mean a fertilised zygote is a potential child, granted, but also a potential miscarriage, a potential still-birth, a potential not very much at all.



From the point of conception, the natural and most likely outcome is the birth of a healthy child. I'm not quite sure why it may be relevant that some unfortunate and uncommon thing may happen to prevent that.



Fruitloop said:


> Is this view religiously inspired, i.e. does it relate to a fertilised embryo having a soul, or is it purely a matter of potential development?



It's neither. I can see no meaningful way of distinguishing the various stages of development in terms of the life and humanity of the child.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> It's my body, my mistake, my accident, or my child.



The unborn child isn't part of your body, it's just _in _your body. If you insist on this definition then presumably you support the woman's right to abort her child at any time up until natural birth. Do you?


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> I, therefore, became a single parent, and my daughter was brought up without her biological father. You see - I made that choice, too. Does ajdown think that I should have terminated that pregnancy because the father said so?



Since you're addressing me directly...

If he chose to walk away from the situation then he forfeits all rights to have a say in what you do about it.

Whilst I still believe that a child needs both parents, it seems like he was a bit of an asshole and you were probably better off without him.

I can't speak from personal experience because I have never got someone pregnant, accidently or deliberately - by choice, I hasten to add.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> The value of an idea can't be measured entirely by its popularity, but nonetheless there are millions of people in this country and billions in the world that share this view.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Earlier in this thread I pointed out that some medical estimates place rates of natural abortion as high as 60%; which drives something of a coach and horses through your position. If on the other hand you really do place such a huge value on all the potential childfen then how far are you willing to go in intervening in all regnancies to make sure they come successfully to term?


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Louis MacNeice said:


> If on the other hand you really do place such a huge value on all the potential childfen then how far are you willing to go in intervening in all regnancies to make sure they come successfully to term?



There's a massive difference between the body naturally rejecting the pregnancy, and it being the result of chemicals or some other action to make the body rejecting it.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Earlier in this thread I pointed out that some medical estimates place rates of natural abortion as high as 60%; which drives something of a coach and horses through your position.



That's interesting. However, people die at all stages of life and I don't see how this is materially different.

I am not relying on the idea (which you dispute) that the child will probably be born. I am asserting the idea that the child is a child from the moment of conception and therefore should have its life legally protected.



Louis MacNeice said:


> If on the other hand you really do place such a huge value on all the potential childfen then how far are you willing to go in intervening in all regnancies to make sure they come successfully to term?



I'm not sure what you're asking? Do you mean what would/do I do personally or what do I think the state should do or permit?

Are we talking legal or medical measures?


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Earlier in this thread I pointed out that some medical estimates place rates of natural abortion as high as 60%; which drives something of a coach and horses through your position. If on the other hand you really do place such a huge value on all the potential childfen then how far are you willing to go in intervening in all pregnancies to make sure they come successfully to term?



or why there is such a massive difference in how they see spontaneous abortion, compared to a woman's choice to abort


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 22, 2008)

Because it is so far back in the this thread, I will restate the situation I explained earlier, of the young woman who had what you guys would call a "social abortion".

She is someone who has been going through some difficult times for various reasons, and who had taken an overdose in an attempt to end her life, or a cry for help, but then changed her mind, and texted a friend who phoned the police and her life was saved. She did, however, suffer organ failure and was very ill for quite a long time. When she recovered physically, she was taken back into her parents' home, and put under psychiatric care, to try and determine why she tried to kill herself, and why she was feeling so unloved, and to stop her from harming herself further.

During that period, she met up with a schoolboy she met on the internet, and they had sex. Yes, this was a very stupid thing to do, and I know that her psychiatrist and parents are trying to help her through that, too, but she ended up pregnant. For a brief little while, she fantasised about getting a council house, and bringing up this child on her own. If she had done, I am sure there would have been an outcry from some people saying how awful it was that she had had a baby just to get a council house...

Anyway, part of why she had this fantasy was because both her mother and myself had been single parents and had succeeded in bringing up children. Once she understood actually how hard this was, and how she would end up in a hostel and on benefits, rather than living in some country cottage with all the money she needed, reality kicked in, and she started to think more seriously about the implications of going ahead with the pregnancy.

She was advised by lots of people, but no-one pushed her into anything. The father was told about the pregnancy, but was, quite simply, terrified, and was still at school anyway, so really not interested in any further contact.  It was her decision and solely her decision, based on all the information available to her, to have that termination, and it was a horribly difficult decision for her to make, and I am really proud of her for being able to make such a difficult decision and to see it through to its conclusion.

Again, choice. 

I urge everyone, men and women, of whatever faith or political position, to consider supporting a woman's right to choose, whether that choice be to go ahead with the pregnancy, or to terminate it, and I fear the day when this country goes back to the pre 1967 days of back street abortions and women dying and being made sterile.  I accept other's choices not to consider termination, and would never tell anyone they should go through with it.  I only ask the same of you.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> The value of an idea can't be measured entirely by its popularity, but nonetheless there are millions of people in this country and billions in the world that share this view.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But this view is a rather modern one, a product of the reduction in infant mortality in the West in the last century or so. Our ancestors couldn't afford to be so sentimental about babies as it was far less likely that any individual would grow to adulthood (not to mention the number of embryos that last no more than a few days or weeks). The idea of a human as a biological entity having specific rights is also a pretty recent development: rights not extended to another person per se, but to a bundle of cells sharing our genetic heritage. I mean you can adopt such a view if you like, but it's important to realise that ethical judgements can't be compelling the way judgements about facts can be, and there are sound historical reasons why many people hold divergent views on this topic.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 22, 2008)

I think there comes a point on a thread like this when it is best to walk away and leave it; regardless of one's PoV. It seems unlikely that anyone is going to change or significantly influence anyone else's opinion or beliefs.

Usually, the language on a thread like this descends into that of the emotive.....which then leads to name calling and personal attacks.

*G2* - thanks for sharing your experience ^. I like and respect you on the board and the couple of times we met IRL. This pissing match is probably my fault. This is a subject that is a red rag to me. It causes me no end of problems with my other wider beliefs. I don't (and can't) apologise for my position (sorry, EG). I regret wading in at the start of your thread and I apologise for that.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> The unborn child isn't part of your body, it's just _in _your body. If you insist on this definition then presumably you support the woman's right to abort her child at any time up until natural birth. Do you?



That's where the debate about "viability" comes in, and the current position, which I support, is 24 weeks, because it is accepted that, until that time, the foetus cannot live independently.

What I am referring to is the current abortion debate, which is about an attempt to lower the time limit, and not the right to infanticide, before anyone brings that one in!


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Since you're addressing me directly...
> 
> If he chose to walk away from the situation then he forfeits all rights to have a say in what you do about it.
> 
> ...



So you think the father should have the right to walk away from a pregnancy, but not the mother?


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> I urge everyone, men and women, of whatever faith or political position, to consider supporting a woman's right to choose, whether that choice be to go ahead with the pregnancy, or to terminate it, and I fear the day when this country goes back to the pre 1967 days of back street abortions and women dying and being made sterile.  I accept other's choices not to consider termination, and would never tell anyone they should go through with it.  I only ask the same of you.



I believe this obsession with "choice" is at best misguided and at worst disingenuous. I make no comment about _your_ view.

"Choice" is not a primary virtue. The whole framework of social control (whether through law, or otherwise) is based on the premise that people should be discouraged or prevented from _choosing _to do bad things.

The law as it stands does not enshrine choice. It removes the legal right to life from unborn children up to a certain age. Obviously by implication you can choose not to abort your unborn child, just as you can choose not to take up any of your other legal rights. But that's not the point of the law. The point of the law is to say that we as a society hold that unborn children aren't children and therefore do not have a right to life.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 22, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I think there comes a point on a thread like this when it is best to walk away and leave it; regardless of one's PoV. It seems unlikely that anyone is going to change or significantly influence anyone else's opinion or beliefs.
> 
> Usually, the language on a thread like this descends into that of the emotive.....which then leads to name calling and personal attacks.
> 
> *G2* - thanks for sharing your experience ^. I like and respect you on the board and the couple of times we met IRL. This pissing match is probably my fault. This is a subject that is a red rag to me. It causes me no end of problems with my other wider beliefs. I don't (and can't) apologise for my position (sorry, EG). I regret wading in at the start of your thread and I apologise for that.



I was already aware of your views, and believe that you are entitled to them, so long as you don't try and impose them on to me or mine!

I also regret your earlier intervention, because I don't think it was helpful or appropriate, but I don't think it caused the more recent spat, to be honest, since we had moved on from that until others came along.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> I believe this obsession with "choice" is at best misguided and at worst disingenuous. I make no comment about _your_ view.
> 
> "Choice" is not a primary virtue. The whole framework of social control (whether through law, or otherwise) is based on the premise that people should be discouraged or prevented from _choosing _to do bad things.
> 
> The law as it stands does not enshrine choice. It removes the legal right to life from unborn children up to a certain age. Obviously by implication you can choose not to abort your unborn child, just as you can choose not to take up any of your other legal rights. But that's not the point of the law. The point of the law is to say that we as a society hold that unborn children aren't children and therefore do not have a right to life.



That's because a foetus of a few weeks duration is not a child!


----------



## lights.out.london (May 22, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> I was already aware of your views, and believe that you are entitled to them, so long as you don't try and impose them on to me or mine!
> 
> I also regret your earlier intervention, because I don't think it was helpful or appropriate, but I don't think it caused the more recent spat, to be honest, since we had moved on from that until others came along.



I am the most inappropriate person I know.  

Ta.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> I was already aware of your views, and believe that you are entitled to them, so long as you don't try and impose them on to me or mine!



How do you feel about pregnant women imposing their views on their unborn children?


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> How do you feel about pregnant women imposing their views on their unborn children?



Foetuses are not children.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> That's because a foetus of a few weeks duration is not a child!



I hope even you would agree that that's a point of contention. And there lies the debate: When does a pregnancy become an independent child with a right to life?

It's nothing to do with choice, nothing whatsoever.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 22, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> That's where the debate about "viability" comes in, and the current position, which I support, is 24 weeks, because it is accepted that, until that time, the foetus cannot live independently.
> 
> What I am referring to is the current abortion debate, which is about an attempt to lower the time limit, and not the right to infanticide, before anyone brings that one in!



It worries me slightly that though. I mean the fundamental issue from my POV is a social and philosophical one; i.e. at what point is something considered a member of our society with the rights and protections that entails? A 24 week old foetus can't live 'naturally' outside the mother's body, it can only live with constant medical interference that to some extent stands in for the uterine environment where it should ideally be. I wouldn't like to think that if it became possible to incubate babies artificially from one week, or even from conception that this would either compel women to carry unwanted babies to term, or that this technology would be foisted on the unwilling.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> Foetuses are not children.



At what point does a foetus become a child, in your view?


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> I hope even you would agree that that's a point of contention. And there lies the debate: When does a pregnancy become an independent child with a right to life?
> 
> It's nothing to do with choice, nothing whatsoever.



"even me"?  What is so special about me? 

A few cells does not make a child. The current legal position is that a foetus of less than 24 weeks is not viable and therefore not a child.

I am off to do some work now - just spent my entire lunchbreak on one thread, and didn't even have anything to eat yet!


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> So you think the father should have the right to walk away from a pregnancy, but not the mother?



I didn't say that.

Neither should walk away from the result of an act that, presumably, they both willingly took part in with full knowledge of the potential end result.

If the father deserts the pregnant woman, then he forfeits the right to have any say over what happens.

As I've said before, there's a big difference between an 'accidental' pregnancy, and one as a result of sexual assault/rape.  If the woman doesn't want to (or risk) get pregnant, she does always have the choice of saying "no" to sex, or insisting the guy wears a condom (or, for that matter, taking the pill or having a depo injection herself).

Sure, there are accidents, which is what the 'morning after' pill is supposed to be for - but then again, people start using that as normal contraception when it wasn't designed for that.

This is always a difficult discussion because invariably emotion gets involved, and both sides are very passionate about their viewpoint.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> That's because a foetus of a few weeks duration is not a child!



Up until the point of birth, it's technically a parasite because it lives off of its host.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> There's a massive difference between the body naturally rejecting the pregnancy, and it being the result of chemicals or some other action to make the body rejecting it.



My point is that we don't choose to try to legislate and impose medical interventions on women to protect the unborn child from 'natural abortion' (while we intervene against the 'natural' all the time in other areas). Therefore it is not the (potential) humanity of the unborn child that is of primary concenr to the anti abortion lobby, but rather women exercising control over their own lives (note not other peoples' lives...going down that road just leads you back to why the unborn child isn't legally protected from 'nature).

As I said to a previous poster, those opposing abortion might want to ask themselves why they feel such disquite over women trying to be in charge of their own lives that the want the state to criminalise their behaviour?


----------



## Chairman Meow (May 22, 2008)

Is there anything that is more of a pointless waste of time than arguing about abortion on the internet? It's not like anyone ever changes their mind.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> A few cells does not make a child.



It depends on which cells they are. It's at least as easy to argue that they do as that they don't.



Guineveretoo said:


> The current legal position is that a foetus of less than 24 weeks is not viable and therefore not a child.



I'm aware of what the law says. I'm sure you're aware, not least due to recent events, that the law is mutable.

What's _your_ view?


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Chairman Meow said:


> Is there anything that is more of a pointless waste of time than arguing about abortion on the internet? It's not like anyone ever changes their mind.



Is there ever any point talking about anything?

How you do you know that these discussions never _contribute _towards anyone changing their mind? I imagine the opposite would invariably be the case.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Up until the point of birth, it's technically a parasite because it lives off of its host.



As much as I dislike the term, you seem to be arguing that the unborn child is a _separate _yet _dependent _living being.

Sounds about right. It's the separateness rather than the dependency that should guide our policy.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> ..... insisting the guy wears a condom (or, for that matter, taking the pill or having a depo injection herself).
> 
> Sure, there are accidents, which is what the 'morning after' pill is supposed to be for - but then again, people start using that as normal contraception when it wasn't designed for that.



Contraception is not 100% effective.

hormonal contraception is unsuitable for a lot of women. 

The morning after pill isn't 100% effective either.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Louis MacNeice said:


> My point is that we don't choose to try to legislate and impose medical interventions on women to protect the unborn child from 'natural abortion' (while we intervene against the 'natural' all the time in other areas).



That would be like making it a crime to catch the flu.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> or why there is such a massive difference in how they see spontaneous abortion, compared to a woman's choice to abort



Toggle thanks for putting it so neatly. 

Until the anti-abortionists can seriously address this difference (that is without falling back on the excuse of it being 'natural') then I'll stick with asking them why they have such a negative attitude towards women seeking to control their own lives.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> Contraception is not 100% effective.
> 
> hormonal contraception is unsuitable for a lot of women.
> 
> The morning after pill isn't 100% effective either.



This is all true.

However, if you believe that an unborn child is a child and therefore has a right to live, it is irrelevant how that child came to be conceived.

Everyone having sex is running the risk of pregnancy, whether they are using contraception or not. As you say, it's not 100% effective, therefore they are _knowingly _running that risk.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I can't speak from personal experience because I have never got someone pregnant, accidently or deliberately - by choice, I hasten to add.



How do you know? 

I certainly wouldn't tell you.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> Contraception is not 100% effective.
> 
> hormonal contraception is unsuitable for a lot of women.
> 
> The morning after pill isn't 100% effective either.



That is true, but using one or more of the above does help the chances of reducing the risk of unwanted pregnancy.

My partner cannot take hormonal contraceptives for medical reasons.  Leaves us the choice of condoms and being very, very careful


----------



## Fruitloop (May 22, 2008)

It strikes me as a curious position for social conservatives to adopt, that a women has been carrying around ova for all her life, and then suddenly just because one of her own cells fuses its half-complement of DNA with another cell you immediately have a person, demanding all the legal and ethical protections that such status requires. It's not a traditional point of view by any means, and its totally unlike conservatives to be so in the thrall of scientific materialism.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Until the anti-abortionists can seriously address this difference (that is without falling back on the excuse of it being 'natural') then I'll stick with asking them why they have such a negative attitude towards women seeking to control their own lives.



It's an interesting point. I don't know what medical measures could be taken to improve an unborn child's chance of survival, but if more research in this area would be likely to lead to new techniques and possibilities I'd definitely support it.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> This is all true.
> 
> However, if you believe that an unborn child is a child and therefore has a right to live, it is irrelevant how that child came to be conceived.
> 
> Everyone having sex is running the risk of pregnancy, whether they are using contraception or not. As you say, it's not 100% effective, therefore they are _knowingly _running that risk.



and they know they have the option of termination if their contraception fails.


----------



## Chairman Meow (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Is there ever any point talking about anything?
> 
> How you do you know that these discussions never _contribute _towards anyone changing their mind? I imagine the opposite would invariably be the case.




On this subject, I seriously doubt it. I used to argue in these threads, but I've never seen anyone budge an inch, so I don't bother any more.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> and they know they have the option of termination if their contraception fails.



Your point is unclear. Isn't this conversation about whether or under which circumstances they should have that option?


----------



## Thora (May 22, 2008)

I think it's pointless trying to come up with "what if" scenarios for anti-choicers - is abortion ok after rape?  What if she's in a violent relationship?  What if she's mentally ill? etc

Because, women can make this choice over their bodies in any circumstances, whether they were an innocent virgin who was gang raped, or an ambitious middle class girl who doesn't want to interrupt her education, if she got really drunk and messed up the contraception, even if she got pregnant deliberately and changed her mind.  Women have a right to choose safe, legal, quick abortions.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Your point is unclear. Isn't this conversation about whether or under which circumstances they should have that option?



I'm looking at those that try to claim some women should be denied termination because it's 'their fault' they are pregnant.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Chairman Meow said:


> On this subject, I seriously doubt it. I used to argue in these threads, but I've never seen anyone budge an inch, so I don't bother any more.



You're unlikely to see any Damascene conversions to either side. No-one's likely to have an instant change of heart, much less to rush back here and tell us all about it.

But there are interesting arguments made and information given that may be new to some people.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> That would be like making it a crime to catch the flu.



No that would be like making it a crime not to get a flu jab.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Thora said:


> Women have a right to choose safe, legal, quick abortions.



Or conversely, as I've said above, if you are pro-life and you defend the right of the unborn child to live, the circumstances of the mother and the conception are immaterial.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

Thora said:


> I think it's pointless trying to come up with "what if" scenarios for anti-choicers - is abortion ok after rape?  What if she's in a violent relationship?  What if she's mentally ill? etc
> 
> Because, women can make this choice over their bodies in any circumstances, whether they were an innocent virgin who was gang raped, or an ambitious middle class girl who doesn't want to interrupt her education, if she got really drunk and messed up the contraception, even if she got pregnant deliberately and changed her mind.  Women have a right to choose safe, legal, quick abortions.



This is my point, there seems to be those that appear to see unwanted pregnancy as an appropriate punishment for a woman who chose to have sex. 

a termination would be ok if she could claim she was a victim, but not if she chose to have sex and her contraception failed or she made a mistake. It goes along with those that try to claim a woman was asking for it if she walks home in a short skirt or gets drunk. she is punished for ehr actions.


----------



## zenie (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I didn't say that.
> 
> Neither should walk away from the result of an act that, presumably, they both willingly took part in with full knowledge of the potential end result.


 
Lot easier for a man to leave a 7 months into pregnancy than it is for az woman....



ajdown said:


> If the father deserts the pregnant woman, then he forfeits the right to have any say over what happens.


 
Except he doesn't, not by law. 



ajdown said:


> As I've said before, there's a big difference between an 'accidental' pregnancy, and one as a result of sexual assault/rape. If the woman doesn't want to (or risk) get pregnant, she does always have the choice of saying "no" to sex, or insisting the guy wears a condom (or, for that matter, taking the pill or having a depo injection herself).


 
It's not quite as absolute as you like to make it. I fell pregnant as a result of being on medication, my doctor who prescribed me the medication never told me I shold worry about my pill's effectiveness. My ex already had a 2 year old kid he couldn't be bothered with, where am I in your version of eutopia? 

Depo? What you mean the one that caused me to having polycystic ovaries at 16 and reducing my changes of pregnancy? 



ajdown said:


> Sure, there are accidents, which is what the 'morning after' pill is supposed to be for - but then again, people start using that as normal contraception when it wasn't designed for that.


 
Oh well heaven forbid people use things for the purpose of which they're not intended, how dare they.

Also, you do realise that levonelle stops foetuses implanting don't you? Would you not call that abortion? The egg's been fertilised after all. 



ajdown said:


> Up until the point of birth, it's technically a parasite because it lives off of its host.


 
Yeh, that's exactly the way I felt when I was pregnant.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> This is my point, there seems to be those that appear to see unwanted pregnancy as an appropriate punishment for a woman who chose to have sex.



Perhaps some people do see it as "just desserts" but the pro-life people I know see children and motherhood as a positive thing, not a punishment. That's why they seek to defend it.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

zenie said:


> Lot easier for a man to leave a 7 months into pregnancy than it is for az woman....



fucking tell me about it...........


----------



## zenie (May 22, 2008)

Thora said:


> Because, women can make this choice over their bodies in any circumstances, whether they were an innocent virgin who was gang raped, or an ambitious middle class girl who doesn't want to interrupt her education, if she got really drunk and messed up the contraception, even if she got pregnant deliberately and changed her mind. Women have a right to choose safe, legal, quick abortions.


 

here here, thank fuck we live in the UK and have the choice.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

zenie said:


> Lot easier for a man to leave a 7 months into pregnancy than it is for a woman....



Do you defend his right to choose to do that, or do you think society should seek to inhibit that kind of behaviour?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 22, 2008)

zenie said:


> here here, thank fuck we live in the UK and have the choice.



And at least the anti choice loons aint armed like they are in th USA.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> And at least the anti choice loons aint armed like they are in th USA.



I think you'll find that most pro-lifers in the USA are peaceful and law-abiding, just as they are here.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> How do you know?
> 
> I certainly wouldn't tell you.



I don't "sleep around" for a start, and don't just jump into sex after a few days of seeing someone.  I could give you the names of every person that a relationship has turned sexual with, and it wouldn't be a very long list.

Strangely enough, I'm quite proud of that.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I don't "sleep around" for a start, and don't just jump into sex after a few days of seeing someone.  I could give you the names of every person that a relationship has turned sexual with, and it wouldn't be a very long list.
> 
> Strangely enough, I'm quite proud of that.



You still don't know for sure.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> You still don't know for sure.



I know I can't prove it to you but I am 118% sure that there are no "mini me" out there wandering around.


----------



## baldrick (May 22, 2008)

and thank fuck for that.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> I think you'll find that most pro-lifers in the USA are peaceful and law-abiding, just as they are here.



Not from the reports we get over here.  Anyway the anti choice loons are no different from slave owners in my opinion.  Both Anti Choice loons and slave owners get their kicks from controlling for their own reasons other humans bodies.


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2008)

baldrick said:


> and thank fuck for that.



Indeed


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I know I can't prove it to you but I am 118% sure that there are no "mini me" out there wandering around.



Thank fuck for that.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

Oops, snap


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Not from the reports we get over here.  Anyway the anti choice loons are no different from slave owners in my opinion.  Both Anti Choice loons and slave owners get their kicks from controlling for their own reasons other humans bodies.



I've no idea whether abortionists get their "kicks" from what they do, but you can't go further to controlling other humans' bodies than by killing them.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

untethered, have you got any kids that you know about?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> This is my point, there seems to be those that appear to see unwanted pregnancy as an appropriate punishment for a woman who chose to have sex.
> 
> a termination would be ok if she could claim she was a victim, but not if she chose to have sex and her contraception failed or she made a mistake. It goes along with those that try to claim a woman was asking for it if she walks home in a short skirt or gets drunk. she is punished for ehr actions.



You need to remember that untethered sees non-reproductive sex as immoral. Indeed certain sorts of non productive sex, such as homosexuality are on a par with child abuse and bestiality; that is they are urges/drives/desires which must be resisted. (It's on a thread about lesbians and IVF quite near the end.)

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Thora (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Perhaps some people do see it as "just desserts" but the pro-life people I know see children and motherhood as a positive thing, not a punishment. That's why they seek to defend it.



I don't see motherhood or children as a punishment - I love kids, I work with them everyday and I can't wait to be a mother myself.

But not at the wrong time, with the wrong person, when I can't emotionally or financially support a child.  If I have an unwanted pregnancy who exactly is going to be supporting me and my child?  Pro-life people's concern seems to end at the birth, they don't give a fuck about what happens to the mother and baby after that.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You need to remember that untethered sees non-reproductive sex as immoral. In certain sorts of non productive sex, such as homosexuality are on a par with child abuse and bestiality; that is they are urges/drives/desires which must be resisted. (It's on a thread about lesbians and IVF quite near the end.)



You can interpret my words however you wish, but I'd like you to know that I neither said nor intended to imply that "non productive sex" is "on a par" with child abuse and bestiality.

You are either honestly mistaken or deliberately misrepresenting my views. Either way, please withdraw that comment and do not repeat it.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> You can interpret my words however you wish, but I'd like you to know that I neither said nor intended to imply that "non productive sex" is "on a par" with child abuse and bestiality.
> 
> You are either honestly mistaken or deliberately misrepresenting my views. Either way, please withdraw that comment and do not repeat it.



That's exactly how it looked to me too. You were pulled up on it at the time as well.


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> From the moment of conception.



are you against the morning after pill or the coil then? some formulations of pill work by thinning the lining of the womb so even if an egg is released and fertilised then it won't implant.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Thora said:


> Pro-life people's concern seems to end at the birth, they don't give a f- about what happens to the mother and baby after that.



I've no idea where you got that idea from. Many pro-life people and groups are actively involved in supporting natural families and issues like adoption.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> are you against the morning after pill or the coil then? some formulations of pill work by thinning the lining of the womb so even if an egg is released and fertilised then it won't implant.



Yes, I'm against those too.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> I've no idea whether abortionists get their "kicks" from what they do, but you can't go further to controlling other humans' bodies than by killing them.



Oh do fuck off Untethered.  You are not killing a human being but something that although it has the potential to become a human being is not a human being.

You seem to be incapable of seeing that that issue of availability of terminations is a complex one and persist in simple minded black and white statements.

I don't know how you came to an anti choice point of view but if it comes from your own tragedy please remember it is always a danger to use your own pain to push an agenda.  Things sometimes are not always easily categorisable into right and wrong especially things like abortion. 

If I, who wants children so much but can't have them that holding a baby hurts like someone twisting a knife in my heart can accept and support the idea of safe legal abortion for those who need it then why can't you?


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Yes, I'm against those too.



Good job you wouldn't necessarily know if your partner was using them then


----------



## zenie (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> fucking tell me about it...........


 
Happens everywhere doesn't it? 



untethered said:


> Do you defend his right to choose to do that, or do you think society should seek to inhibit that kind of behaviour?


 
He can walk away whenever he likes, you shouldn't make poeople look after their kids, they have to want to do it. The mother would also then have to want to continue the pregnancy....


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> That's exactly how it looked to me too. You were pulled up on it at the time as well.



If I remember correctly, you were one of the main moaners.

Anyone on this board who knows me in as much as one can ever do in such circumstances knows that I am quite happy to be forthright in my views. I do not seek to offend people, but I won't be deterred from stating my view just because some people might not like it.

If I thought that non-productive sex was on a par with child abuse and bestiality then I'd say so. However, I don't. I haven't said so, and if you want to interpret it as such you do so despite my explicit denial that that was either what I said or meant.

Still, there's nothing like a good bit of ad hominem to take the thread off topic, is there?


----------



## Thora (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> I've no idea where you got that idea from. Many pro-life people and groups are actively involved in supporting natural families and issues like adoption.



If all these thousands of unwanted babies are born though, where will they go?  There aren't enough adoptive and foster parents as there is, and I don't know if you know anyone who grew up in care but apparently it isn't all lollipops and rainbows.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Good job you wouldn't necessarily know if your partner was using them then



I'd be grateful if you could stop making personal comments about what you may imagine transpires between me and my partner. It's not relevant and it's quite distasteful.


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> From the point of conception, the natural and most likely outcome is the birth of a healthy child. I'm not quite sure why it may be relevant that some unfortunate and uncommon thing may happen to prevent that.



the miscarriage rate is about 15% and that only includes women who knew they were pregnant whether that be before or after the miscarriage. 

who knows how many more miscarriages occur in very early pregnancy?


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Thora said:


> All all these thousands of unwanted babies are born though, where will they go?  There aren't enough adoptive and parents as there is, and I don't know if you know anyone who grew up in care but apparently it isn't all lollipops and rainbows.



I think this is putting the cart before the horse.

We need to have a society where people are serious about their relationships, respectful of children and responsible about their role as (potential) parents.

Such a society wouldn't have "unwanted" children, just a small number of children who for various reasons didn't have natural parents to look after them. We are a rich society; we can easily afford to take care of those children and do it _well_. We have a moral duty to do so.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> the miscarriage rate is about 15% and that only includes women who knew they were pregnant whether that be before or after the miscarriage.
> 
> who knows how many more miscarriages occur in very early pregnancy?



How is this relevant to a discussion about people choosing to intervene in the natural process? It seems about as relevant as discussing heart attack statistics in the context of murder.


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> I hope even you would agree that that's a point of contention. And there lies the debate: When does a pregnancy become an independent child with a right to life?
> 
> It's nothing to do with choice, nothing whatsoever.



when it can surive independently outside its mother's womb.


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Sure, there are accidents, which is what the 'morning after' pill is supposed to be for - but then again, people start using that as normal contraception when it wasn't designed for that.
> 
> .



surely you are anti the morning after pill though?


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> If I remember correctly, you were one of the main moaners.
> 
> Anyone on this board who knows me in as much as one can ever do in such circumstances knows that I am quite happy to be forthright in my views. I do not seek to offend people, but I won't be deterred from stating my view just because some people might not like it.
> 
> ...



Found it.



untethered said:


> Well if that's your experience there must be something wrong with the homosexuals you know or something very different about homosexual drives and heterosexual ones.
> 
> The heterosexual people I know are perfectly capable of not acting on their instincts where it would be immoral or harmful to do so.
> 
> ...


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> How is this relevant to a discussion about people choosing to intervene in the natural process? It seems about as relevant as discussing heart attack statistics in the context of murder.



perhaps we should start investigating every miscarriage to see if the woman could be blamed for causing it


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'd be grateful if you could stop making personal comments about what you may imagine transpires between me and my partner. It's not relevant and it's quite distasteful.



As long as you continue posting offensive comments about women and homosexuals I shall continue to post personal comments about you.

You don't know if your partner is using contraception that you don't know about. You also don't know for sure that your partner (if female) hasn't had an abortion.

Chances are you never will know and there's SFA you can do about that.


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

baldrick said:


> and thank fuck for that.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 22, 2008)

Thora said:


> If all these thousands of unwanted babies are born though, where will they go?  There aren't enough adoptive and foster parents as there is, and I don't know if you know anyone who grew up in care but apparently it isn't all lollipops and rainbows.




Back to my own experience here, but I do know people who grew up in care. Quite a few, in fact, because I used to work in social services, and did some research into children leaving care, and how few of them had the necessary life skills to look after themselves, never mind a child, but how many of them went on and got themselves pregnant in a desperate bid to have something that belonged to them, and to get somewhere to live, and security of benefits.  All wrong reasons, of course.

I also have direct, first hand experience of children in care because I fostered several, and they certainly had a miserable life whilst in care homes.


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Thank fuck for that.



rofl.


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> perhaps we should start investigating every miscarriage to see if the woman could be blamed for causing it



i'm sure that some pro life loons in the states have tried to do just that


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> surely you are anti the morning after pill though?



I've never been in the position to need to be involved in the decision about one so I'm not sure I can really answer.

If an accident had occured when precautions were taken (split condom, for example) then it's really just a repeat of the same thing - a method of preventing a pregnancy.

But certainly the 'morning after pill' should *not *be used as regular contraception every time you have sex.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> when it can surive independently outside its mother's womb.


What do you mean by independently? Age 18? A healthy new-born baby will die quite quickly without intervention from people around it.

I think that is a poor criterion. Much better to stick to the moral clarity of a woman's rights over her own body.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> You are not killing a human being but something that although it has the potential to become a human being is not a human being.



As I keep saying, the dispute over that point is the crux of the entire matter. You can restate this view as often as I restate mine but I suspect it wouldn't get either of us anywhere.



KeyboardJockey said:


> You seem to be incapable of seeing that that issue of availability of terminations is a complex one and persist in simple minded black and white statements.



I think it's both simple and difficult. Conceptually simple in the sense that if you accept that a child is a child with a right to life from the point of conception, killing that child would be wrong. Yet, there are situations where all of us are inclined to do the wrong thing, or where the right thing may well be in itself a very difficult path.

Take for example the case of rape. Believing as I do that the child has a right to life, the circumstances of its conception are irrelevant to that right. But I don't for a minute assume that it would be easy for a woman who had conceived through rape to bear that child. Nonetheless it would be the right thing to do.



KeyboardJockey said:


> I don't know how you came to an anti choice point of view but if it comes from your own tragedy please remember it is always a danger to use your own pain to push an agenda.



Your assumption about me is wrong, but I'm sure that there are people on both sides that use their own painful experience to inform and motivate their stance. I don't see how that's wrong.



KeyboardJockey said:


> If I, who wants children so much but can't have them that holding a baby hurts like someone twisting a knife in my heart can accept and support the idea of safe legal abortion for those who need it then why can't you?



Because my experience and thinking on this subject leads me to a different conclusion, as might yours if your experience and thinking were different.

People are complex.


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> You can interpret my words however you wish, but I'd like you to know that I neither said nor intended to imply that "non productive sex" is "on a par" with child abuse and bestiality.
> 
> You are either honestly mistaken or deliberately misrepresenting my views. Either way, please withdraw that comment and do not repeat it.



Yes you did, and several times too.  You also said it should be illegal but refused to say how it would be punished.  Have you decided between Jail or death yet?


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> I think this is putting the cart before the horse.
> 
> We need to have a society where people are serious about their relationships, respectful of children and responsible about their role as (potential) parents.
> 
> Such a society wouldn't have "unwanted" children, just a small number of children who for various reasons didn't have natural parents to look after them. We are a rich society; we can easily afford to take care of those children and do it _well_. We have a moral duty to do so.



I am, and always have been, serious about my relationships, respectful of children, am responsible about my role as a potential parent. That's why, on one occasion, I chose to terminate a pregnancy, and on another, I chose to go ahead with one. 

Choice, you see?


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> perhaps we should start investigating every miscarriage to see if the woman could be blamed for causing it



Good idea, they will go around doing things like working and drinking and exercising 

they must be stopped


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> perhaps we should start investigating every miscarriage to see if the woman could be blamed for causing it



I think the best place to start would be to outlaw abortion.


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'd be grateful if you could stop making personal comments about what you may imagine transpires between me and my partner. It's not relevant and it's quite distasteful.



lol.  Then stop talking about my immediate family in such a way you ignorant fuckwit.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> I think the best place to start would be to outlaw abortion.



how do you know if a woman has aborted unless you investigate pregnancy losses?

you seem to forget that the current abortion laws were not brought in to allow abortion, they were brought in to make the abortions that were already happening safe for women.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> I think the best place to start would be to outlaw abortion.



Then I'm glad you're not involved in making such decisions, and I'm glad the vast majority of the population doesn't share your views.

How do you think this would afffect women's equality, by the way?


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> I am, and always have been, serious about my relationships, respectful of children, am responsible about my role as a potential parent. That's why, on one occasion, I chose to terminate a pregnancy, and on another, I chose to go ahead with one.
> 
> Choice, you see?



So you're saying that you declined to accept responsibility in one case and accepted it in another?

How does that have any bearing on the matter?


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I've never been in the position to need to be involved in the decision about one so I'm not sure I can really answer.
> 
> If an accident had occured when precautions were taken (split condom, for example) then it's really just a repeat of the same thing - a method of preventing a pregnancy.
> 
> But certainly the 'morning after pill' should *not *be used as regular contraception every time you have sex.



hmmmmmmmmm...so when does life begin then? when is the line?


----------



## Thora (May 22, 2008)

Did anyone else see a documentary on the BBC a week or two ago about abortion?  I thought it was pretty good - just women talking about their abortions.  One was a young mother who already had two small children with medical problems and had just split from her partner, another was one of those dreadful middle class university students who didn't want to disrupt her education/career, another had had four abortions - something like one when she was a teenager, one when she already had young children, one as her husband was dying and the last one because her new partner didn't want the child.  The most heartbreaking was a 17 year old girl who terminated at 23 weeks - to suggest she hadn't taken that decision seriously, and chosen the least worst of some not very good options is ridiculous. 

When people talk about women not valuing motherhood or children, I think it's worth remembering than many women who abort are already mothers, and most will become mothers.  Often they're making decisions not just about what's best for them and the potential child, but also for the real children they already have.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> You don't know if your partner is using contraception that you don't know about.



If you don't trust your partner to share these things then you shouldn't be having sex with them.  It's the right of each partner to know about the other partner in this respect.

If, after sex, someone said "oh, by the way, I have herpes" you'd class that as irresponsible.  Why shouldn't she say "oh, by the way, I'm not on the pill so you'll have to use a condom"?


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What do you mean by independently? Age 18? A healthy new-born baby will die quite quickly without intervention from people around it.
> 
> I think that is a poor criterion. Much better to stick to the moral clarity of a woman's rights over her own body.



ok, when the foetus can breath outside its mother's womb. ok? you pedant.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> hmmmmmmmmm...so when does life begin then? when is the line?



Honestly?

I don't know.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> So you're saying that you declined to accept responsibility in one case and accepted it in another?
> 
> How does that have any bearing on the matter?



No I am not. I am saying that I took responsibility in both cases.


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

trusting someone doesn't mean they're trustworthy.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> how do you know if a woman has aborted unless you investigate pregnancy losses?



You make a fair point. In a society where abortion were illegal, such a thing would necessarily have to be done where there was _reasonable _suspicion that the law had been broken, just in every other case of suspected lawbreaking.

I wouldn't have a problem with that.


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Take for example the case of rape. Believing as I do that the child has a right to life, the circumstances of its conception are irrelevant to that right. But I don't for a minute assume that it would be easy for a woman who had conceived through rape to bear that child. Nonetheless it would be the right thing to do.



and even easier for you to moralise about as it'll never happen to you.


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> You make a fair point. In a society where abortion were illegal, such a thing would necessarily have to be done where there was _reasonable _suspicion that the law had been broken, just in every other case of suspected lawbreaking.
> 
> I wouldn't have a problem with that.



and how would you punish that then?  Stoning?


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> No I am not. I am saying that I took responsibility in both cases.



Well clearly you see your responsibilities differently to how I see them.


----------



## Thora (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> But certainly the 'morning after pill' should *not *be used as regular contraception every time you have sex.



What, for some moral reason or because it's not good for you physically?  I agree that there are better methods of contraception for your body, but see no moral reason that it can be ok to take the map once, but not all the time.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Well clearly you see your responsibilities differently to how I see them.



Evidently. It's my body, so it's my choice. Luckily, the law supports me on this one.


----------



## zenie (May 22, 2008)

fractionMan said:


> and how would you punish that then? Stoning?


 

haha innit

What kind of place does unentethered want us to live in?


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Honestly?
> 
> I don't know.



well then. stop telling women what to do with their bodies.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If you don't trust your partner to share these things then you shouldn't be having sex with them.  It's the right of each partner to know about the other partner in this respect.
> 
> If, after sex, someone said "oh, by the way, I have herpes" you'd class that as irresponsible.  Why shouldn't she say "oh, by the way, I'm not on the pill so you'll have to use a condom"?



What fM said.


----------



## D (May 22, 2008)

Thora - didn't see the doc, but I did participate in a project some years ago where I and several other writers adapted oral history testimony from women who'd had abortions pre and post Roe v Wade (the decision rendering abortion legal in the US) for the stage.  It was a cool project, although the outcome was theatrically sort of unsatisfying for various aesthetic reasons.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> You make a fair point. In a society where abortion were illegal, such a thing would necessarily have to be done where there was _reasonable _suspicion that the law had been broken, just in every other case of suspected lawbreaking.
> 
> I wouldn't have a problem with that.



do you have any idea of how impractical it would be to investigate every potential miscarriage?


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> Then I'm glad you're not involved in making such decisions, and I'm glad the vast majority of the population doesn't share your views.



I am involved in such decisions in as much as I'm involved in the public debate on the issue and I vote.



innit said:


> How do you think this would afffect women's equality, by the way?



I don't hold equality to be the primary virtue in our society, and for that matter, neither does society.


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> do you have any idea of how impractical it would be to investigate every potential miscarriage?




surely that's what the police should be doing instead of investigating murders. or what social services should be focussing on reather then worrying about actual children in danger


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> do you have any idea of how impractical it would be to investigate every potential miscarriage?



Yes, which is why I haven't suggested any such thing.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Thora said:


> What, for some moral reason or because it's not good for you physically?  I agree that there are better methods of contraception for your body, but see no moral reason that it can be ok to take the map once, but not all the time.



Mostly because, as I understand it, it's not good for the body.  What is known as the 'morning after pill' are really 'Emergency contraceptive pills' ... if 'emergency' becomes 'the norm' then perhaps there's a need to look at your lifestyle?


----------



## D (May 22, 2008)

untethered - what is "the primary virtue in our society"?


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Yes, which is why I haven't suggested any such thing.



then how would you stop abortions? 

because i can only hope that your aim in wanting abortion made illegal is to stop them.


it would take me 5 minutes to give you the names of half a dozen herbal abortifactants with a history of use, even before we go on to talking about backstreet surgery


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Mostly because, as I understand it, it's not good for the body.  What is known as the 'morning after pill' are really 'Emergency contraceptive pills' ... if 'emergency' becomes 'the norm' then perhaps there's a need to look at your lifestyle?



as far as i'm aware, the morning after pill contains about as many hormones as the original pill did. it's probably a lot less dangerous than pregnancy.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> You make a fair point. In a society where abortion were illegal, such a thing would necessarily have to be done where there was _reasonable _suspicion that the law had been broken, just in every other case of suspected lawbreaking.
> 
> I wouldn't have a problem with that.



Next he'll want to prosecute us just for being women.  He certainly seems to hate us enough.

Imagine giving examinations to women who have just miscarried 

I can't think of anything more inhumane.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> well then. stop telling women what to do with their bodies.



Why?  I have as much right to stand up for something I believe in as anyone else does.

You don't have to have had parents who were slaves to be anti-slavery.  You don't have to have had family killed in conflict to be anti-war.  

Just like you don't have to be a woman to have a view on abortion.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

D said:


> untethered - what is "the primary virtue in our society"?



An interesting question. In terms of "how should we act", a respect for life and the aim to preserve life should take precedence. That's why I'm against abortion as well as the death penalty.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> as far as i'm aware, the morning after pill contains about as many hormones as the original pill did. it's probably a lot less dangerous than pregnancy.



I thought that the morning-after pill contained higher doses of the same stuff as the regular pill?


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> An interesting question. In terms of "how should we act", a respect for life and the aim to preserve life should take precedence. That's why I'm against abortion as well as the death penalty.



still dodging the difficult questions eh?


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> I don't hold equality to be the primary virtue in our society, and for that matter, neither does society.



Never mind how important you rate it to be, answer the question - how equal would we be without abortion?

Imagine two 15 year olds conceive accidentally (or two 22 year olds, or two 30 year olds), the woman has to continue the pregnancy and bears all the social and economic consequences (the man of course can work throughout and can walk away at any time).

Now multiply that by thousands, thousands of women who will never be able to achieve their potential academically, in their careers, in their earning potential, in seeing the world.  We would not be equal at all, but then that's what anti-choicers want.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> An interesting question. In terms of "how should we act", a respect for life and the aim to preserve life should take precedence. That's why I'm against abortion as well as the death penalty.



Then why not extend that concept and have some respect for the lives of women and homosexuals?


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> Now multiply that by thousands, thousands of women who will never be able to achieve their potential academically, in their careers, in their earning potential, in seeing the world.  We would not be equal at all, but then that's what anti-choicers want.



So you're saying being a mother is worth nothing?

I would have thought that bringing another life into this world was the greatest achievement in anyone's existance.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I would have thought that bringing another life into this world was the greatest achievement in anyone's existance.



So why haven't you done it then? Are you sterile?


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> So you're saying being a mother is worth nothing?
> 
> I would have thought that bringing another life into this world was the greatest achievement in anyone's existance.



That's the biggest leap from what I actually said that I can imagine


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> then how would you stop abortions?



You can't stop them entirely, but you can strive to do so. Enforcement of the law would have to be done intelligently, as with any other issue. Clearly, abortion has its own specific characteristics, as any other crime/activity does.



toggle said:


> because i can only hope that your aim in wanting abortion made illegal is to stop them.



Well of course. Though the expected effect would be to reduce the numbers, not eliminate it entirely.



toggle said:


> it would take me 5 minutes to give you the names of half a dozen herbal abortifactants with a history of use, even before we go on to talking about backstreet surgery



If I take my cricket bat and belabour you about the head with it, it's likely that soon you would be dead. Nonetheless, we neither outlaw cricket bats nor refrain from outlawing murder, though it's actually pretty easy to do.

The issue isn't so much the means but the social and legal context, attitudes, etc.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

So you accept that making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortions, it just makes them more dangerous for women to ahve them?


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> So why haven't you done it then? Are you sterile?



As far as I know, all my equipment is in fully working order.

I want to be sure that I'm with the right person before thinking about starting a family.  My current relationship is only 18 months old so that's still quite early.  Everyone has different thoughts as to when they feel 'ready' - and what 'being ready' consists of, and probably best off in another thread.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Then why not extend that concept and have some respect for the lives of women and homosexuals?



Women and homosexuals are _people_, and as such are as likely to do wrong things as anyone else.

Nonetheless, they have a right to live. As I've said earlier, I oppose the death penalty. Even mass murderers have a right to live.

_(Awaits the inevitable comments about how I've "equated" women and homosexuals with mass murderers.)
_


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> As far as I know, all my equipment is in fully working order.
> 
> I want to be sure that I'm with the right person before thinking about starting a family.  My current relationship is only 18 months old so that's still quite early.  Everyone has different thoughts as to when they feel 'ready' - and what 'being ready' consists of, and probably best off in another thread.



What if your partner decides that she's ready? And ensures that she gets pregnant?


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Women and homosexuals are people, and as such are as likely to do wrong things as anyone else.
> 
> Nonetheless, they have a right to live. As I've said earlier, I oppose the death penalty. Even mass murderers have a right to live.
> 
> (Awaits the inevitable comments about how I've "equated" women and homosexuals with mass murderers.)



so how are you going to punish homosexuals and 'abortionists' for their wicked deeds?


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I thought that the morning-after pill contained higher doses of the same stuff as the regular pill?


as the regular pill does nowadays, but in the 1960's, it was much stronger.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Women and homosexuals are _people_, and as such are as likely to do wrong things as anyone else.
> 
> *Nonetheless, they have a right to live.* As I've said earlier, I oppose the death penalty. Even mass murderers have a right to live.
> 
> ...



How gracious of you 

I'm glad I have a right to live, even though I am a wicked aborting woman.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> So you accept that making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortions, it just makes them more dangerous for women to ahve them?



Making abortion illegal _may _make abortions more dangerous, but it doesn't _just _do that.

I would hope that it would make abortions more rare, not least because people tend to have an aversion to doing dangerous things.

If you can find a good way to dramatically reduce the number of abortions without making it illegal then I'd be very interested to discuss it.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Women and homosexuals are _people_, and as such are as likely to do wrong things as anyone else.
> 
> Nonetheless, they have a right to live. As I've said earlier, I oppose the death penalty. Even mass murderers have a right to live.
> 
> ...



That's not what you said those, is it? You said:




			
				untethered said:
			
		

> An interesting question. In terms of "how should we act", a *respect for life* and the aim to preserve life should take precedence. That's why I'm against abortion as well as the death penalty.



Respect for life. Not 'right to live'.


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> If you can find a good way to dramatically reduce the number of abortions without making it illegal then I'd be very interested to discuss it.



 i do! increase funding for sex education and contraceptive services.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> I'm glad I have a right to live, even though I am a wicked aborting woman.



I suspect you have a complaint of some kind but I fail to see what it is.

Would you rather I _didn't_ consider that you had a right to live?


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> i do! increase funding for sex education and contraceptive services.



exactly


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Respect for life. Not 'right to live'.



What exactly is your point?


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> I suspect you have a complaint of some kind but I fail to see what it is.
> 
> Would you rather I _didn't_ consider that you had a right to live?



No, just glad that you on your bizarre high horse consider it ok for women and homosexuals to live, even though you appear to condemn all that we do.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> What exactly is your point?



That you blatantly do not have respect for lives that don't conform to your idea of how those lives are lived.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> i do! increase funding for sex education and contraceptive services.



Those things have a role to play. Of course, for the best effect they need to be done in the right way and in the right context. I don't agree with the current prevalent attitude to sex, sex education and contraception, even though none of those things are intrinsically wrong.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> That you blatantly do not have respect for lives that don't conform to your idea of how those lives are lived.



We are talking about two separate things and I see little point in conflating them.

Everyone has a right to live, from the most virtuous to the most wicked.

Yet, I feel no need to "respect" or condone wrongdoing.

The two issues are entirely separate. I don't know what "respect" means to you, but to me it doesn't mean going along with whatever anyone fancies doing.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Those things have a role to play. Of course, for the best effect they need to be done in the right way and in the right context. I don't agree with the current prevalent attitude to sex, sex education and contraception, even though none of those things are intrinsically wrong.



How well sex ed programmes work can be seen by the results, for example, the abject failure of the current fad in the US for abstinence only sex ed can be seen fairly easily.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> What if your partner decides that she's ready? And ensures that she gets pregnant?



I do have a say in matters, you know...


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> No, just glad that you on your bizarre high horse consider it ok for women and homosexuals to live, even though you appear to condemn all that we do.



Your premise is simply ridiculous. If you think that women spend all their time having reckless sex and aborting their children on a whim and that homosexuals spend all their time in sordid liaisons then you're getting into some pretty serious stereotyping.


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I do have a say in matters, you know...



You're a fucking imbecile who ought to finally shut the fuck up and fuck off.


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Making abortion illegal may make abortions more dangerous, but it doesn't just do that.
> 
> I would hope that it would make abortions more rare, not least because people tend to have an aversion to doing dangerous things.



Your second sentence relies on the fact that making it illegal would make it more dangerous, which it does.  

Although you might try to be slippery about it you're in favour of back street abortions, which makes you a cunt imo.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

MightyAphrodite said:


> You're a fucking imbecile who ought to finally shut the fuck up and fuck off.



What are you on about?  How does your abusive diatribe refer in any way, shape or form as to my involvement in conception, or choosing not to?


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I do have a say in matters, you know...



Unless you decide to stop having sex with her (and assuming she doesn't decide to have sex with someone else), I think you'll find that she'll be ultimately making that decision.

So what if the great day dawns and she does?


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> How well sex ed programmes work can be seen by the results, for example, the abject failure of the current fad in the US for abstinence only sex ed can be seen fairly easily.



You may well be right, though a link to a reputable source would be useful.

It all depends on what you're trying to achieve. That's probably the thing you're trying to measure.

Personally, I'd say that recreational, non-martial sex is wrong. But aborting children is also wrong, and _more _wrong.

The answer to this might not be _just, _"if you're going to do it anyway, use contraception" but _also_, "if you get pregnant, don't kill your child".

As has already been said, contraception isn't 100% effective. Any responsible form of sex education would make clear that the most reliable form of contraception is abstinence, even if it's not the only one.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

fractionMan said:


> Your second sentence relies on the fact that making it illegal would make it more dangerous, which it does.
> 
> Although you might try to be slippery about it you're in favour of back street abortions, which makes you a cunt imo.



the danger didn't bother a hell of a lot of women who had abortions before they were legalised. I don't think ti will stop a lot of women now, who will believe the alternative is worse than the danger


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What are you on about?  How does your abusive diatribe refer in any way, shape or form as to my involvement in conception, or choosing not to?



I'm on about the shite you've posted on this thread. There's no debating with cunts like you. 

You say the same ole tired shite over and over and if you get a FUCK OFF, then you must deserve it.

i.e. shut up now please.


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

You'll make a great dad if you put some effort in aj 

*psst* contraception isn't 100% effective, and I should know.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Your premise is simply ridiculous. If you think that women spend all their time having reckless sex and aborting their children on a whim and that homosexuals spend all their time in sordid liaisons then you're getting into some pretty serious stereotyping.



I'm not sure where you are coming from now - you've already said you don't think it's ok to abort on any grounds, not solely on a whim.  That you think homosexual liaisons are sordid.  The kindest thing you have found to say about women and gay and lesbian people is that although our actions are wicked, we have a right to live.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Unless you decide to stop having sex with her (and assuming she doesn't decide to have sex with someone else), I think you'll find that she'll be ultimately making that decision.
> 
> So what if the great day dawns and she does?



If I'm not ready to start a family, how does that make my point of view any less worthwhile than her not wanting to?

Unless she goes off and has sex with someone else, then she isn't going to get pregnant (yeah I know nothings 100%) if I'm either not having sex with her, or wearing a condom.

Starting a family requires the consent of *both *of us.  Why don't I have the right to say 'no' any differently than she does?


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> As has already been said, contraception isn't 100% effective. Any responsible form of sex education would make clear that the most reliable form of contraception is abstinence, even if it's not the only one.



Yeah, that's worked really well in the states, hasn't it.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> the danger didn't bother a hell of a lot of women who had abortions before they were legalised. I don't think ti will stop a lot of women now, who will believe the alternative is worse than the danger



What would you expect the outcome of a total ban on abortions to be, enforced as well as it could be?

- More abortions?
- About the same number of abortions?
- Fewer abortions?


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If I'm not ready to start a family, how does that make my point of view any less worthwhile than her not wanting to?
> 
> Unless she goes off and has sex with someone else, then she isn't going to get pregnant (yeah I know nothings 100%) if I'm either not having sex with her, or wearing a condom.
> 
> Starting a family requires the consent of *both *of us.  Why don't I have the right to say 'no' any differently than she does?



by the time you find out, the only way to say no is via abortion.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If I'm not ready to start a family, how does that make my point of view any less worthwhile than her not wanting to?
> 
> Unless she goes off and has sex with someone else, then she isn't going to get pregnant (yeah I know nothings 100%) if I'm either not having sex with her, or wearing a condom.
> 
> Starting a family requires the consent of *both *of us.  Why don't I have the right to say 'no' any differently than she does?



Starting a family doesn't require the consent of both of you. She doesn't have to take your views into account at all. You might prefer that she does, but she doesn't have to.

She might have stick a pin through every condom in your drawer


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> What would you expect the outcome of a total ban on abortions to be, enforced as well as it could be?
> 
> - More abortions?
> - About the same number of abortions?
> - Fewer abortions?



-more dead women due to illegal abortion?
-less dead women due to illegal abortion?


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

fractionMan said:


> by the time you find out, the only way to say no is via abortion.



Precisely.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

fractionMan said:


> Yeah, that's worked really well in the states, hasn't it.



it's not that hard to find out that the US has a higher teen pregnancy and abortion rate than we do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If I'm not ready to start a family, how does that make my point of view any less worthwhile than her not wanting to?
> 
> Unless she goes off and has sex with someone else, then she isn't going to get pregnant (yeah I know nothings 100%) if I'm either not having sex with her, or wearing a condom.
> 
> Starting a family requires the consent of *both *of us.  Why don't I have the right to say 'no' any differently than she does?


If you definitively don't want to have kids, don't have sex. It's very simple, really - just ask untethered.


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> it's not that hard to find out that the US has a higher teen pregnancy and abortion rate than we do.



quite.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2008)

MightyAphrodite said:


> You're a fucking imbecile who ought to finally shut the fuck up and fuck off.




ennit. Tool of the highest order


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> What would you expect the outcome of a total ban on abortions to be, enforced as well as it could be?
> 
> - More abortions?
> - About the same number of abortions?
> - Fewer abortions?



about the same number of abortions and more dead/seriously injured women from illegal procudures


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> ennit. Tool of the highest order



Yup.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> The kindest thing you have found to say about women and gay and lesbian people is that although our actions are wicked, we have a right to live.



I wish women and homosexuals every happiness, just as I wish the same to everyone else.

It might not have occurred to you that not only does this not conflict with me criticising wrongdoing by _anyone_, but that wrongdoing itself leads to individual and collective unhappiness.

You can try to characterise me as a "hater" as much as you like, but actually I'm very fond of people.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> about the same number of abortions and more dead/seriously injured women from illegal procudures



Interesting.

If the number of abortions increases between one year and the next, is that a bad thing?


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

MightyAphrodite said:


> I'm on about the shite you've posted on this thread. There's no debating with cunts like you.
> 
> You say the same ole tired shite over and over and if you get a FUCK OFF, then you must deserve it.
> 
> i.e. shut up now please.



MA - check this thread for more examples of his views, but this time on racism

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=250480


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Interesting.
> 
> If the number of abortions increases between one year and the next, is that a bad thing?



i see an increase in the number of abortions as a good reason to look hard at how our provision of sex education and contraceptive services needs to be improved.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that those of us, who are pro the right to abort, like abortions. i would like to reduce the number that occur, but I want to do this in a manner that doesn't take away the choice of an individual woman to a safe abortion should she choose to.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you definitively don't want to have kids, don't have sex. It's very simple, really - just ask untethered.



If you don't want to have children _and _you don't want to have abortions, then don't have sex.

Children are very easily disposed of if you don't want them. Just cut them up, scrape out the bits and burn them.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 22, 2008)

There'd probably be a marked rise in infanticide and/or abandonment if any comprehensive ban on abortion went through.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> i see an increase in the number of abortions as a good reason to look hard at how our provision of sex education and contraceptive services needs to be improved.



I think I agree, though I suspect we wouldn't agree on _how _those services could be improved.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2008)

He basically reckons aborting women are murderers, said so on the scientology thread.

And as for the small minded little englader drivel spouted elswhere gawd.


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> MA - check this thread for more examples of his views, but this time on racism
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=250480



Ok. Is it gonna make me mad? 

Will I swear and get all unnecessary and stuff?


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> He basically reckons aborting women are murderers, said so on the scientology thread.



He said it on this thread too.


The little bastard.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

MightyAphrodite said:


> Ok. Is it gonna make me mad?
> 
> Will I swear and get all unnecessary and stuff?



Maybe  The other tool's on there too


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> I think I agree, though I suspect we wouldn't agree on _how _those services could be improved.



as iv'e said, the promotion of abstinence has failed in the US. by promoting abstinence based sex ed, you would be promoting a system that leads to more, not fewer abortions


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Maybe  The other tool's on there too



Wicked. 

Let me grab my formal eyewear.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> as iv'e said, the promotion of abstinence has failed in the US. by promoting abstinence based sex ed, you would be promoting a system that leads to more, not fewer abortions



Perhaps they need to find a better way of promoting abstinence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Perhaps they need to find a better way of promoting abstinence.



Castration?


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Perhaps they need to find a better way of promoting abstinence.




jesus, the catholic church can't even manage it with the promise of eternal life.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

MightyAphrodite said:


> i.e. shut up now please.



When there's nothing more to say, I will, when I am ready, not when you tell me to.

There's a certain irony about a 'pro choice' person forcing their opinion on others...


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Castration?



Male sterilisation. It's the only way to be sure.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> When there's nothing more to say, I will, when I am ready, not when you tell me to.
> 
> There's a certain irony about a 'pro choice' person forcing their opinion on others...



no-ones forcing an opinion on you. Your voice has been heard loud and clear. You think women who abort are murderers. Now we'eve heard you, you can have a cup of shut the fuck up


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Starting a family doesn't require the consent of both of you. She doesn't have to take your views into account at all. You might prefer that she does, but she doesn't have to.
> 
> She might have stick a pin through every condom in your drawer



Then if that's overriding my choice to say 'no' to starting a family, you might as well call it rape.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Then if that's overriding my choice to say 'no' to starting a family, you might as well call it rape.



Not at all. She's not forcing you to have sex with her.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Now we'eve heard you, you can have a cup of shut the f- up



And now we've heard _you_, can we have a cup of polite debate rather than abusive commentary? Would it help if I said please?


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Not at all. She's not forcing you to have sex with her.



No, but forcing an unwanted outcome is.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> Perhaps they need to find a better way of promoting abstinence.



Abstinence education just doesn't work.  It has failed in the USA.  Even when the Catholic church basically ran the whole of Europe it failed to regulate peoples desires.  Promoting abstience just fails every time it has been tried.  Islamic countries have tried it and people get round it.  Yes you should have sex responsibily which in my mind means practicing safer sex and using contraception but everyone is subject to accidents of circumstance.  A condom could fail or medication could reduce the Pill's effectiveness or a woman could be abandoned by her partner and a multitude of other things which is why the only moral course of action in my mind is to allow safe regulated aborton services and sexual health services.

You cannot stop people wanting to have sex.  All you can do is put much more effort into making peoples sex lives safe sane and consensual.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2008)

untethered said:


> And now we've heard _you_, can we have a cup of polite debate rather than abusive commentary? Would it help if I said please?




Gawd mr 1950's to the rescue, riding his horse backwards. You have at least the wit to dress odious views in pretty language about rights responsibilities and society.  
However, when pressed you evade direct questions about your bigotry. Never did tell us whats immoral about homsexuality did you Untethered?


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> No, but forcing an unwanted outcome is.



Yet you'd be willing to force an unwanted outcome on her if she fell pregnant and didn't want to carry to term?

So, by your standards, it's OK for you to 'rape' her - but not alright for her to 'rape' you.

Why doesn't that surprise me?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> No, but forcing an unwanted outcome is.



Tough titty, fuckhead. It's her body, not yours.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

Anyway ajdown, she might not want you around at all if she got pregnant and afterwards. 

Not much you could do about that either in that situation.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Yet you'd be willing to force an unwanted outcome on her if she fell pregnant and didn't want to carry to term?



You're adding emotive language onto a hypothetical situation and failing quite badly.

Which part of "I will use a condom until we are both ready to start a family" are you having trouble understanding?


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Then if that's overriding my choice to say 'no' to starting a family, you might as well call it rape.




.

unbelievable.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You're adding emotive language onto a hypothetical situation and failing quite badly.
> 
> Which part of "I will use a condom until we are both ready to start a family" are you having trouble understanding?



And you think that will necessarily work?  that seems a bit naive


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Anyway ajdown, she might not want you around at all if she got pregnant and afterwards.
> 
> Not much you could do about that either in that situation.



Isn't there?  Don't fathers have rights?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You're adding emotive language onto a hypothetical situation and failing quite badly.
> 
> Which part of "I will use a condom until we are both ready to start a family" are you having trouble understanding?


Which part of 'condoms sometimes split' don't you understand?


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> However, when pressed you evade direct questions about your bigotry. Never did tell us whats immoral about homsexuality did you Untethered?



I hope and expect that I have said more than enough on that subject to make my position quite clear, but if you're still not satisfied perhaps you could revive the relevant thread or start a new one.

I can't promise that I'm exactly keen to subject myself to another round of the kind of gratuitous abuse I got there, however.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Isn't there?  Don't fathers have rights?


No.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> And you think that will necessarily work?  that seems a bit naive



I know no method - apart from not having sex - is 100% effective.

What you can do, however, is take 'all reasonable precautions' and hope for the best.

It's not like we're having sex 5 times a day, 7 days a week after all.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Isn't there?  Don't fathers have rights?



Over foetuses, no, only the owner has any right


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No.



So why isn't there equality?


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I know no method - apart from not having sex - is 100% effective.
> 
> What you can do, however, is take 'all reasonable precautions' and hope for the best.
> 
> It's not like we're having sex 5 times a day, 7 days a week after all.



Well, what if the worst happens and you're not ready?  Or if the worst happens and she can't face being chained to you for the rest of her life?


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I know no method - apart from not having sex - is 100% effective.
> 
> What you can do, however, is take 'all reasonable precautions' and hope for the best.
> 
> It's not like we're having sex 5 times a day, 7 days a week after all.



That's what I had to do to get pregnant.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> Over foetuses, no, only the owner has any right



Requires female egg and male sperm to create a foetus, therefore it's a joint ownership, if you want to relegate a child to the status of 'property'.


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> A condom could fail or medication could reduce the Pill's effectiveness or a woman could be abandoned by her partner and a multitude of other things which is why the only moral course of action in my mind is to allow safe regulated aborton services and sexual health services.



Why isn't encouraging (or even mandating) that pregnant women carry their children to term a moral course of action? It recognises the reality that some women will get pregnant despite their best efforts to avoid doing so, while at the same time respecting the unborn child's right to life.



KeyboardJockey said:


> You cannot stop people wanting to have sex.  All you can do is put much more effort into making peoples sex lives safe sane and consensual.



But women will still get unexpectedly pregnant, no matter how hard they or society tries to avoid it. Why should the unborn child be a victim?


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Isn't there?  Don't fathers have rights?



You might not even know. She could break up with you without mentioning that she was pregnant and you might never see her again.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> Well, what if the worst happens and you're not ready?  Or if the worst happens and she can't face being chained to you for the rest of her life?



We'll have to work it out, I guess.  Isn't that part of what being in a relationship is all about?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> So why isn't there equality?



Because men don't get pregnant.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You're adding emotive language onto a hypothetical situation and failing quite badly.
> 
> Which part of "I will use a condom until we are both ready to start a family" are you having trouble understanding?



You're the first one that mentioned rape - it certainly wasn't me.

You don't like it when your own concept is applied to you, do you?


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You're adding emotive language onto a hypothetical situation and failing quite badly.
> 
> Which part of "I will use a condom until we are both ready to start a family" are you having trouble understanding?



which part of "contraception isn't 100% effective" are you having trouble understanding?


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Requires female egg and male sperm to create a foetus, therefore it's a joint ownership, if you want to relegate a child to the status of 'property'.



As previously stated, again and again, in law it is the property of the woman in whom it grows


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> You're the first one that mentioned rape - it certainly wasn't me.
> 
> You don't like it when your own concept is applied to you, do you?



They never do.  Careful now or you'll end up on ignore


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> You might not even know. She could break up with you without mentioning that she was pregnant and you might never see her again.



That is true, but then if she chooses to exclude me from any input in that child's life, she can't expect me to support them financially either.

But again, it's all hypothetical.


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> You're the first one that mentioned rape - it certainly wasn't me.
> 
> You don't like it when your own concept is applied to you, do you?



He's went on about murder and rape.

Fuckin hell, if this is the 'man of today' i may as well go turn gay with phil over on the gay thread.



eta....not saying hes gay, just the thread.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

fractionMan said:


> They never do.  Careful now or you'll end up on ignore


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> We'll have to work it out, I guess.  Isn't that part of what being in a relationship is all about?



Sounds great - but I bet there's a lot of people here with more life experience than you who could tell you that it's often really not that simple, and one partner (male or female) may desperately want to abort while the other desperately wants a baby.


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> That is true, but then if she chooses to exclude me from any input in that child's life, she can't expect me to support them financially either.
> 
> But again, it's all hypothetical.



Do you realise how incredibly naive you sound?


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> That is true, but then if she chooses to exclude me from any input in that child's life, she can't expect me to support them financially either.
> 
> But again, it's all hypothetical.



Why would she need your financial support.

Hypothetical - how do you know? All your previous partners might have done it. Must have been a tempting prospect with your odious views.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Why would she need your financial support.
> 
> Hypothetical - how do you know? All your previous partners might have done it. *Must have been a tempting prospect with your odious views.*



That's what I've been trying not to say


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

MightyAphrodite said:


> He's went on about murder and rape.
> 
> Fuckin hell, if this is the 'man of today' i may as well go turn gay with phil over on the gay thread.
> 
> ...



Heh  To be fair I don't really think he's representative of the 'man of today', that's why he and untethered stick out like a sore thumb.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Hypothetical - how do you know? All your previous partners might have done it. Must have been a tempting prospect with your odious views.



I seriously doubt it.

You really think that all there is to me is a few perfectly valid opinions that go against the grain of the average user of this forum?  Then you underestimate me seriously.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Heh  To be fair I don't really think he's representative of the 'man of today', that's why he and untethered stick out like a sore thumb.



What, you'd rather we were all 'metrosexuals', wasting more money and time in the bathroom than women?


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Heh  To be fair I don't really think he's representative of the 'man of today', that's why he and untethered stick out like a sore thumb.



I dont think he is either.

Im gonna start cussin' again anyway.


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What, you'd rather we were all 'metrosexuals', wasting more money and time in the bathroom than women?



wtflol?

wat?


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What, you'd rather we were all 'metrosexuals', wasting more money and time in the bathroom than women?



SEXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What, you'd rather we were all 'metrosexuals', wasting more money and time in the bathroom than women?




careful, you're trollery is getting a bit obvious


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

never underestimate the mighty ajdown.

Grrrr.  Hear me roar!


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

omg....you fuckin cunt .....you are a real idiot @ajdown!


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You're adding emotive language onto a hypothetical situation and failing quite badly.
> 
> Which part of "I will use a condom until we are both ready to start a family" are you having trouble understanding?



From another board:


> I was 25 when I had sex for the first time after waiting a year to sleep with my boyfriend. Not because I was religious or overly moral but because I wanted to be sure I loved him and he loved me. We used condoms (There was a scare in the press about the Pill at the time and I was reluctant to go on it) and about 6 months into our sexual relationship one split. I immediately (Next day) went to get the morning after pill. 4 weeks later I realised my period was late and did a test. I was pregnant.



OMFG!!!1!!  - people that take proper precautions also get pregnant! 

And there was me thinking that you were right that if you use condoms every time you have sex, you're immune to it.

You really are a total fucking tool


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I seriously doubt it.
> 
> You really think that all there is to me is a few perfectly valid opinions that go against the grain of the average user of this forum?  Then you underestimate me seriously.



Underestimate you?  



ajdown said:


> What, you'd rather we were all 'metrosexuals', wasting more money and time in the bathroom than women?




PMSL at the thought of fractionMan (for example) being a metrosexual.


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What, you'd rather we were all 'metrosexuals', wasting more money and time in the bathroom than women?



It's true, if men have too many kinds of skin care products their willies shrivel up.  Metrosexuals are not real men


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

trashpony said:


> And there was me thinking that you were right that if you use condoms every time you have sex, you're immune to it.



I think you'll find I've said several times that no contraception - apart from not having sex - is 100% reliable.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

fractionMan said:


> never underestimate the mighty ajdown.
> 
> Grrrr.  Hear me roar!


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> It's true, if men have too many kinds of skin care products their willies shrivel up.  Metrosexuals are not real men




to be honest, if your razor is anything other than a cuththroat one your probably a hom.


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


>



innit....


as soon as i finish this bag of pennystick pretzels it is fuckin ON man. lol


----------



## untethered (May 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> to be honest, if your razor is anything other than a cutthroat one your probably a hom.



Mrs Untethered keeps encouraging me to try one. Do you think it's just another manifestation of her traditional views and instincts or might she have a more sinister motive?

Either way, I don't like the look of them.


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> PMSL at the thought of fractionMan (for example) being a metrosexual.



mwaaah dahling, mwaaahhh.

now where did I leave that lipstick lol?


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I think you'll find I've said several times that no contraception - apart from not having sex - is 100% reliable.



Except in those posts where you were getting all pompous about always using contraception


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 22, 2008)

Lets ignore the bigot trolls and talk about an equally important subject the lack of women train drivers.  Lets demand a 'Woman's right to Choo Choos'  










<gets coat and hides under comedy 'Boris' wig>


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

trashpony said:


> Except in those posts where you were getting all pompous about always using contraception



I don't follow...?

I've acknowledged that no method (apart from not having sex) is totally 100% reliable - however, using one or more of the many methods available these days does greatly reduce the chances of pregnancy (where that reduction in chance is wanted).

Sure, accidents occur, and sometimes people don't use things properly (or other medication cancels them out) but most unwanted pregnancies ought to be avoidable.


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I don't follow...?
> 
> I've acknowledged that no method (apart from not having sex) is totally 100% reliable - however, using one or more of the many methods available these days does greatly reduce the chances of pregnancy (where that reduction in chance is wanted).
> 
> Sure, accidents occur, and sometimes people don't use things properly (or other medication cancels them out) but most unwanted pregnancies ought to be avoidable.



Most babies are accidents ime.  Square that one.


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

fractionMan said:


> Most babies are accidents ime.  Square that one.



you mean surprises


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Lets ignore the bigot trolls and talk about an equally important subject the lack of women train drivers.  Lets demand a 'Woman's right to Choo Choos'



All jobs should be awarded on your suitability, based on your skills and experience, not because you happen to fit some 'minority' profile that isn't 'fairly represented' within the company.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

fractionMan said:


> mwaaah dahling, mwaaahhh.
> 
> now where did I leave that lipstick lol?



It's hilarious 

We ought to give untethered, ajdown and Dravinian their own subforum


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> All jobs should be awarded on your suitability, based on your skills and experience, not because you happen to fit some 'minority' profile that isn't 'fairly represented' within the company.



I totally disagree, actually, but that's another thread


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

MightyAphrodite said:


> you mean surprises



ooops  

of course


----------



## innit (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> It's hilarious
> 
> We ought to give untethered, ajdown and Dravinian their own subforum



And lock it

And throw away the key

Actually what we should probably really do is just ignore them and hope they fuck off, but that would be so much less funny.


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

fractionMan said:


> ooops
> 
> of course



thats better  x


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> It's hilarious
> 
> We ought to give untethered, ajdown and Dravinian their own subforum



yeah that'd be brill...


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

fractionMan said:


> ooops
> 
> of course



looks at her surprises.....


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

MightyAphrodite said:


> yeah that'd be brill...



We could put max and i-am-your-idea in there too for optimum comedy value


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> We could put max and i-am-your-idea in there too for optimum comedy value



who should moderate it? 

i am your idea? 

cheesy? 


 lol


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> All jobs should be awarded on your suitability, based on your skills and experience, not because you happen to fit some 'minority' profile that isn't 'fairly represented' within the company.



FFS  Looks like this one has had a sense of humourdectomy.  Can't even see when I'm taking the piss.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> FFS  Looks like this one has had a sense of humourdectomy.  Can't even see when I'm taking the piss.



As it happens I'm applying for a job on the railways right now.  I was aware that your post was mildly based on chickpea paste.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> No, but forcing an unwanted outcome is.



Ooh, are we getting somewhere?

So, if this is true, it must also be wrong for a man to force the "unwanted outcome" on a woman of being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy?


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

MightyAphrodite said:


> who should moderate it?
> 
> i am your idea?
> 
> ...



Good idea


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> Ooh, are we getting somewhere?
> 
> So, if this is true, it must also be wrong for a man to force the "unwanted outcome" on a woman of being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy?



I've been trying to get the point across all along that the final decision should be agreed upon by both parties, not just one without a care for the other.

The better solution, of course, is not to get pregnant in the first place, but that's not quite as straightforward as it ought to be.


----------



## fractionMan (May 22, 2008)

You know what?  I think we _are_ getting somewhere.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

fractionMan said:


> You know what?  I think we _are_ getting somewhere.



I'll be getting on a bus in 52 minutes if that's any encouragement, then getting on another one at Elephant & Castle.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I've been trying to get the point across all along that the final decision should be agreed upon by both parties, not just one without a care for the other.
> 
> The better solution, of course, is not to get pregnant in the first place, but that's not quite as straightforward as it ought to be.



That's fine when they agree.

When those parties don't agree, whose view takes precedence? The one who donated a sperm, or the one who has to endanger their life and their lifestyle by carrying a child and then caring for it for the rest of their lives?

You seem to think it should be the one who agrees with your view who decides, since you don't, presumably, think my daughter's biological father was right to say that that pregnancy should have been terminated, but you think I was wrong to say that an earlier one should have been.... hmmm


----------



## _angel_ (May 22, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> are you against the morning after pill or the coil then? some formulations of pill work by thinning the lining of the womb so even if an egg is released and fertilised then it won't implant.



That's preventing conception from occuring properly rather than aborting a very young foetus.


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> That's preventing conception from occuring properly rather than aborting a very young foetus.




but they take effect after the egg has been fertilised.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> That's fine when they agree.
> 
> When those parties don't agree, whose view takes precedence?



It isn't that clear cut, because there are so many different factors that can be taken into account.

If the woman, however, books in and has an abortion, there's very little the man can do about it after the event, however strong his feelings against it.

But then in that position I would say that if the viewpoints are so opposite, perhaps the relationship isn't right in the first place?


----------



## _angel_ (May 22, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> but they take effect after the egg has been fertilised.



I'd rather do that than have to have an abortion. Eggs are fertilised all the time but don't latch on to the womb lining for whatever reason.

I doubt that can be treated exactly the same as aborting a foetus, particularly one later on.

I'm not anti other people having abortions, I hasten to add.


eta: they *might* take effect after the egg is fertilised, or it might take effect tom stop the egg being released.

Someone told me the MA pill is just a high dose of the ordinary contraceptive pill, so theoretically couldn't the normal contraceptive pill have the same effect if taken in higher doses?


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I'll be getting on a bus in 52 minutes if that's any encouragement, then getting on another one at Elephant & Castle.



where you goin?


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

MightyAphrodite said:


> where you goin?



Home.  Possibly via the kebab shop.  Depends if I can be arsed to cook tonight or not.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Someone told me the MA pill is just a high dose of the ordinary contraceptive pill, so theoretically couldn't the normal contraceptive pill have the same effect if taken in higher doses?



I've known people get a few of their friend's pills when they can't get a doctor to give them the MA pill. 

i've also heard stories about doctors telling teens to do tthis because they won't prescribe. IDK about the veracity of that though


----------



## _angel_ (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> I've known people get a few of their friend's pills when they can't get a doctor to give them the MA pill.
> 
> i've also heard stories about doctors telling teens to do tthis because they won't prescribe. IDK about the veracity of that though



Why wouldn't a doctor prescribe a MA pill?  Mine practically threw them at me a couple of years ago:

"It's christmas, you might get drunk and have accidents, take a few"


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Why wouldn't a doctor prescribe a MA pill?  Mine practically threw them at me a couple of years ago:
> 
> "It's christmas, you might get drunk and have accidents, take a few"



Religion innit.

Some pharmacists won't dispense them either - but they have to tell someone where else they can get them if that's the case.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Religion innit.
> 
> Some pharmacists won't dispense them either - but they have to tell someone where else they can get them if that's the case.



which is great if you can't travel to another one in time.....


----------



## _angel_ (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Religion innit.
> 
> Some pharmacists won't dispense them either - but they have to tell someone where else they can get them if that's the case.



Think it's really odd they would then suggest a woman took contraceptive pills _because they had the same effect_.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> which is great if you can't travel to another one in time.....



Innit.



_angel_ said:


> Think it's really odd they would then suggest a woman took contraceptive pills _because they had the same effect_.



Yep, odd isn't it. Depends on the religion or belief I guess.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Religion innit.
> 
> Some pharmacists won't dispense them either - but they have to tell someone where else they can get them if that's the case.


If they refuse to do their job, they should be sacked. End of.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If they refuse to do their job, they should be sacked. End of.



It's their right to practice their religion or belief. They've got to provide an alternative if they exercise that right, though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> It's their right to practice their religion or belief.


Bollocks. Should a Jehovah's witness be allowed to practise as a surgeon and refuse to administer blood transfusions?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> It's their right to practice their religion or belief. They've got to provide an alternative if they exercise that right, though.



As has been said, what if they are the only pharmacist in the village?


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Bollocks. Should a Jehovah's witness be allowed to practise as a surgeon and refuse to administer blood transfusions?



Hang on, that's not all I said though is it? You've only quoted part of it.

Using your example, a Jehovah's Witness would only be a physician or 'bloodless' surgeon. Whilst the physician aspect might work, the call for 'bloodless' surgeons is relatively low. There wouldn't be many opportunities open to them.

Incidentally, employment protection on the grounds of religion and belief has now been clarified to include atheism as well, which is good.


----------



## weltweit (May 22, 2008)

I missed the vote. 

At what age is the foetus / unborn baby considered to have rights of its own as a human being?


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

weltweit said:


> I missed the vote.
> 
> At what age is the foetus / unborn baby considered to have rights of its own as a human being?



when they are born.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As has been said, what if they are the only pharmacist in the village?



I'm just explaining how it is. I'm not suggesting that I agree with it.

They have to comply with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's code of ethics

http://www.rpsgb.org/pdfs/coepsgssmeds.pdf


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Incidentally, employment protection on the grounds of religion and belief has now been clarified to include atheism as well, which is good.



The right to access the morning after pill versus the right not to sell it. 

One of these rights has to give, and I know which I think it should be. If that is legally sanctioned then the law is wrong.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The right to access the morning after pill versus the right not to sell it.
> 
> One of these rights has to give, and I know which I think it should be. If that is legally sanctioned then the law is wrong.



The issue of whose personal rights trumps whose and on what basis is tricky isn't it. I guess that's why the GMC and RPSGB put such emphasis on their codes of ethics.


----------



## _angel_ (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> when they are born.



I think whether they'd be able to survive outside of the womb, breathe independently, is a better indication.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 22, 2008)

as in survive unaided?


----------



## _angel_ (May 22, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> as in survive unaided?



No baby could survive totally unaided! It's a grey area, sure. I think treating them not as a baby up until the minute of the birth a bit flawed though.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 22, 2008)

Fair enough.


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2008)

The cut off is 24 weeks because survival _outside the womb_ is pretty much not possible before then so it's at that point (ie the moment they are outside the womb - born in other words) that they are deemed human beings in the eyes of the law. There are babies born at 26 weeks on who go on to be absolutely fine. Incidentally, a foetus is unable to feel pain before 26 weeks (or even have any reflex response to it).


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I think whether they'd be able to survive outside of the womb, breathe independently, is a better indication.



there are still rights of the mother that have to be respected up until the baby is born. Until then, the mother can for example, refuse medical treatment, even if someone thinks it is best for the baby for her to have it. 

you also need to consider that if the foetus is disabled or her life is at risk, later abortions are allowed.


----------



## _angel_ (May 22, 2008)

trashpony said:


> The cut off is 24 weeks because survival _outside the womb_ is pretty much not possible before then so it's at that point (ie the moment they are outside the womb - born in other words) that they are deemed human beings in the eyes of the law. There are babies born at 26 weeks on who go on to be absolutely fine. *Incidentally, a foetus is unable to feel pain before 26 weeks (or even have any reflex response to it*).



I do wonder how accurate this is. How can anyone _really_ know if a foetus suffers pain or not? Maybe their reflexes are not developed at that time but can still feel pain.

It was assumed babies couldn't feel pain at one time, fuck knows why.


----------



## _angel_ (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> *there are still rights of the mother that have to be respected up until the baby is born. Until then, the mother can for example, refuse medical treatment,* even if someone thinks it is best for the baby for her to have it.
> 
> you also need to consider that if the foetus is disabled or her life is at risk, later abortions are allowed.




Of course. But it's a balance. I don't think anyone should insist a mother doesn't undergo certain surgery/ medication (esp if it's potentially life threatening) just because it may harm the baby.


----------



## weltweit (May 22, 2008)

So at 24 or 26 weeks the baby is considered able to survive outside the womb and considered in law to have some rights of its own?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 22, 2008)

613 posts! 

I'm imagining there have been a few bunfights. Could anyone offer a quick summary please?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2008)

Agent Sparrow said:


> 613 posts!
> 
> I'm imagining there have been a few bunfights. Could anyone offer a quick summary please?





2 different flavours of bigot came to play. One was crass the other a little more subtle.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Of course. But it's a balance. I don't think anyone should insist a mother doesn't undergo certain surgery/ medication (esp if it's potentially life threatening) just because it may harm the baby.



it's not a balance, it is absolute.

doesn't matter if not performing a procedure will kill the baby, she has a right to refuse treatment


----------



## spanglechick (May 22, 2008)

i just wanted to add something to the 'social vs medical' debate.

I had a termination which - as it stood, was social.  I wasn't in a relationship with the father, i'd just started my career, just signed the mortgage on my first flat...

And while I was upset, i wasn't traumatised by having to have an abortion.

However

If an abortion had been denied me, if it had not been relatively easily available, I can only imagine.  I have a history of depression, suicidal on one occasion - and while that hadn't manifested itself by that point in my life - who knows what being forced to carry an unwanted child would have done to my state of mind.

I think more likely is that I would have sought out an illegal abortion - and there's every chance that this would have been highly hazardous to my health.

My abortion was social.  

If I hadn't had it I might have died.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> 2 different flavours of bigot came to play. One was crass the other a little more subtle.


Ah. Urban as usual then.  I have a suspicion who one may have been.

I hope that the bigots didn't make anyone feel too upset, or that if they did then the upset quickly passed. I may also come back in a bit and talk about the topic but I'm being nagged to put dinner on. 

And that's a good post spangles. I imagine that's the case for many women who have social abortions.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own."

Could very easily be applied to many people on both sides of the debate in this thread.


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own."
> 
> Could very easily be applied to many people on both sides of the debate in this thread.



Except that my opinion doesn't impinge on your right to have your lifestyle. You're trying to impose your opinion on the way I live my life.


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I do wonder how accurate this is. How can anyone _really_ know if a foetus suffers pain or not? Maybe their reflexes are not developed at that time but can still feel pain.
> 
> It was assumed babies couldn't feel pain at one time, fuck knows why.



Sorry - my last post was wrong.  Working from memory - have just looked it up. 

It's not physically possible for them to feel pain because a foetus does not have sensory impulses at a cortical level before 29 weeks.



weltweit said:


> So at 24 or 26 weeks the baby is considered able to survive outside the womb and considered in law to have some rights of its own?



No - again apologies. My last post was very muddled (was trying to write and deal with a baby at the same time). The cut off is 24 weeks because before that point they can't survive (in most cases) independently of the uterus. They are not considered to have any rights until they are born.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

trashpony said:


> Except that my opinion doesn't impinge on your right to have your lifestyle. You're trying to impose your opinion on the way I live my life.



And what lifestyle choice of yours am I supposedly interfering with by having an opinion about abortion?


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> And what lifestyle choice of yours am I supposedly interfering with by having an opinion about abortion?



Well, if you were in a remotely influential position (and I thank god you're not) then you would be seeking to remove my right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. As I'm not trying to stop you doing anything, your opinions are consequently a lot less liberal (or bigoted if you prefer) than my own. _Capisce?_


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

trashpony said:


> Well, if you were in a remotely influential position (and I thank god you're not) then you would be seeking to remove my right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. As I'm not trying to stop you doing anything, your opinions are consequently a lot less liberal (or bigoted if you prefer) than my own. _Capisce?_



No, not really.

You're confusing your rights with the rights of the unborn child which would be inside you, and especially the rights of the father of that child should you choose to terminate its life.

It's not just about you.  I couldn't care less what you choose to do to your body - but the reality is that when you are pregnant, it's not only you that counts.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> And what lifestyle choice of yours am I supposedly interfering with by having an opinion about abortion?



OK, I admit I'm not going to read 16 '40 post a page' pages so apologies if this you've already said that this isn't the case, but I gather you don't agree with abortion? In an ideal world then, would you rather abortion be illegal? 

This is why people get worked up about it. If enough people had that view and it was made illegal again, then it would impinge upon a woman's life, very greatly. If you think it should be made illegal, then you desire a state where women's lives are impinged on. 

Further to this, personally I think it's pretty not on to deliberately inflict emotional pain on women who have made the choice to abort. I'm not saying that you've done this, now I'm thinking of the pro lifers who protest outside abortion clinics.  Even if they can't change law, they are directly impinging on the lives of women who use those clinics.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> - but the reality is that when you are pregnant, it's not only you that counts.



Who said it did?


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

I accept you'll never get rid of abortion, nor will you get rid of unwanted pregnancies in general, but it just seems that a lot of people see abortion as just another method of 'birth control' rather than the last resort when there are no other options left.

Why do people always take it to be the "womans rights" and hers alone, when any pregnancy involves three parties - not just the woman, but the father of the child (reluctant or otherwise) but also that of the child.

I'm not one of these 'nutjobs' who goes round firebombing abortion clinics - in fact, apart from passing Marie Stopes on Brixton Hill on the bus, that's probably the nearest I ever get to one - and hope to, in all honesty.

Too many people rush into sex without thinking.  I know it's not "cool" to say no but there needs to be a major attitude shift in society against sleeping around - which is in probably the vast majority of cases what leads to abortions in the first place.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Who said it did?



Very few people seem to be taking into account the rights of the father or the child, it's all about 'the womans right to choose'.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> No, not really.
> 
> You're confusing your rights with the rights of the unborn child which would be inside you, and especially the rights of the father of that child should you choose to terminate its life.
> 
> It's not just about you.  I couldn't care less what you choose to do to your body - but the reality is that when you are pregnant, it's not only you that counts.



The reality is a sight more complex than that. Why else did parliament spend over seven hours debating it?

Love your 'especially the father' stance. I take it you think men have somehow started to get a raw deal because of the policies and practises put into place by the loony left. Just like you bemoaned Ken Livingstone's 'pandering to minorities'.
You sound like the type of person who believes all this equality stuff has gone too far. You resent the current efforts to change the centuries of patriachal colonialism. Not sure if bigot is the right label for you, you have a more reactionary flavour.

I think you need to look at the how and the where of power relationships in our society, how they work both historically and in present day. Stop feeling oppressed by minorities, and realise who the real opressors are.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Very few people seem to be taking into account the rights of the father or the child, it's all about 'the womans right to choose'.



the father gets rights over a pregnancy when he's the one who is pregnant


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Too many people rush into sex without thinking.  I know it's not "cool" to say no



thats the only thing youve said that i agree with!


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Very few people seem to be taking into account the rights of the father or the child, it's all about 'the womans right to choose'.



Please would you describe what you feel to be the rights of the father and the rights of the child.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Too many people rush into sex without thinking.  I know it's not "cool" to say no but there needs to be a major attitude shift in society against sleeping around - which is in probably the vast majority of cases what leads to abortions in the first place.



But there have been so many attempts by society to use abstinence as a method of contraception. It never works (as a societal rule, of course it works for some individuals), which is why there have been so many back street abortions or suicides from pregnant women in the past.

And out of all the women I know well who have had abortions, they've all fallen pregnant as a contraception failure, not from "rushing into sex without thinking" and not using contraception (although tbf, people are irrational, the sexual drive is strong, and no matter how educated people become, unprotected sex is still probably going to happen at times).


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 22, 2008)

And btw, if in my steady relationship I was to fall pregnant now, of course I would consider the opinion of my bf, very much so. Also, I know that even if he didn't want me to abort, if I was totally desperate about having what I was perceiving as a parasite growing inside me, he'd let me make the final decision (whether we would last afterwards is another story, but it does happen). 

However, if I got pregnant in a one night stand, a short relationship with a feckless* man, or someone who had already left me, no, I wouldn't see it as his choice.

*if they were a good man then I would consult with them, but I'd expect my decision to be more weighted than theirs


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> You sound like the type of person who believes all this equality stuff has gone too far. You resent the current efforts to change the centuries of patriachal colonialism. Not sure if bigot is the right label for you, you have a more reactionary flavour.



"Patriarchal colonialism"?  What's that in English?

So I'm a reactionist... how does that fit in with all the lefties around here who are fighting even more obscure - and probably irrelevant - causes?


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Agent Sparrow said:


> And out of all the women I know well who have had abortions, they've all fallen pregnant as a contraception failure, not from "rushing into sex without thinking" and not using contraception



If they're aware of a contraception failure, why not go and get the 'morning after pill' and try that instead of waiting and then getting an abortion when you know you really are pregnant?

Of course, that assumes they didn't try it - but as I don't know any of the people you're referring to, I can only guess.

A day or so old, possibly just split fertilised cell, isn't a "baby" ... whereas by 5 months, it has formed, has organs, and most definitely feelings.  There does seem to be confusion between the two.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> the father gets rights over a pregnancy when he's the one who is pregnant



Feminism gone too far.  It's not equality.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If they're aware of a contraception failure, why not go and get the 'morning after pill' and try that instead of waiting and then getting an abortion when you know you really are pregnant?



because contraception failure can mean a bit more than a split condom, other forms of contraception can fail as well, without a visible warning that they have failed. should a woman go get the morning after pill after every time she has sex just in case her hormonal contraception or IUD hasn't worked?

and i have a 10 year old son to show me how effective the morning after pill can be


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If they're aware of a contraception failure, why not go and get the 'morning after pill' and try that instead of waiting and then getting an abortion when you know you really are pregnant?


I was actually thinking of the pill failing, and occasions where the morning after pill was taken after condom failure and that failed too. Hormonal contraception is good, but it's not 100% and it does fail. How do you know until the foetus is at least a month developed?



> A day or so old, possibly just split fertilised cell, isn't a "baby" ... whereas by 5 months, it has formed, has organs, and most definitely feelings.  There does seem to be confusion between the two.



Most meat that people eat is more cognitively and neurologically developed than a 5 month old foetus before it gets killed in often rather nasty conditions. Use the potential argument by all means, but alive animals will suffer more in the abattoir. 

And I would be interested in seeing this evidence for a 5 month old foetus having "feelings".


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Feminism gone too far.  It's not equality.



a man has the right to determine what happens to his body, a woman has the right to determine what happens to hers. For a man to determine what happens to a pregnant body, he would have the be the one who was pregnant, that is equality.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Most meat that people eat is more cognitively and neurologically developed than a 5 month old foetus before it gets killed in often rather nasty conditions. Use the potential argument by all means, but alive animals will suffer more in the abattoir.



But animals are meant to be eaten by humans.  It's the way things are.  If people choose not to, then that's not my fault.

Humane killing and animal rights are, of course, a completely separate issue, of which I would probably be in support of much of the mainstream thinking.


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If they're aware of a contraception failure, why not go and get the 'morning after pill' and try that instead of waiting and then getting an abortion when you know you really are pregnant?



umm..you can't always tell that contraception has failed, especially hormonal methods.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> But animals are meant to be eaten by humans.  It's the way things are.  If people choose not to, then that's not my fault.



But it does turn the argument that a 5 month old foetus has a certain level of neurological development (and therefore can suffer) on it's head. Why is it OK for animals which are more developed and aware of the world at that point of time to suffer?


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> A day or so old, possibly just split fertilised cell, isn't a "baby" ... whereas by 5 months, it has formed, has organs, and *most definitely feelings*.  There does seem to be confusion between the two.




most definitely feelings? where is this from?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 22, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> most definitely feelings? where is this from?



Yes, I'd like to know that too.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Agent Sparrow said:


> And I would be interested in seeing this evidence for a 5 month old foetus having "feelings".



Is this independent enough for you?

http://www.spuc.org.uk/ethics/abortion/human-development

Feeling pain 

The brain and nerve fibres must be functioning for anyone to feel pain

Brain cells which are essential for consciousness in the adult are known to be present in the foetus by 10 weeks. Nerve fibres which transmit pain impulses are known to be present before fibres inhibiting pain are completed.

According to a scholarly study of the available evidence, this "implies that the first trimester foetus may be more susceptible to pain than slightly older subjects."10. The first trimester of pregnancy is the first three months.

In other words, if the baby can experience pain before the body's mechanisms to suppress pain have developed, this means that the baby may be able to feel pain at a much earlier stage than was previously thought, and perhaps even more keenly in the first three months of pregnancy than later.

The same study concludes that there is a likelihood that the

"foetus has started to acquire a sentient capacity perhaps as early as six weeks, certainly by nine to ten weeks of gestation. Anatomical examination of such foetuses indicates the probability that differentiation sufficient for reception, transmission and perception of primitive pain sensation has already occurred."


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Please would you describe what you feel to be the rights of the father and the rights of the child.



Any chance of a reply, ajdown?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> "Patriarchal colonialism"?  What's that in English?
> 
> So I'm a reactionist... how does that fit in with all the lefties around here who are fighting even more obscure - and probably irrelevant - causes?



Basicaly patriachal colonialism is the utter hegemony of the white and the male over the prosperous world for centuries. It's not just a thing rooted in actual pyhiscal dominace, but also a dominance of attitude, ideas, and socialy accepted norms.. England, The Great British Empire, and our bastard offspring the USA, have a long and proven history of suppression of those who aren't WASP, those who are homosexual, and of course women. All done under the moral cloak of christianity.

Reactionary, AJ, not reactionist. Look it up.


----------



## Poot (May 22, 2008)

The SPUC impartial? I don't think so!


----------



## ethel (May 22, 2008)

hardly an unbiased source. this is a much better article:

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/AbortionTimeLimits~Factors~pain


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Agent Sparrow said:


> But it does turn the argument that a 5 month old foetus has a certain level of neurological development (and therefore can suffer) on it's head. Why is it OK for animals which are more developed and aware of the world at that point of time to suffer?



Because the majority of animals that humans eat are bred specifically as food for humans.  The law, and society generally, accepts that.

Some people choose to be vegetarians, for a number of reasons.  But rarely is it because of neurological development.

So if you're against animals being bred for a specific purpose (ie food), are you for or against "baby farming" solely for the purpose of providing replacement organs/stem cells?


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Any chance of a reply, ajdown?



The child is, genetically, 50% of the father as well as the mother.  It takes both to create the baby, therefore both should have some say in the matter.  

As for the right of the child... the child didn't ask to be created, therefore is it right to take away its chance of developing into something amazing and potentially world-changing?


----------



## Poot (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Because the majority of animals that humans eat are bred specifically as food for humans.  The law, and society generally, accepts that.
> 
> Some people choose to be vegetarians, for a number of reasons.  But rarely is it because of neurological development.
> 
> So if you're against animals being bred for a specific purpose (ie food), are you for or against "baby farming" solely for the purpose of providing replacement organs/stem cells?



1. If we didn't eat them, we wouldn't need to farm them. It's a simple question of supply and demand.

2. I think many vegetarians don't eat meat precisely because they are concerned that animals experience suffering. In fact I suspect this may be the number one reason.

3. "Baby farming"?! Are you for real?!


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Basicaly patriachal colonialism is the utter hegemony of the white and the male over the prosperous world for centuries. It's not just a thing rooted in actual pyhiscal dominace, but also a dominance of attitude, ideas, and socialy accepted norms.. England, The Great British Empire, and our bastard offspring the USA, have a long and proven history of suppression of those who aren't WASP, those who are homosexual, and of course women. All done under the moral cloak of christianity.



Ah... so you hate "the system", that has developed over centuries into the organised society that enabled life to last this long?

Anarchy doesn't work.  Never has, never will.  That's why you need authority.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> The child is, genetically, 50% of the father as well as the mother.  It takes both to create the baby, therefore both should have some say in the matter.
> 
> As for the right of the child... the child didn't ask to be created, therefore is it right to take away its chance of developing into something amazing and potentially world-changing?



That's not really describing the rights of the father and child.

The right to do what? The right to have what? For example.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 22, 2008)

Firstly AJ, "pain" is quite a different thing to "feelings". Secondly, as poot and sarahluv have already pointed out, your source is in no way impartial. 

From the link that sarahluv posted:-



> Interpretation of the evidence on fetal pain is conflicting, with some arguing that the fetus has the potential to experience pain at ten weeks’ gestation,  others arguing that this stage is not reached until 26 weeks’ gestation (see below) and still others arguing for some unspecified gestational period in between,  for example 17 weeks. It has been argued, however, that those who adopt a stage early in fetal development confuse the notion of pain – as an experience – with reflex or hormonal 'stress' responses. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, following a detailed review of the evidence, argued that there is no possibility of fetal awareness before 26 weeks:
> 
> 'It is possible by direct means to identify the minimum stage of structural development that is necessary – but not that which is sufficient – to confer awareness upon the developing fetus. This minimum stage of development, with structural integration of peripheral nerves, spinal cord, brain stem, thalamus and, finally, the cerebral cortex, has not begun before 26 weeks’ gestation.'



So it's hardly certain that even pain exists before 26 weeks anyway. 

In re: to the argument re: animals, I just bring it up to show that a lot of the people who bleat on about the pain argument don't give a shit about animals, which are more sentient at the point of their death, experiencing more pain. Personally I am pescetarian, but the reason I bring up this point isn't because I'd inflict vegetarianism on to everyone*, but because I think it shows arguments relating to the cognitive development of a 5 month old foetus as a bit lame.

*I wouldn't mind if everyone did stop eating meat though!


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Is this independent enough for you?
> 
> http://www.spuc.org.uk/ethics/abortion/human-development



I already quoted from the BMJ above. A foetus is physically unable to feel pain before its 29 weeks.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Poot said:


> 1. If we didn't eat them, we wouldn't need to farm them. It's a simple question of supply and demand.
> 
> 2. I think many vegetarians don't eat meat precisely because they are concerned that animals experience suffering. In fact I suspect this may be the number one reason.
> 
> 3. "Baby farming"?! Are you for real?!



1) Supply and demand it may be, but there's certainly plenty of demand for it - and it's enjoyed my many on a regular basis.

2) Not sure, and it's not entirely relevant to the discussion.

3) Probably not the best term for it, but how would you like to describe it?


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> That's not really describing the rights of the father and child.
> 
> The right to do what? The right to have what? For example.



The right to life?  

The very same rights that are being called in for the woman to terminate a pregnancy because she doesn't want it are relevant to the father as well.

Yes, the woman has to carry the child - you can't blame God/evolution/nature/whatever for that - but that doesn't mean the father has no say in what happens during the pregnancy.

Don't men have the right to become fathers just as much as a woman has the right to become a mother?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Don't men have the right to become fathers just as much as a woman has the right to become a mother?



When did you ever hear of a man killing himself or sticking a knitting needle up his arse because a foetus he had helped create was being forced to be carried to term against his wishes?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Ah... so you hate "the system", that has developed over centuries into the organised society that enabled life to last this long?
> 
> Anarchy doesn't work.  Never has, never will.  That's why you need authority.



You are a card 
I'm no anarchist, I'm the dreaded trot


I suppose you think the system developed is the only choice, that or complete extinction. The need for authority you crave can be satisfied by any number of monotheistic religions. Your desire to instill a need for authority in everyone else (starting with them pesky minorities and women) is entirely your own peculiar foible. I suggest some BDSM.


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Because the majority of animals that humans eat are bred specifically as food for humans.  The law, and society generally, accepts that.


the law allows abortion. 

why is the law an acceptable source for 'rightness' in eating meat but not in allowing abortion?


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> The right to life?
> 
> The very same rights that are being called in for the woman to terminate a pregnancy because she doesn't want it are relevant to the father as well.
> 
> ...



The father has the right to life

Men have the right to become fathers if they can find a woman who is willing to carry their child.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 22, 2008)

On the comparison with animals, it has been estimated that chimps may have an equivalent intelligence to a 2 year old child. Yet despite regulations on testing (in this country anyway), they are still used in animal experiments. Why is that acceptable, whilst aborting a 23 week old foetus on the off chance they feel very primitive pain unacceptable?


----------



## Poot (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> 1) Supply and demand it may be, but there's certainly plenty of demand for it - and it's enjoyed my many on a regular basis.
> 
> 2) Not sure, and it's not entirely relevant to the discussion.
> 
> 3) Probably not the best term for it, but how would you like to describe it?



1. Yes but you make it sound like a done deal "this is the way it is, we should live with it" I'm sure people said the same about slavery.

2. Yes it is. Agent Sparrow brought it up as another illustration of things which feel pain, and whether or not people show compassion for this.

3. Try stem cell research. At least I think that's what you mean. We're talking about a collection of cells here. Nothing you could say is going to convince me that these cells feel pain, though you're welcome to try if you like.

For what it's worth, I think abortion laws are necessarily based on an arbitrary amount of time, and I personally would rather have seen this reduced to 20 weeks. It's a very grey area and this is my preference. However, I am absolutely pro-choice and would rather keep it at 24 weeks than think it would be reduced beyond 20 weeks at any point in the future. It's absolutely vital that abortions are available to those that need them.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm no anarchist, I'm the dreaded trot



You can probably get some tablets for it though.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Agent Sparrow said:


> On the comparison with animals, it has been estimated that chimps may have an equivalent intelligence to a 2 year old child. Yet despite regulations on testing (in this country anyway), they are still used in animal experiments. Why is that acceptable, whilst aborting a 23 week old foetus on the off chance they feel very primitive pain unacceptable?



Did I say animal testing was acceptable?  I don't think it is.

Why can't we use students and lawyers instead?  People get far less emotional over them.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> why is the law an acceptable source for 'rightness' in eating meat but not in allowing abortion?



The difference between human, and animal.

I can't remember hearing of people being bred for meat (soylent green doesn't count here).


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> The difference between human, and animal.
> 
> I can't remember hearing of people being bred for meat (soylent green doesn't count here).



nope, that doesn't work.

either you can use the law as a source or you can't, not just when it suits you


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> The father has the right to life
> 
> Men have the right to become fathers if they can find a woman who is willing to carry their child.



And that's the nub of it really. Women carry babies and men can't. It's an accident of biology but at the end of the day, while we have the responsibility of pregnancy and you don't, we are always going to have control over it. You can forbid abortion if you like but if a woman doesn't want to have a baby she will try and find a way of getting rid of it. Sometimes that might mean she dies too. But as you deem her life no more important than a foetus, I don't expect that matters to you much.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

toggle said:


> nope, that doesn't work.
> 
> either you can use the law as a source or you can't, not just when it suits you



Nothing to do with 'suiting me', at all.

So why am I not allowed to feel the law is wrong on the issue of abortion - yet others are allowed to pick and choose where they think the law is wrong (stop and search, the right to protest, drugs, etc)?

Is it because I'm not a Leftie?


----------



## toggle (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Nothing to do with 'suiting me', at all.
> 
> So why am I not allowed to feel the law is wrong on the issue of abortion - yet others are allowed to pick and choose where they think the law is wrong (stop and search, the right to protest, drugs, etc)?
> 
> Is it because I'm not a Leftie?



if you think the law is wrong on this issue, then you shouldn't be using what is and isn't against the law as a reason for something else being right or wrong. Either 'it's legal' is an argument or it isn't.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Is it because I'm not a Leftie?



I'm personally disagreeing with you because you want to control what happens to a woman's body.

Similarly I had precious little sympathy for your stance on ethnic minorities and housing.

It has nothing to do with your politics. I had an argument yesterday with someone whose politics are a lot closer to mine than yours are. For me, it's about specific issues.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> It has nothing to do with your politics. I had an argument yesterday with someone whose politics are a lot closer to mine than yours are. For me, it's about specific issues.



My political stance?  Can't stand any of the parties.


----------



## Chairman Meow (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Nothing to do with 'suiting me', at all.
> 
> So why am I not allowed to feel the law is wrong on the issue of abortion - yet others are allowed to pick and choose where they think the law is wrong (stop and search, the right to protest, drugs, etc)?
> 
> Is it because I'm not a Leftie?



Must. Not . Get. Sucked. In.

You are allowed to feel whatever the hell you like.

Just so long as you don't try to legislate to tell me what I'm allowed to do with my ovaries.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Chairman Meow said:


> Just so long as you don't try to legislate to tell me what I'm allowed to do with my ovaries.



So is that all that's important to you?  That's all that defines you as what you are?  Ovaries?


----------



## Chairman Meow (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> So is that all that's important to you?  That's all that defines you as what you are?  Ovaries?



No. I didn't say that at all.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Chairman Meow said:


> No. I didn't say that at all.



Well it seems that it's the only important thing because it's all you mentioned.


----------



## Blagsta (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Well it seems that it's the only important thing because it's all you mentioned.



I get the impression you're very young.


----------



## Chairman Meow (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Well it seems that it's the only important thing because it's all you mentioned.



Well in the context of an abortion argument, my ovaries and the thought of someone else having rights over them, are important, yes. But they are not 'all that is important to me'. Nor do they 'define me'. Muppet.


----------



## ajdown (May 22, 2008)

Blagsta said:


> I get the impression you're very young.



Is 35 young round these parts?


----------



## Blagsta (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Is 35 young round these parts?



Blimey, you're 35? 

Your simplistic black and white views made me think you were a teenager!


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Is 35 young round these parts?



You should do well as a train driver. In a little cab away from all the pesky, messy realities of life which might violate your moral superiority.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

ajdown said:


> My political stance?  Can't stand any of the parties.



Political stance doesn't necessarily equate to political parties.

Anyway, that's only a side issue in response to your 'Lefties' comment and of no real importance.

As far as I'm concerned, I find your attitude to women and ethnic minorities distasteful.


----------



## soulman (May 22, 2008)

It's a woman's body so its her choice to give birth to the foetus inside her. If she has been knowingly impregnated by a man of her choosing then fine. What I do have a problem with (and not a religious one) is if women are impregnated by artificial means. If you have sex with a man you know where that semen came from...


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2008)

soulman said:


> It's a woman's body so its her choice to give birth to the foetus inside her. If she has been knowingly impregnated by a man of her choosing then fine. What I do have a problem with (and not a religious one) is if women are impregnated by artificial means. If you have sex with a man you know where that semen came from...



Why do you have a problem with 'artificial means'?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 22, 2008)

tangentlama said:


> That 2% are not 'frivolous demands' though - they belong to the 'extremely serious risk to mother' or 'foetus dead in the womb' or 'severe disability detected'.



I would assume that 'extremely serious risk to mother', or 'foetus dead in the womb', become medical issues, and not merely matters of personal choice.

As for 'severe disability detected', as I recall, the tests to detect such things take place before five months, thus obviating the need for such late term abortions for that reason alone.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 22, 2008)

Thora said:


> Bollocks.  Either abortion is ok or it isn't.  If it's ok in case of rape, it's ok in every circumstance.  If it's ok to have one abortion it's ok to have 10 abortions.
> 
> Nothing changes about the foetus based on whether it was a product of rape, or the morals or age of the mother or anything like that.  That's what I don't understand about people who think abortion is ok so long as the mother is "innocent" in some way.  It doesn't make any difference to the foetus



I totally agree. However, imo, abortion after 20 weeks is grotesque.


----------



## soulman (May 22, 2008)

trashpony said:


> Why do you have a problem with 'artificial means'?



Sorry I thought I made it clear. 





> If you have sex with a man you know where that semen came from...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 22, 2008)

innit said:


> You never bother to read threads do you, you arrogant tosser.  The reasons for abortion being necessary to 24 weeks were discussed in detail days ago.
> 
> Wanker.



If the case for late term abortions is so obvious, then why is your govt discussing restricting them, and why is it that they are already restricted in so many other jurisdictions?


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2008)

soulman said:


> It's a woman's body so its her choice to give birth to the foetus inside her. If she has been knowingly impregnated by a man of her choosing then fine. What I do have a problem with (and not a religious one) is if women are impregnated by artificial means. If you have sex with a man you know where that semen came from...



If you are impregnated by artificial means, you also know where that semen comes from. Even if you don't know the man's name. And what difference does that make anyway?


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> If the case for late term abortions is so obvious, then why is your govt discussing restricting them, and why is it that they are already restricted in so many other jurisdictions?



They discussed it and decided to leave the law as it is. Because the UK is a civilised country where it is recognised that before a foetus can survive outside the womb, a termination is okay. 

Stoning women is considered acceptable in many places but that doesn't mean it's okay.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 22, 2008)

Thora said:


> Nicely put
> 
> The rights of a woman to her own body trump that of anyone else, including the father or the foetus.  Tbh I'm of the opinion that if you want it out of your womb you should be able to have it out at any time.



I agree that a woman's rights trump those of a fetus. I agree with abortion on demand.

But even so, one should never lose sight of the fact that what's happening isn't the same as taking a shit. It isn't murder, but it is killing, and it is the killing of something that in the vast majority of cases, will become a regular, living, healthy human being.

Abortion is a necessary evil. Our society should be bending over backwards with the provision of education, contraception etc., in an effort to reduce our reliance on abortion as a method of birth control.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 22, 2008)

trashpony said:


> Stoning women is considered acceptable in many places but that doesn't mean it's okay.



That's not a great attempt at reductio ad absurdum.

Restricting abortion to 20 vs 24 weeks, is not comparable to islamic punishments for female infidelity.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 22, 2008)

These aren't abstract discussions, and I always believe that it's best to know what it is we're discussing.







23 weeks. Not the prettiest thing in the world, but it is alive.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17261818/


----------



## soulman (May 22, 2008)

trashpony said:


> If you are impregnated by artificial means, you also know where that semen comes from. Even if you don't know the man's name. And what difference does that make anyway?



No, I don't think you do. What difference - what a bizzare question!


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I agree that a woman's rights trump those of a fetus. I agree with abortion on demand.
> 
> But even so, one should never lose sight of the fact that what's happening isn't the same as taking a shit. It isn't murder, but it is killing, and it is the killing of something that in the vast majority of cases, will become a regular, living, healthy human being.
> 
> Abortion is a necessary evil. Our society should be bending over backwards with the provision of education, contraception etc., in an effort to reduce our reliance on abortion as a method of birth control.




Quite right too.

And luckily, you'll find little evidence of anyone on this thread losing sight of what abortion is like for the women making that decision.

The women that actually know what being pregnant feels like rather than observing it from a distance.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> Quite right too.
> 
> And luckily, you'll find little evidence of anyone on this thread losing sight of what abortion is like for the women making that decision.
> 
> The women that actually know what being pregnant feels like rather than observing it from a distance.



No doubt. But there is far too much abortion taking place in our society, and part of the reason for that, is the tendency on the part of some to define a fetus as 'just a lump of cell tissue'.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> These aren't abstract discussions, and I always believe that it's best to know what it is we're discussing.



You'll never really "know" what it is we're discussing, because it's highly unlikely you'll ever be pregnant. All you can do is guess.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> No doubt. But there is far too much abortion taking place in our society, and part of the reason for that, is the tendency on the part of some to define a fetus as 'just a lump of cell tissue'.



'Far too much' compared to what? What's your optimal abortion rate figure?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 22, 2008)

cesare said:


> 'Far too much' compared to what? What's your optimal abortion rate figure?



Zero.

Or, I should say, zero, apart from medically necessary situations.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> No doubt.* But there is far too much abortion taking place in our society,* and part of the reason for that, is the tendency on the part of some to define a fetus as 'just a lump of cell tissue'.



Do you really think so? Western women abort for a vaiety of reasons.Third world women have the anguish of watching the children they cannot support or abort or pevent, starving to death.
Where's the parity here?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 22, 2008)

@cesare: And before you flip out on  me, don't forget that a number of people here have said that no one really wants to have an abortion. That's because it's a last ditch remedy for a situation that the person didn't want to have happen in the first place.

That being the case, better if we tried to improve access to contraception methods and knowledge, to help reduce the number of those unwanted situations in the first place.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Do you really think so? Western women abort for a vaiety of reasons.



I think the main reason is that they are pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy that they don't want to see through to term.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I think the main reason is that they are pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy that they don't want to see through to term.



And the reasons for not wanting to carry a pregnancy to term vary. Way to sidestep the point.


----------



## cesare (May 22, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> @cesare: And before you flip out on  me, don't forget that a number of people here have said that no one really wants to have an abortion. That's because it's a last ditch remedy for a situation that the person didn't want to have happen in the first place.
> 
> That being the case, better if we tried to improve access to contraception methods and knowledge, to help reduce the number of those unwanted situations in the first place.



No intention on flipping out on you (atm). All you're doing is repeating what's already been said. Big deal.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> And the reasons for not wanting to carry a pregnancy to term vary. Way to sidestep the point.



Yes, there are many reasons why a woman might not want to get pregnant at a particular time. 

Better that women in that situation, along with the men involved, do everything possible to prevent the unwanted pregnancy.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> No intention on flipping out on you (atm). All you're doing is repeating what's already been said. Big deal.



Do you take issue with what I'm saying?


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Do you take issue with what I'm saying?



No. You can repeat every single post on this thread if you want.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> No. You can repeat every single post on this thread if you want.



I'm not repeating anything. This is the first time I've posted my opinion on this thread.

If others have said the same thing, then it's nice to hear that someone has the same outlook.


----------



## soulman (May 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> No intention on flipping out on you (atm). All you're doing is repeating what's already been said. Big deal.



You're not important enough to be tracked by these gobshites ATM johnny. I'm sure you must be crestfallen.


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I'm not repeating anything. This is the first time I've posted my opinion on this thread.
> 
> If others have said the same thing, then it's nice to hear that someone has the same outlook.



You're a man that wants to keep abortion rates as low as possible & have some say in what the woman decides. Fine.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> You're a man that wants to keep abortion rates as low as possible & have some say in what the woman decides. Fine.



No, I'm not the enemy, no matter how much you try to ascribe attitudes to me that I don't possess.

I have no say in a woman's decison to abort. That's fine.

Are you talking about the 24 week limit? I assume that that is the law there, and that that law was passed by your male dominated legislature?

There are no unfettered rights. Five months to decide about aborting is enough. After that, there are societal interests, not male interests, that also come into play.


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> No, I'm not the enemy, no matter how much you try to ascribe attitudes to me that I don't possess.
> 
> I have no say in a woman's decison to abort. That's fine.
> 
> ...



Which attitudes have I ascribed to you and where?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Yes, there are many reasons why a woman might not want to get pregnant at a particular time.
> 
> Better that women in that situation, along with the men involved, do everything possible to prevent the unwanted pregnancy.



Just so. While we're saving the potential abortions, shouldn't we look at the infant mortality rates in non-western rich countries? or are those carried to term, born and given a slim chance at life in hellish environs somehow less worthy of the great christian compassion?

We show a delicious hypocrisy here. God let the african kid starve while we tell the women of wealthy society that they shouldn't abort.


----------



## soulman (May 23, 2008)

If I had a womb, and could give birth to children, I wouldn't choose some semen from who know's where. I wouldn't want to give birth to some kind of human/animal thing without even knowing...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> Which attitudes have I ascribed to you and where?



A few posts above.



> have some say in what the woman decides


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Just so. While we're saving the potential abortions, shouldn't we look at the infant mortality rates in non-western rich countries? .



I'm not sure of the connection between infant mortality rates in Africa, and abortion rights in UK or Canada.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Just  we tell the women of wealthy society that they shouldn't abort.



Who is telling them that?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I'm not sure of the connection between infant mortality rates in Africa, and abortion rights in UK or Canada.



Well have a think about moral reletavity then mate.

Have a look at a society that vilifies abortion among western women, while sitting by as those without acsess to abortifacts or contraceptives are forced to watch their children starve. Again it's an issue of parity Let the poor cunts breed as they will, the dead babies won't trouble the big hearted conscience that bleeds for the aborted western foetus.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Who is telling them that?



No-one would ever stand outside an abortion clinic with 'murderer' placards. That must be something I dreamt of


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Well have a think about moral reletavity then mate.
> 
> Have a look at a society that vilifies abortion among western women,



What society is that?

We've had abortion on demand here for decades.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> No-one would ever stand outside an abortion clinic with 'murderer' placards. That must be something I dreamt of



Are you talking about the fact that in this free society, religious extremists sometimes picket abortion clinics?

I'm still not getting the connection with Africa.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Well have a think about moral reletavity then mate.
> 
> Have a look at a society that vilifies abortion among western women, while sitting by as those without acsess to abortifacts or contraceptives are forced to watch their children starve. Again it's an issue of parity Let the poor cunts breed as they will, the dead babies won't trouble the big hearted conscience that bleeds for the aborted western foetus.



But if they don't do a lot of breeding, who's going to replace all those people dead of AIDS?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> What society is that?
> 
> We've had abortion on demand here for decades.



So you choose to ignoe the vocal section of society that vilifies abortion. It aint going away cause you ignore it fella.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Are you talking about the fact that in this free society, religious extremists sometimes picket abortion clinics?
> 
> I'm still not getting the connection with Africa.




It's not a complicated connection 

Western women aborting= bad
African women having babies they cannot support= I don't give two shits


No hypocrisy there at all I suppose?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> So you choose to ignoe the vocal section of society that vilifies abortion. It aint going away cause you ignore it fella.



Not sure about UK, but here, those religious fundamentalists are a small minority in the population. They're also against premarital sex, gay marriage, divorce, etc.

So what?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But if they don't do a lot of breeding, who's going to replace all those people dead of AIDS?



AIDS is a reason for high birth/death rates is it? How callous of you


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> It's not a complicated connection
> 
> Western women aborting= bad
> African women having babies they cannot support= I don't give two shits



What are you suggesting: that we send them some BCPs?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> AIDS is a reason for high birth/death rates is it? How callous of you



What are you talking about: I didn't give anybody AIDS. And yes, AIDS has contributed to a high death rate in africa.

Is it callous to mention that fact?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> AIDS is a reason for high birth/death rates is it? How callous of you



When you get drunk, your argument style seems to revert back to that of an emo teenager.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Not sure about UK, but here, those religious fundamentalists are a small minority in the population. They're also against premarital sex, gay marriage, divorce, etc.
> 
> So what?



So, given a 7 hour debate on the subject by our blessed leaders, such attitudes are not the minority you might find comfortably small.-


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> So, given a 7 hour debate on the subject by our blessed leaders, such attitudes are not the minority you might find comfortably small.-



From what I gather, the conclusion was a decision to maintain the status quo.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> What are you talking about: I didn't give anybody AIDS. And yes, AIDS has contributed to a high death rate in africa.
> 
> Is it callous to mention that fact?




When you're using it to make a cheap joke, it comes across as callous yes.




> who's going to replace all those people dead of AIDS?



unless you want to claim that was a serious statement?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> When you're using it to make a cheap joke, it comes across as callous yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's been a common practice in places where disease etc takes a high toll on people, to produce lots of kids, to ensure that at least some of them make it to maturity, so they can support you in your old age.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> It's been a common practice in places where disease etc takes a high toll on people, to produce lots of kids, to ensure that at least some of them make it to maturity, so they can support you in your old age.




And yet, I don't think that that makes it right. Do you not see that I think a lot of the time and money wasted on controlling the western womans body would be better spent dealing with real, excrutiatingly visible child death?
Far be it for me to dictate what people spend the coin of concen on.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I think a lot of the time and money wasted on controlling the western womans body would be better spent dealing with real, excrutiatingly visible child death?.



Who the hell is controlling 'the western woman's body'?

Dude, stringing together a bunch of PC platitudes does not a philosophy make.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Who the hell is controlling 'the western woman's body'?
> 
> Dude, stringing together a bunch of PC platitudes does not a philosophy make.



of course fella, calling it PC platitudes will make it go away. This is a patraichal society. Just because we pretend it isn't and play at equality, that doesn't lessen the sharp divide. Unless of course, canadian women are not as likely to be underpaid as UK women? 
I find it astonishing that you cannot see how the basic mechanics of opression work in modern society.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> of course fella, calling it PC platitudes will make it go away. This is a patraichal society. Just because we pretend it isn't and play at equality, that doesn't lessen the sharp divide. Unless of course, canadian women are not as likely to be underpaid as UK women?
> I find it astonishing that you cannot see how the basic mechanics of opression work in modern society.



.......'the control of the western woman's body................[Zoooom.....]........'women likely to be underpaid'........

If you use a sawed-off shotgun, you'll be able to hit even more targets at the same time.


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> A few posts above.



_have some say in what the woman decides_

Ah, I see what you mean now. I think I may have misinterpreted what you said here:



Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Yes, there are many reasons why a woman might not want to get pregnant at a particular time.
> 
> Better that women in that situation, along with the men involved, do everything possible to prevent the unwanted pregnancy.



Meaning the men involved re prevention rather than abortion I guess.

I think I extended what you said about prevention 'say' to abortion decision-making 'say'. My apologies. And I'm glad you've cleared up that you didn't mean abortion decision-making say.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I find it astonishing that you cannot see how the basic mechanics of opression work in modern society.



We were talking about limits on abortion in the West. Suddenly, you had us sitting in a hut in africa, while a woman gave birth to child #9.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> _have some say in what the woman decides_
> 
> Ah, I see what you mean now. I think I may have misinterpreted what you said here:
> 
> ...



Yeah; what I meant was that men need to take responsibility for contraception as well.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> .......'the control of the western woman's body................[Zoooom.....]........'women likely to be underpaid'........
> 
> If you use a sawed-off shotgun, you'll be able to hit even more targets at the same time.



yes of course such things exist inependantly, in a vacuum and don't relate at all. How foolish of me


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> We were talking about limits on abortion in the West. Suddenly, you had us sitting in a hut in africa, while a woman gave birth to child #9.




You dance around my point like Jacko on cocaine.

Is it not gross hypocrisy to sit in judgement over the rights of western women re: reproduction and birth control while the poor of Africa have to watch the children they could not prevent starve? yes/no?


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Yeah; what I meant was that men need to take responsibility for contraception as well.



As well as what?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> yes of course such things exist inependantly, in a vacuum and don't relate at all. How foolish of me



If it was your intention to highlight the connections, you haven't done it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> As well as what?



To rephrase: 'Men, as well as women, should take responsibility for contraception.'


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> To rephrase: 'Men, as well as women, should take responsibility for contraception.'



I agree entirely.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Is it not gross hypocrisy to sit in judgement over the rights of western women re: reproduction and birth control while the poor of Africa have to watch the children they could not prevent starve? yes/no?



But you keep forgetting: no one is sitting in judgement of them. And no: there is no connection between women in UK having abortions, and women in Niger having babies.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But you keep forgetting: no one is sitting in judgement of them. And no: there is no connection between women in UK having abortions, and women in Niger having babies.




But of course they are johnny, the self appointed moral gaurdians are.


And if you cannot make the connection between between the RICH westerners having abortions while the dirt POOR africans have infant mortality, then I think you fail to understand the influence and essential amoralityof global capital.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But you keep forgetting: no one is sitting in judgement of them. And no: there is no connection between women in UK having abortions, and women in Niger having babies.



Yes/No johnny?


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Hey DotCommunist 

Johnny's clarified that both men and women should take responsibility for conception, & that women decide on whether they carry a child to term or not.

So arguing with Johnny who can only ever be an observer of pregnancy and not in control of abortion is pretty pointless?

Better to argue with the decision makers eh?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> But of course they are johnny, the self appointed moral gaurdians are.
> 
> 
> And if you cannot make the connection between between the RICH westerners having abortions while the dirt POOR africans have infant mortality, then I think you fail to understand the influence and essential amoralityof global capital.



The moral guardians are the minority: hence, our liberal abortion laws.

And it seems you're the hypocrite. You say 'butt out' when it comes to control of women's bodies in UK, but you want to take unspecified action wrt the bodies of women in Africa.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> Hey DotCommunist
> 
> Johnny's clarified that both men and women should take responsibility for conception, & that women decide on whether they carry a child to term or not.
> 
> ...




I believe you may be right.

Still, this isnn't the first time I've allowed internet rage to carry me into fruitless rowing.

Bedtime is advisable methinks


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> Hey DotCommunist
> 
> Johnny's clarified that both men and women should take responsibility for conception, & that women decide on whether they carry a child to term or not.
> 
> ...




But in a larger context, we are all 'decision makers' as we are all voters in a democratic system.


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The moral guardians are the minority: hence, our liberal abortion laws.



I'm not sure what you mean by this


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I believe you may be right.
> 
> Still, this isnn't the first time I've allowed internet rage to carry me into fruitless rowing.
> 
> Bedtime is advisable methinks



Good plan: come back, and bring your wits with you next time.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The moral guardians are the minority: hence, our liberal abortion laws.
> 
> And it seems you're the hypocrite. You say 'butt out' when it comes to control of women's bodies in UK, but you want to take unspecified action wrt the bodies of women in Africa.



I want to take action? fuck no I just think its worth looking at infant mortality in such circumstances where abortions and contraceptives are not available. I also think its a bit precious to preach about the rights of the unborn while the born die of starvation (not that I accuse you of such preaching)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by this



If the religious fundamentalists etc were in charge, then the abortion laws wouldn't be as liberal. From what I gather, this applies to places like the Republic of Ireland.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Good plan: come back, and bring your wits with you next time.




So long as you bring your customary half, brother.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I want to take action? fuck no I just think its worth looking at infant mortality in such circumstances )



What: just look at, and do nothing?

Why bother, then?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> So long as you bring your customary half, brother.



Seems my half is besting whatever fraction you brought to the table tonight.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Seems my half is besting whatever fraction you brought to the table tonight.



only if you think we've been engaging in point scoring. I wasn't aware that it was a competetition to be 'bested' at.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> What: just look at, and do nothing?
> 
> Why bother, then?




look at as in consider in the context of the subject under discussion. Which you know is what I meant.


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I believe you may be right.
> 
> Still, this isnn't the first time I've allowed internet rage to carry me into fruitless rowing.
> 
> Bedtime is advisable methinks



Ah, the Internetz. Heh 

Sleep well sound dude.


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But in a larger context, we are all 'decision makers' as we are all voters in a democratic system.



The 'larger context' doesn't have any effect on the woman's right to decide. Unless the 'larger context' wants to force its views on her. And then the 'larger context' will need to work out how they're going to effect that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> The 'larger context' doesn't have any effect on the woman's right to decide..



The larger context has major effect on everyone's right to decide anything.

For example, if a differently constituted Court in the US overturns Roe v Wade, it will have a great effect on the right to choose currently exercised by american women.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> only if you think we've been engaging in point scoring. I wasn't aware that it was a competetition to be 'bested' at.



I was engaging in debate, not point scoring, and it's common in the sphere of debating, for one to come out ahead of another. 

It's the old law of the jungle: survival of the fittest.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> look at as in consider in the context of the subject under discussion. Which you know is what I meant.



I'm trying to fine-tune with my radio dial, but the signal is still garbled for some reason.


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The moral guardians are the minority: hence, our liberal abortion laws.





Johnny Canuck2 said:


> If the religious fundamentalists etc were in charge, then the abortion laws wouldn't be as liberal. From what I gather, this applies to places like the Republic of Ireland.



Which minority do your alleged 'moral guardians' guard?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> Which minority do your alleged 'moral guardians' guard?



What is wrong with you people tonight?

I'm going out to buy a new computer table.

Pleasant dreams to all of you.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I'm trying to fine-tune with my radio dial, but the signal is still garbled for some reason.



Deliberately avoiding the point or failing to understand it?


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The larger context has major effect on everyone's right to decide anything.
> 
> For example, if a differently constituted Court in the US overturns Roe v Wade, it will have a great effect on the right to choose currently exercised by american women.



That type of thing may play out or not. Who knows. But the possible end results of people trying to decide and enforce by whatever means what a woman does with her body aren't that hard to imagine. 

At the end of the day, there's a simple choice. Let her choose; or decide what she does and then enforce it.


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> What is wrong with you people tonight?
> 
> I'm going out to buy a new computer table.
> 
> Pleasant dreams to all of you.



See ya later alligator.


----------



## toggle (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I would assume that 'extremely serious risk to mother', or 'foetus dead in the womb', become medical issues, and not merely matters of personal choice.
> 
> As for 'severe disability detected', as I recall, the tests to detect such things take place before five months, thus obviating the need for such late term abortions for that reason alone.



I was getting tests at 26 weeks during my last pregnancy and the option to abort was there at that time should a problem be found.


----------



## Chairman Meow (May 23, 2008)

IIRC abortion is available to term in the case of 'medical' abortion.


----------



## D (May 23, 2008)

"Medical" abortion actually refers to abortion induced with RU486 (mefipristone) - the pill as opposed to "surgical" abortion, which refers to manual vacuum aspiration, dilation and suction curettage, and dilation and evacuation.

In other words, the term "medical abortions" are not terminations peformed due to the woman's life being in danger, etc.  This debate has been overtaken by the mythology of "social abortion" (a ridiculous term as I said earlier - how about a little "social appendectomy" or "social biopsy" anyone?).  If anything, "elective termination" or "elective abortion" are more appropriate terms.


----------



## Chairman Meow (May 23, 2008)

D said:


> "Medical" abortion actually refers to abortion induced with RU486 (mefipristone) - the pill as opposed to "surgical" abortion, which refers to manual vacuum aspiration, dilation and suction curettage, and dilation and evacuation.
> 
> In other words, the term "medical abortions" are not terminations peformed due to the woman's life being in danger, etc.  This debate has been overtaken by the mythology of "social abortion" (a ridiculous term as I said earlier - how about a little "social appendectomy" or "social biopsy" anyone?).  If anything, "elective termination" or "elective abortion" are more appropriate terms.



Really? I thought a medical abortion was one for medical reasons (disability for example).


----------



## D (May 23, 2008)

Nope - all abortions are "medical" procedures; but they may be executed using medicine or surgery.

Whether they are elective or non-elective is a different matter.

Ectopic pregnancies, for example, are common reasons for non-elective abortions (i.e. ones in which the woman does not choose to have an abortion, but the procedure is performed to save her life).


----------



## Chairman Meow (May 23, 2008)

D said:


> Nope - all abortions are medical procedures.
> 
> Whether they are elective or non-elective is a different matter.
> 
> Ectopic pregnancies, for example, are common reasons for non-elective abortions (i.e. ones in which the woman does not choose to have an abortion, but the procedure is performed to save her life).



Fair enough, I stand corrected.


----------



## zenie (May 23, 2008)

soulman said:


> If I had a womb, and could give birth to children, I wouldn't choose some semen from who know's where. I wouldn't want to give birth to some kind of human/animal thing without even knowing...


 
Fuck off



Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But in a larger context, we are all 'decision makers' as we are all voters in a democratic system.


 
nah you're not a decision maker over my body, and nor will anyone else be.


----------



## London_Calling (May 23, 2008)

I’ve found this a tricky subject for quite a while. I think probably since I’ve seen how abortion is used so readily by young girls – 13-16 year olds - around Penge. I’m sure it won’t be the case everywhere but for many local girls here abortion is a contractive.

I also think the issue has moved on a long way since it was a political freedom/rights issue in the 60s and 70s, though that context does remain there are more factors in the pot to consider and weigh now.

Certainly the unique character of the NHS means the UK has become the ‘dumping ground’ for much of catholic Europe especially, but far from only, Ireland.

I’m also uncomfortable with the stats. I keep reading the UK has the most abortions in “western Europe” or you’ll see a list of 10 developed countries and the UK is ‘number one’; is it incorrect to think these are the liberal media’s contrived ways of saying the UK has more abortions per head than anywhere else in the world? I know the Anglo-Saxon world, partic the USA, isn’t far behind, but does the UK have more abortions than anywhere else (I haven’t the time to read 720 posts)?

Whatever else, there’s something not quite right, or at least to be reviewed, about the dynamics of abortion in this particular society since the 1967 Act, imo.


----------



## Thora (May 23, 2008)

How is it that you know how young girls in Penge use abortion?


----------



## toggle (May 23, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> I’ve found this a tricky subject for quite a while. I think probably since I’ve seen how abortion is used so readily by young girls – 13-16 year olds - around Penge. I’m sure it won’t be the case everywhere but for many local girls here abortion is a contractive.
> 
> I also think the issue has moved on a long way since it was a political freedom/rights issue in the 60s and 70s, though that context does remain there are more factors in the pot to consider and weigh now.
> 
> ...



the us rate is far higher than ours.


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> I also think the issue has moved on a long way since it was a political freedom/rights issue in the 60s and 70s, though that context does remain there are more factors in the pot to consider and weigh now.



Such as?


----------



## D (May 23, 2008)

The thing is, London Calling, that abortion was never an issue of "political freedom" in the ideological sense.  It was - and continues to be - an issue of material, practical importance in the lives of women.  It became part of the movement for equality because there were many other such issues that had to - have to - do with the possibilities for women to attain economic equality with men (and thus independence).  It's not symbolic, in other words, it's tangible.  A woman forced to carry a pregnancy to term is a woman forced to decline many, many economic opportunities, incur significant financial hardship, and then the further burden of caring for a child if she does not put it up for adoption.

Those are *just* the tip of the iceberg in economic terms.

This is why contraception was also such a huge deal.

There are all kinds of more 'humanitarian' reasons for the legal necessity (and accessibility) of these things as well.


----------



## London_Calling (May 23, 2008)

toggle said:


> the us rate is far higher than ours.


I've just read that elsewhere. While it seems correct, you'll understand the fact itself (invoking that nut house in any debate)  doesn't fill me with glee.





cesare said:


> Such as?


For example? Sex is commonplace for early teens now when it wasn't (even) 20 years ago. Greater equality in the work place has meant many women delay having children by a decade or more than perhaps they would have, say, 20 ago, and sometimes those women get pregnant. There's little or no social or peer stigma attaining to abortion compared with 20 years ago . . . there's a huge list of social, political, economic changes.



D said:


> It became part of the movement for equality because there were many other such issues that had to - have to - do with the possibilities for women to attain economic equality with men (and thus independence).  It's not symbolic, in other words, it's tangible.


Of course, I wouldn't disagree with any of this.


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> For example? Sex is commonplace for early teens now when it wasn't (even) 20 years ago. Greater equality in the work place has meant many women delay having children by a decade or more than perhaps they would have, say, 20 ago, and sometimes those women get pregnant. There's little or no social or peer stigma attaining to abortion compared with 20 years ago . . . there's a huge list of social, political, economic changes.



Is sex more commonplace for early teens now? I didn't know that. 

Can you explain why the age of women having children has any relevance to their right to choose re abortions?

Maybe I'm missing the point ... are you saying that social, political and economic changes affect women's right to choose?


----------



## *Miss Daisy* (May 23, 2008)

At the end of the day, it is the womans decision to do what ever she feels nessasary with HER body

Religion or politics shouldnt have anything to do with it


----------



## London_Calling (May 23, 2008)

cesare - if you're struggling that much I'm afraid someone else will have to help you, I don't have the time.


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> cesare - if you're struggling that much I'm afraid someone else will have to help you, I don't have the time.


----------



## Thora (May 23, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> cesare - if you're struggling that much I'm afraid someone else will have to help you, I don't have the time.



I'm not quite sure what you mean there either


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

zenie said:


> nah you're not a decision maker over my body, and nor will anyone else be.



Well, someone is. If you decide to put heroin into your body, you can go to prison.


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Well, someone is. If you decide to put heroin into your body, you can go to prison.



If you decide to put sperm into your body, you can go to maternity ward.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> Sex is commonplace for early teens now when it wasn't (even) 20 years ago..



Is that so?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> If you decide to put sperm into your body, you can go to maternity ward.



How exactly is that going to work for me?


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> How exactly is that going to work for me?



In exactly the same way as your heroin comparison of course.

Heroin users may or may not go to prison.

Females admitting sperm into their body may or may not go to the maternity ward.

Males putting sperm into a female's body may or may not go to the maternity ward (as an observer).


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> In exactly the same way as your heroin comparison of course.
> 
> Heroin users may or may not go to prison.
> 
> ...



The point of my example is that you don't have complete freedom wrt your body. I used the word 'may' because the legal system functions imperfectly, but it is in fact illegal to use heroin.

The govt has decided that you can't put that particular plant extract into your body.


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The point of my example is that you don't have complete freedom wrt your body. I used the word 'may' because the legal system functions imperfectly, but it is in fact illegal to use heroin.
> 
> The govt has decided that you can't put that particular plant extract into your body.




The illegality status of anything depends on the jurisdiction. If the law doesn't suit, you go to another jurisdiction if you are keen to abide by the law.

Or you circumvent the law. As many heroin users do.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> The illegality status of anything depends on the jurisdiction. If the law doesn't suit, you go to another jurisdiction if you are keen to abide by the law.
> 
> Or you circumvent the law. As many heroin users do.



Not sure of too many jurisdictions where heroin usage is legal.

In any event, there are many ways in which the state exercises jurisdiction over your body.


----------



## cesare (May 23, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Not sure of too many jurisdictions where heroin usage is legal.
> 
> In any event, there are many ways in which the state exercises jurisdiction over your body.




You drew the comparison between heroin and abortion rights in terms of the law. I'm just running with that. I don't know why that particular comparison occurred to you, but hey. 

Heroin users can evade the law if they want and are able to. If abortion was illegal, pregnant women could evade the law if they wanted and were able to.

Luckily, in the UK at least, abortion isn't illegal - so introducing heroin users as a comparison feels a bit odd. But no worries, we can connect heroin users with abortion rights if you want.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> In any event, there are many ways in which the state exercises jurisdiction over your body.



Very true. Those claiming the supposed right to do whatever they like with "their body" should realise that their premise is fundamentally wrong.

It's also wrong in the sense that it is at least arguable (though many do not accept) that the unborn child isn't a woman's body, but a separate person contained within the woman's body. The food in your stomach isn't part of you, it's just inside you. I've no idea why so many people find this a difficult concept to grasp. Things are contained within other things all the time, without the contained thing becoming part of the container.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Chairman Meow said:


> Just so long as you don't try to legislate to tell me what I'm allowed to do with my ovaries.



I fail to see on which principle you could expect such a thing. Indeed, the law already does regulate what you can do with your "ovaries", setting the limits on abortion that currently pertain.

If you want to argue that the law should not regulate abortion _at all_, please do so. If so, I presume you are in favour of decriminalised abortion at any time prior to natural birth. Are you?


----------



## Fruitloop (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Very true. Those claiming the supposed right to do whatever they like with "their body" should realise that their premise is fundamentally wrong.
> 
> It's also wrong in the sense that it is at least arguable (though many do not accept) that the unborn child isn't a woman's body, but a separate person contained within the woman's body. The food in your stomach isn't part of you, it's just inside you. I've no idea why so many people find this a difficult concept to grasp. Things are contained within other things all the time, without the contained thing becoming part of the container.



The food is created outside you and enters through the mouth. It's not quite like a foetus which apart from a half-copy of DNA is entirely a product of the woman's body.


----------



## trashpony (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Very true. Those claiming the supposed right to do whatever they like with "their body" should realise that their premise is fundamentally wrong.
> 
> It's also wrong in the sense that it is at least arguable (though many do not accept) that the unborn child isn't a woman's body, but a separate person contained within the woman's body. The food in your stomach isn't part of you, it's just inside you. I've no idea why so many people find this a difficult concept to grasp. Things are contained within other things all the time, without the contained thing becoming part of the container.



Yes it is a separate person contained within the woman's body - I don't think anyone is disputing that are they? It's the bit about whether it has any rights given that, without the woman sustaining it, it will die, and so whether its feasible to put its rights above those of the being that is giving and continuing to give it life, that we're in disagreement about.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I fail to see on which principle you could expect such a thing. Indeed, the law already does regulate what you can do with your "ovaries", setting the limits on abortion that currently pertain.
> 
> If you want to argue that the law should not regulate abortion _at all_, please do so. If so, I presume you are in favour of decriminalised abortion at any time prior to natural birth. Are you?



Before i wade in with my big size tens and get the right hump-

So.... you think abortion should be made illegal or restricted and if so, what???

Thanks


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

To the best of my knowledge, the unborn child is not a person in law.

If it were, then if a pregnant woman were murdered and the unborn child died also, the perpetrator would be charged with two murders not one.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> The food is created outside you and enters through the mouth. It's not quite like a foetus which apart from a half-copy of DNA is entirely a product of the woman's body.



And a woman's child at any age is by your argument "entirely a product of the woman's body".

Should mothers be allowed to murder their children?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Very true. Those claiming the supposed right to do whatever they like with "their body" should realise that their premise is fundamentally wrong..


I wonder if you are not failing to grasp the difference between something "being "fundamentally wrong" and something being "fundamentally right, but not necessarily absolutely applicable in absolutely all circumstances".


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> To the best of my knowledge, the unborn child is not a person in law.
> 
> If it were, then if a pregnant woman were murdered and the unborn child died also, the perpetrator would be charged with two murders not one.



good point...


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> To the best of my knowledge, the unborn child is not a person in law.
> 
> If it were, then if a pregnant woman were murdered and the unborn child died also, the perpetrator would be charged with two murders not one.



How is any of this relevant? The law is a construct of human society. We are discussing what the law _should be_, rather than considering ourselves bound philosophically by what it is.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> And a woman's child at any age is by your argument "entirely a product of the woman's body".
> 
> Should mothers be allowed to murder their children?


Is this the standard of your argument?


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

Because, abortion cannot be murder under law, so posting repeatedly about women murdering their unborn children is both incorrect and inflammatory.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Donna Ferentes said:


> I wonder if you are not failing to grasp the difference between something "being "fundamentally wrong" and something being "fundamentally right, but not necessarily absolutely applicable in absolutely all circumstances".



Superb pedantry. The law says we can't do as we please with our bodies. Those arguing that it does and holding abortion as an example of this are wrong.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Superb pedantry.


Projection, I'm afraid.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> Because, abortion cannot be murder under law, so posting repeatedly about women murdering their unborn children is both incorrect and inflammatory.



I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

We _could_ enact a law that classified abortion as murder. However, we haven't.

The issue is whether the unborn child _should be_ considered separate for the purposes of extending the protection of the law to it. Simply saying "the law says this" is irrelevant.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> We _could_ enact a law that classified abortion as murder. However, we haven't.



thank god for that as well....


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> Because, abortion cannot be murder under law, so posting repeatedly about women murdering their unborn children is both incorrect and inflammatory.



I apologise. I was unclear.

I meant, should mothers be allowed to murder their _born _children?

I hope and expect the answer is that they should not be.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Donna Ferentes said:


> Projection, I'm afraid.



What else do you fear?


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

No, you're choosing to ignore what the law says becuase it doesn't support your argument.

You are deliberately trying to provoke people by using such emotive language and, whilst this is an extremely emotive issue, you're not trying to argue your point neutrally.

If the law says we can't do as we please with our bodies, why is it legal to get piercings and tattoos? Or donate blood or skin or bone marrow?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> What else do you fear?


I fear wasting my time arguing with stupid little boys with no experience or understanding of what they're talking about.


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I apologise. I was unclear.
> 
> I meant, should mothers be allowed to murder their _born _children?
> 
> I hope and expect the answer is that they should not be.



No-one, direct parent or otherwise, is allowed to murder a born human being of any age.

You know that.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

trashpony said:


> Yes it is a separate person contained within the woman's body - I don't think anyone is disputing that are they?



I think they are. The frequent repetition of women desiring the right to do as they choose with their body entirely obfuscates the separate albeit temporarily dependent status of the unborn child.



trashpony said:


> It's the bit about whether it has any rights given that, without the woman sustaining it, it will die, and so whether its feasible to put its rights above those of the being that is giving and continuing to give it life, that we're in disagreement about.



We are indeed. I would argue that on balance, a woman being compelled by law to sustain an unwanted, unborn child for a few months is less of an imposition on an individual than to kill another individual.


----------



## trashpony (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> We are indeed. I would argue that on balance, a woman being compelled by law to sustain an unwanted, unborn child for a few months is less of an imposition on an individual than to kill another individual.



Hahaha. When you've been pregnant a few times, come back and see if you feel the same way. Don't belittle it. It's the most dangerous thing any woman ever does.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> We are indeed. I would argue that on balance, a woman being compelled by law to sustain an unwanted, unborn child for a few months is less of an imposition on an individual than to kill another individual.


Except of course that nobody except the religiously-inspired considers the foetus to be another individual. Nobody can, except those accustomed to dogmatism and the inability to see the world outside of absolutes.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> No-one, direct parent or otherwise, is allowed to murder a born human being of any age.
> 
> You know that.



Of course. In fact, I was wrong to use the legal term "murder" rather than the purely functional term "kill". 

The law permits killing under various circumstances. In all circumstances that I can recall, the principle is comparative necessity. We kill people who are out of control and posing a serious risk to others. We kill in war. Aside from abortion, that's about it.

The principle should be extended to the unborn child.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> We are indeed. I would argue that on balance, a woman being compelled by law to sustain an unwanted, unborn child for a few months is less of an imposition on an individual than to kill another individual.



Im sorry but a big Fuck you for your complete lack of perspective and blinding ignorance......  you really hold some short sighted views


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I would argue that on balance, a woman being compelled by law to sustain an unwanted, unborn child for a few months is less of an imposition on an individual than to kill another individual.



Well, that's very easy for you to argue that when it would never be you that has to do it.

Imposition - are you for real? 

It would be mental and physical torture to be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy full-term. A living nightmare.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> We kill in war.


Yep, we certainly do that one. We do that all right and we pray for our success in doing it.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

trashpony said:


> Hahaha. When you've been pregnant a few times, come back and see if you feel the same way. Don't belittle it. It's the most dangerous thing any woman ever does.



It might be the most dangerous thing you've ever done. I don't mean to belittle pregnancy and childbirth. Obviously it is an onerous task. Yet, it is better that society should compel pregnant women to perform that task rather than kill the unborn child.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Donna Ferentes said:


> Yep, we certainly do that one. We do that all right and we pray for our success in doing it.



Are you a pacifist?


----------



## mysterygirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> It might be the most dangerous thing you've ever done. I don't mean to belittle pregnancy and childbirth. Obviously it is an onerous task. Yet, it is better that society should compel pregnant women to perform that task rather than kill the unborn child.



Regardless of any physical or mental damage that may be caused to the woman concerned?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Are you a pacifist?


No, and nor am I anti-abortion.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> It might be the most dangerous thing you've ever done. I don't mean to belittle pregnancy and childbirth. Obviously it is an onerous task. Yet, it is better that society should compel pregnant women to perform that task rather than kill the unborn child.



Incredible. Absolutely incredible.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> Well, that's very easy for you to argue that when it would never be you that has to do it.



Possibly, but there are plenty of women with children that argue the same thing. Your point is moot.



equationgirl said:


> It would be mental and physical torture to be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy full-term. A living nightmare.



Only if you value your temporary convenience over the life of an unborn child. That is the attitude that needs to change.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 26, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Incredible. Absolutely incredible.



remember his contribution about how being gay is immoral, he even compared abortion on that thread as well....

then gets all indignant when you call him a tosser

some people have no shame


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Donna Ferentes said:


> No, and nor am I anti-abortion.



Then I hope your attitude towards war is similar to mine: in dire straits, unpleasant but better than the alternatives.


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> It might be the most dangerous thing you've ever done. I don't mean to belittle pregnancy and childbirth. Obviously it is an onerous task. Yet, it is better that society should compel pregnant women to perform that task rather than kill the unborn child.



And what would happen to all these children society compels to be born?

Seriously, what happens to them? Are you advocating that they become adopted? 

What you're proposing is nothing short of turning women into baby factories.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Only if you value your temporary convenience over the life of an unborn child. That is the attitude that needs to change.


Jesus. What an appalling little prig you are.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

mysterygirl said:


> Regardless of any physical or mental damage that may be caused to the woman concerned?



I'm undecided on the question of whether abortion should ever be permitted. I suspect I might consider it in circumstances that threatened the life of the mother. Definitely not anything short of that.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Then I hope your attitude towards war is similar to mine: in dire straits, unpleasant but better than the alternatives.


Yes, I wonder whether your definition of "dire straits" will actually be anything like mine at all? And I wodner whether you have any idea what "dire straits" means in real life for a pregnant woman?


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'm undecided on the question of whether abortion should ever be permitted. I suspect I might consider it in circumstances that threatened the life of the mother. Definitely not anything short of that.



What about rape, incest? - icould keep going...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I suspect I might consider it in circumstances that threatened the life of the mother.


You _might consider it_ in those circumstances?


----------



## Chairman Meow (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'm undecided on the question of whether abortion should ever be permitted. I suspect I might consider it in circumstances that threatened the life of the mother. Definitely not anything short of that.



Lets all fervently hope you never get to make that call. Twat.


----------



## mysterygirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'm undecided on the question of whether abortion should ever be permitted. I suspect I might consider it in circumstances that threatened the life of the mother. Definitely not anything short of that.



So you believe that its OK to damage me mentally or physically by forcing me to do something I don't want to do?  So long as I don't die?

Can I ask why you think you have that right?


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Only if you value your temporary convenience over the life of an unborn child. That is the attitude that needs to change.



Temporary inconvenience?!

In my case, if I became pregnant, I would be putting my life at risk because I have kidney problems. There is a distinct possibility that I would require dialysis or not survive the pregnancy at all, as I have high blood pressure which puts me at greater risk of pre-eclampsia. After all this, there is no guarantee that the pregnancy would last full-term.

So you would be left with a severely incapacitated or dead mother and quite likely no baby at the end of my pregnancy.

I think it is your attitude that needs to change, not mine.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> And what would happen to all these children society compels to be born?
> 
> Seriously, what happens to them? Are you advocating that they become adopted?
> 
> What you're proposing is nothing short of turning women into baby factories.



I would like to see society take an entirely different approach to sex, relationships, families and children. Your question is couched from the assumption of what might happen were abortion outlawed today. A different society would see far fewer unwanted pregnancies. Of course, there will always be a need for adoptions for various reasons. Society should ensure that those children get well treated.

Excluding the case of rape, women have various means that their disposal to avoid pregnancy entirely or to greatly reduce the likelihood of it.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Chairman Meow said:


> Lets all fervently hope you never get to make that call. Twat.



Please do try not to insult me, however wrong you think my views may be.


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

I think you're living in a dream world, unthethered, and you're insulting many people on this thread.

It's a bit rich asking people not to insult you when your ideas are more than insulting.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Sweaty Betty said:


> What about rape, incest? - icould keep going...



Not in those cases.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

mysterygirl said:


> So you believe that its OK to damage me mentally or physically by forcing me to do something I don't want to do?  So long as I don't die?
> 
> Can I ask why you think you have that right?



I could ask you a similar question: what gives you the right to condemn hundreds of thousands of unborn children to death in this country for the simple reason that their mothers and sometimes fathers find them an inconvenience?


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I would like to see society take an entirely different approach to sex, relationships, families and children. Your question is couched from the assumption of what might happen were abortion outlawed today. A different society would see far fewer unwanted pregnancies. Of course, there will always be a need for adoptions for various reasons. Society should ensure that those children get well treated.
> 
> Excluding the case of rape, women have various means that their disposal to avoid pregnancy entirely or to greatly reduce the likelihood of it.



And you haven't answered my question - what would happen to the children?

This is just ideological waffle.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> And you haven't answered my question - what would happen to the children?
> 
> This is just ideological waffle.



I've answered the question entirely. Firstly, there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies if society had a different view on sex, relationships and children.

Secondly, those children whose parents were unable or absolutely unwilling to care for them would be adopted.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I've answered the question entirely. Firstly, there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies if society had a different view on sex, relationships and children.
> 
> Secondly, those children whose parents were unable or absolutely unwilling to care for them would be adopted.



meanwhile, back in the society we already have


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> meanwhile, back in the society we already have



I suspect you and I would both like to see various attitudes in society change. Policy is dependent on context. If you want policy to change, you often have to change the context too.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I suspect you and I would both like to see various attitudes in society change. Policy is dependent on context. If you want policy to change, you often have to change the context too.



Change yes. Regress to some ideal of christian morality that never really existed anyway, no.


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

Untethered, you're ignoring most of the points people are making, and proposing vague ideological twaddle as 'society'.

This is the society we're in. 

So, in today's society, what would happen to all the children that would result because of women being forced to carry pregnancies to term?

And what happens to those which aren't adopted? After all, there's lots of children in the care system who aren't adopted every year. 

What happens to them?


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> I think you're living in a dream world, unthethered, and you're insulting many people on this thread.
> 
> It's a bit rich asking people not to insult you when your ideas are more than insulting.



I suspect I find various other people's ideas here at least as offensive as you find mine. However, if we are to discuss the issue at all (and why else be here?) then we will all have to refrain from throwing around epithets and complaining about being insulted by others' views.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Change yes. Regress to some ideal of christian morality that never really existed anyway, no.



I'm not proposing to "regress" to anything, but the change I propose is both desirable and possible.


----------



## mysterygirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I could ask you a similar question: what gives you the right to condemn hundreds of thousands of unborn children to death in this country for the simple reason that their mothers and sometimes fathers find them an inconvenience?



Well first off you haven't actually answered my question, which still stands. 

Second, 'hundreds of thousands'?  I haven't read the whole thread, I sort of assumed we were talking England/UK/GB, how long does it take for 'hundreds of thousands' of inconveniently conceived children to be aborted in say, the UK?  

Third, I believe that for the majority of women its a big decision, and 'inconvenience' doesn't enter into it.  



Still, I would appreciate an answer to my question : what gives you the right to physically or mentally damage me by forcing me to do something I don't want to do?  Why is it OK for you to do that to me so long as you don't actually kill me?


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

*For untethered*



equationgirl said:


> Temporary inconvenience?!
> 
> In my case, if I became pregnant, I would be putting my life at risk because I have kidney problems. There is a distinct possibility that I would require dialysis or not survive the pregnancy at all, as I have high blood pressure which puts me at greater risk of pre-eclampsia. After all this, there is no guarantee that the pregnancy would last full-term.
> 
> ...



What is your response to this post? I'm interested to here if you would force me to carry a pregnancy to full term in the knowledge that my death could result.


----------



## _angel_ (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> It might be the most dangerous thing you've ever done. I don't mean to belittle pregnancy and childbirth. Obviously it is an onerous task. Yet, it is better that society should compel pregnant women to perform that task rather than kill the unborn child.



What if the woman is suicidal at the thought of being made to go through with it.

What if she's at risk of being murdered (for sake of argument) by husband/ family who discover she's pregnant?


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> This is the society we're in.



Indeed, and it's full of people with attitudes that broadly reflect that society's values. We can change those attitudes and that society.

Surely you wouldn't argue that society's attitudes to many things has changed in recent decades? For the worse in many cases, but the change is undeniably there.



equationgirl said:


> So, in today's society, what would happen to all the children that would result because of women being forced to carry pregnancies to term?
> 
> And what happens to those which aren't adopted? After all, there's lots of children in the care system who aren't adopted every year.
> 
> What happens to them?



Those that couldn't be adopted would have to remain in state care, of course. I can't see why any of this is a fundamental problem.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> What is your response to this post? I'm interested to here if you would force me to carry a pregnancy to full term in the knowledge that my death could result.



As I said earlier, I'm undecided what would be the best course of action in that case.

However, that's not germane to the wider issue. Most abortions are carried out without there being any serious risk to anyone. We could quite well propose greater regulation of abortion without outlawing it entirely.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Indeed, and it's full of people with attitudes that broadly reflect that society's values. We can change those attitudes and that society.
> 
> Surely you wouldn't argue that society's attitudes to many things has changed in recent decades? For the worse in many cases, but the change is undeniably there.
> 
> ...




Yes, nothing problematic about state care is there?


----------



## toggle (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Those that couldn't be adopted would have to remain in state care, of course. I can't see why any of this is a fundamental problem.



well, state care worked so well in romania


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

You actually propose returning to the state care system of children's home, a system that we've progressively moved away from over the past 30 years?


----------



## _angel_ (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> As I said earlier, I'm undecided what would be the best course of action in that case.
> 
> However, that's not germane to the wider issue. Most abortions are carried out without there being any serious risk to anyone. We could quite well propose greater regulation of abortion without outlawing it entirely.



You're undecided whether or not to risk someone's life due to a medical condition. So you'd end up with a dead mum and dead baby.

Even the ROI allow abortions where the mothers life is at risk.


----------



## _angel_ (May 26, 2008)

toggle said:


> well, state care worked so well in romania



We definitely don't want something like that. I hope our right wing anti abortionist friends are going to provide properly for disabled children and their families (not to mention single parents) but I somehow doubt that'll be the case.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

mysterygirl said:


> Well first off you haven't actually answered my question, which still stands.
> 
> Second, 'hundreds of thousands'?  I haven't read the whole thread, I sort of assumed we were talking England/UK/GB, how long does it take for 'hundreds of thousands' of inconveniently conceived children to be aborted in say, the UK?



There were 193,000 abortions in England and Wales in 2006. I'm not going to split hairs over whether my description of this number was correct.



mysterygirl said:


> Third, I believe that for the majority of women its a big decision, and 'inconvenience' doesn't enter into it.



I know quite a few women who have had abortions and didn't have the slightest intention at any time of having their child. At least, that's how they recounted it to me. Of course, for some, it may actually be a difficult decision.



mysterygirl said:


> Still, I would appreciate an answer to my question : what gives you the right to physically or mentally damage me by forcing me to do something I don't want to do?  Why is it OK for you to do that to me so long as you don't actually kill me?



I'm making a value judgment: which is worse, a woman becoming physically or mentally damaged by bearing her child, or the child being killed? I accept that these are both undesirable situations, but the former is preferable to the latter where a choice has to be made.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 26, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> We definitely don't want something like that. I hope our right wing anti abortionist friends are going to provide properly for disabled children and their families (not to mention single parents) but I somehow doubt that'll be the case.



yes, but what happens if they are gay as well..*gasp*


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Yes, nothing problematic about state care is there?



It could be done much better than it has been historically. In part, the poor standards in state care show how little our society values children. That needs to change.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'm making a value judgment: which is worse, a woman becoming physically or mentally damaged by bearing her child, or the child being killed? I accept that these are both undesirable situations, but the former is preferable to the latter where a choice has to be made.





Check you out playing god...  You really are a nasty piece of moralistic work.....


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

The real point is that it's not possible to hold fews like this unless:

(a) you have a religious outlook which enables you to treat real-life people as sinners and ignore the actual problems that they face ;

(b) you have no life-experience of these situations whatsoever and can therefore treat them as if they were abstract problems ;

(c) you have the personal arrogance which enables you to take a pious outlook, always imagining you are treating people sympathetically while actually treating them as garbage.


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> As I said earlier, I'm undecided what would be the best course of action in that case.
> 
> However, that's not germane to the wider issue. Most abortions are carried out without there being any serious risk to anyone. We could quite well propose greater regulation of abortion without outlawing it entirely.



It IS germane to the wider issue.

You said you would mandate ALL pregnancies being carried to full term. But when I point out that forcing a pregnancy on me with my medical history could result in my death, you backpedal. 

You have no idea what would happen to all the children resulting from these pregnancies other than 'care by the state'.

Now you're talking about greater regulation of abortion! 

Bit of a change of direction, there...


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

toggle said:


> well, state care worked so well in romania



It worked about as well as state communism. What's your point?


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Sweaty Betty said:


> Check you out playing god...  You really are a nasty piece of moralistic work.....



From my perspective, 193,000 children were killed in this country in 2006, mostly because their parents simply didn't want them.

Don't accuse me of "playing God".


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Donna Ferentes said:


> The real point is that it's not possible to hold fews like this unless:
> 
> (a) you have a religious outlook which enables you to treat real-life people as sinners and ignore the actual problems that they face ;
> 
> ...



All of these or just any one?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> From my perspective, 193,000 children were killed in this country in 2006, mostly because their parents simply didn't want them.


Son, you don't know what a "child" is. You're ignorant.


----------



## toggle (May 26, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> We definitely don't want something like that. I hope our right wing anti abortionist friends are going to provide properly for disabled children and their families (not to mention single parents) but I somehow doubt that'll be the case.



they are someone else's problem, this mythical 'society' where everything can be perfect.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> From my perspective, 193,000 children were killed in this country in 2006, mostly because their parents simply didn't want them.
> 
> Don't accuse me of "playing God".



Telling a women that she should endure mental physical damage all for a clump of cells is defo playing god!!!

your ego does not allow you to even think this through properly


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> It IS germane to the wider issue.
> 
> You said you would mandate ALL pregnancies being carried to full term. But when I point out that forcing a pregnancy on me with my medical history could result in my death, you backpedal.



I'm not sure exactly which post you're referring to, but my views on this board and this thread have been consistent. If there are times when I need to qualify the small number of edge cases where the policy may be different, that doesn't affect the main picture.



equationgirl said:


> You have no idea what would happen to all the children resulting from these pregnancies other than 'care by the state'.



We're discussing general principles and objectives here, not planning detailed policy. I would like any government or reasonably resourced group proposing greater regulation of abortion to have detailed plans for dealing with any consequent effects. I'm sure you understand that I am unable to write such a document for you here as we discuss the general matter.



equationgirl said:


> Now you're talking about greater regulation of abortion!
> 
> Bit of a change of direction, there...



How else would you describe it?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> All of these or just any one?


Son, you're all of these and worse, in spades.


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

What I find interesting is that not once have you said, untethered, that you would gladly look after one of the children resulting from one of the forced pregnancies.

So, untethered, would you become a parent to such a child?


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Donna Ferentes said:


> Son, you don't know what a "child" is. You're ignorant.



You're entirely right. Caught me out there. I was born at 55 and have been kept isolated from the rest of society (save for my sole lifeline -- Urban75) ever since.

I have never been a child; seen one; spoken with one; read about them; discussed them; or have any direct experience or knowledge to bear on the matter.

I'm amazed at my nerve at voicing an opinion at all. The cheek of it!


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 26, 2008)

I guess he hasnt even thought about how forcing kids on people may result in further abuse and suffering to the kids and death in many cases.....


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> We're discussing general principles and objectives here, not planning detailed policy. I would like any government or reasonably resourced group proposing greater regulation of abortion to have detailed plans for dealing with any consequent effects. I'm sure you understand that I am unable to write such a document for you here as we discuss the general matter.



Of course I'm obviously not expecting a full White Paper on this issue, but I think a slightly more expansive statement than 'care of the state' is not unreasonable.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

toggle said:


> they are someone else's problem, this mythical 'society' where everything can be perfect.



Where the parents are unable or unwilling to care for their children, the state makes provision for them. This is an agreed policy of a democratic government, funded by taxpayers' money.

I hardly think this is a derogation of social responsibility.


----------



## mysterygirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> There were 193,000 abortions in England and Wales in 2006. I'm not going to split hairs over whether my description of this number was correct.


 
Fair enough - I have no idea of the numbers myself, Im not looking to split hairs it was a genuine question.



untethered said:


> I know quite a few women who have had abortions and didn't have the slightest intention at any time of having their child. At least, that's how they recounted it to me. Of course, for some, it may actually be a difficult decision.


I too know quite a few women who have had abortions.  Not one single one of them made the decision lightly.  Not at all, I can assure you.



untethered said:


> I'm making a value judgment: which is worse, a woman becoming physically or mentally damaged by bearing her child, or the child being killed? I accept that these are both undesirable situations, but the former is preferable to the latter where a choice has to be made.



Speaking personally, I disagree.  I feel......... resentful? that you think you have any right to force me to do anything damaging to myself.  If your friend stands in front of you and tells you that she's suicidal because you forced her to become a mother, how would you feel?  If she's so depressed she can't (or worse _won't_) care for herself or her child, what then?  

You talk about the right of the unborn child; I would ask you to consider that child's rights post-birth as well as pre-birth - the right to be a much loved and wanted child among many other things.  If you're going to force women to give birth to unwanted children you have to carry that thinking through to what happens afterwards - a long term view, if you will.

We don't live in an ideal world, or an ideal society.  We have to work with what we've got.  What we've got isn't great, but I do think it's better than the world you're trying to make for me.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> You're entirely right. Caught me out there. I was born at 55 and have been kept isolated from the rest of society (save for my sole lifeline -- Urban75) ever since.
> 
> I have never been a child; seen one; spoken with one; read about them; discussed them; or have any direct experience or knowledge to bear on the matter.
> 
> I'm amazed at my nerve at voicing an opinion at all. The cheek of it!



having a child to being one is totally different you wazzock- what a waste of words that was above


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> Of course I'm obviously not expecting a full White Paper on this issue, but I think a slightly more expansive statement than 'care of the state' is not unreasonable.



Adoption, fostering, care homes. Nothing very unexpected.

Obviously the details and numbers would very much depend on the situation, but there should be very high standards and a credible regime of inspection and enforcement.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Sweaty Betty said:


> having a child to being one is totally different you wazzock- what a waste of words that was above



Don't call me names.

What makes you more qualified than me on this matter? Nothing from what I can see.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Adoption, fostering, *care homes*. Nothing very unexpected.
> 
> Obviously the details and numbers would very much depend on the situation, but there should be very high standards and a credible regime of inspection and enforcement.



Haut de la Garenne?


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

*For untethered*



equationgirl said:


> What I find interesting is that not once have you said, untethered, that you would gladly look after one of the children resulting from one of the forced pregnancies.
> 
> So, untethered, would you become a parent to such a child?



I'm quite interested in your response to this post, untethered.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Haut de la Garenne?



Please don't be ridiculous.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> I'm quite interested in your response to this post, untethered.



Patience.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Don't call me names.
> 
> What makes you more qualified than me on this matter? Nothing from what I can see.



Ill call you what i want......

Experience and perspective mate...

Id have more time for you if it wasnt for your odious views and the way you seek to inflame while saying you care or even understand what they go thru during pregnancy

You are a sad little boy that lives in la la land- get some fucking perspective!@


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Patience.



You could have answered it then instead of posting something patronising.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Sweaty Betty said:


> I guess he hasnt even thought about how forcing kids on people may result in further abuse and suffering to the kids and death in many cases.....



More than 193,000 deaths a year?

Of course I've considered the issue in the round. There's no need to refer to me in the third person. You can address me directly.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> More than 193,000 deaths a year?
> 
> Of course I've considered the issue in the round. There's no need to refer to me in the third person. You can address me directly.



Yes Sir...


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> You could have answered it then instead of posting something patronising.



And you could have waited more than five minutes for answer as it's very clear that I'm answering other people's posts.


----------



## trashpony (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Please don't be ridiculous.



It's not ridiculous. Do you know anyone who grew up in care? It's pretty shit for most of them. 

Banning abortion would lead to: more illegal abortions (and more deaths of women), more women dying during pregnancy/childbirth, more children being abused, more children growing up without love. But at least we didn't kill them in the womb.


----------



## _angel_ (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Please don't be ridiculous.



You are being very niave if you think abuse does not occur.


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> And you could have waited more than five minutes for answer as it's very clear that I'm answering other people's posts.



My apologies, but there is still no need to be patronising.


----------



## mysterygirl (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> You could have answered it then instead of posting something patronising.



He's working his way through new post by new post pretty much in order, from what I can see.  Im sure he'll get to you (and then me).

Meantime I have to go out for a while, I'll come back later.  Im interested now (I knew I should have stayed away from this thread, I can see it becoming very time consuming).


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> What I find interesting is that not once have you said, untethered, that you would gladly look after one of the children resulting from one of the forced pregnancies.



I find it very interesting that you would expect such a thing. Isn't this the equivalent of those supporting the death penalty having also to be prepared to pull the lever themselves? That those that support a war must be expected to fight in it, regardless of their circumstances?



equationgirl said:


> So, untethered, would you become a parent to such a child?



As it happens I would consider it. The burden would fall on the whole of society. Some people might be more able and more willing to contribute than others.

But the first step would be to encourage people to look after their own children, not other people's.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> My apologies, but there is still no need to be patronising.



How is asking you to be patient being patronising?


----------



## Chairman Meow (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Please do try not to insult me, however wrong you think my views may be.



I'll insult you if I want. After all you are insulting many of my friends, not to mention my intelligence, with your preposterous opinions.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

trashpony said:


> It's not ridiculous. Do you know anyone who grew up in care? It's pretty s- for most of them.



It's always going to be second best at best. Experiences vary from the most tragic to the broadly reasonable.

It's unreasonable to use a place where there has presumably been the most extreme and widespread abuse, which was located in a remote place of a remote island and didn't even operate under mainland UK standards of inspection as typical of the system as a whole at the time, let alone what might be typical in a hypothetical future situation.



trashpony said:


> Banning abortion would lead to: more illegal abortions (and more deaths of women)



No-one would be forced to run that risk, would they?



trashpony said:


> more women dying during pregnancy/childbirth



Not necessarily. It might lead to greater and more effective use of contraception and a lower birth rate than at present.



trashpony said:


> more children being abused



Not necessarily. There are various better ways of tackling child abuse and the system has been improving in recent years. Either way, the solution to abuse is not to kill children pre-emptively.



trashpony said:


> more children growing up without love.



You have a very dismal view of human nature. An unexpected child that is initially unwanted can be loved by its parents and have a stable upbringing. However, it requires effort on the part of the parents. You seem to be arguing that they should never be expected to make that effort.


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

I think it's interesting that you expect women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and then would expect them to look after an unwanted child without resentment, but if they couldn't cope, you wouldn't help.

You have all these ideas, but at the end of the day, YOU won't be doing anything different. You'll quite happily dictate what other people should do with their lives, but it won't change yours.

I've apologised for being impatient, you could have accepted it gracefully.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Chairman Meow said:


> I'll insult you if I want. After all you are insulting many of my friends, not to mention my intelligence, with your preposterous opinions.



If you're here to discuss the issue, please do so.

If you're here to insult me, I'll put you on ignore. You're welcome to do likewise if you find my contributions unacceptable to you in any way.

Your choice.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> I think it's interesting that you expect women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and then would expect them to look after an unwanted child without resentment, but if they couldn't cope, you wouldn't help.



I believe I said I'd consider the matter. At the same time it's important to understand that the burden would be shared by society as a whole. I would be contributing towards that through taxation and political support, if not in any other way.



equationgirl said:


> You have all these ideas, but at the end of the day, YOU won't be doing anything different. You'll quite happily dictate what other people should do with their lives, but it won't change yours.



I suspect that any change in the law would apply to me and Mrs Untethered as well as anyone else, whether it would be limiting our ability to procure a legal abortion or expecting us to contribute taxes towards collective provision for any extra unwanted children that may be the result of this policy.



equationgirl said:


> I've apologised for being impatient, you could have accepted it gracefully.



You're right. Sorry.


----------



## _angel_ (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> It's always going to be second best at best. Experiences vary from the most tragic to the broadly reasonable.
> 
> It's unreasonable to use a place where there has presumably been the most extreme and widespread abuse, which was located in a remote place of a remote island and didn't even operate under mainland UK standards of inspection as typical of the system as a whole at the time, let alone what might be typical in a hypothetical future situation.
> 
> ...



I doubt it.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I doubt it.



It's often said that many women use abortion as a form of "contraception". I've no idea to what extent this is true. Perhaps there has been some research; perhaps not.

Either way, I would reasonably expect the unavailability of legal abortion to make many people take much greater care over contraception.


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

I would expect that if legal abortion were not widely available then illegal abortionists would flourish.

Now we're back 50 years or so.


----------



## Chairman Meow (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> If you're here to discuss the issue, please do so.
> 
> If you're here to insult me, I'll put you on ignore. You're welcome to do likewise if you find my contributions unacceptable to you in any way.
> 
> Your choice.



I wouldn't waste my time or energy arguing with you. I won't put you on ignore though, I prefer to know my enemy. Feel free to do what you like though.


----------



## _angel_ (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> It's often said that many women use abortion as a form of "contraception". I've no idea to what extent this is true. Perhaps there has been some research; perhaps not.
> 
> Either way, I would reasonably expect the unavailability of legal abortion to make many people take much greater care over contraception.



In some cases, maybe. You wouldn't catch me having an abortion as 'contraception' though.

Which is more inconvenient an operation that is going to make you feel like shit, medically and emotionally or using a condom?


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Very true. Those claiming the supposed right to do whatever they like with "their body" should realise that their premise is fundamentally wrong.
> 
> It's also wrong in the sense that it is at least arguable (though many do not accept) that the unborn child isn't a woman's body, but a separate person contained within the woman's body. The food in your stomach isn't part of you, it's just inside you. I've no idea why so many people find this a difficult concept to grasp. Things are contained within other things all the time, without the contained thing becoming part of the container.



Three days with no posts and you decide to bump this thread.

You've already given your views over and over and over and over again already.

You want to do more of the same?

We could ask the mods to rename the thread 'untethered's views on abortion' and leave you to state them over and over again, shouting into an empty thread.


----------



## Meltingpot (May 26, 2008)

Sweaty Betty said:


> Yes Sir...



This is an emotive subject for all of us. Can't we all take a deep breath before we say anything else?


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> Three days with no posts and you decide to bump this thread.



Other people seem happy to continue the discussion even if you're not.

Perhaps you could leave us to it, or does your criticism also apply to everyone else here as well as me?


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> I would expect that if legal abortion were not widely available then illegal abortionists would flourish.
> 
> Now we're back 50 years or so.



That's an obvious downside, but I see that situation as being _less bad_ than the widespread legal abortion that occurs at present.

For the sake of clarity, that doesn't mean that I think that illegal abortions are a good thing.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> In some cases, maybe. You wouldn't catch me having an abortion as 'contraception' though.
> 
> Which is more inconvenient an operation that is going to make you feel like s-, medically and emotionally or using a condom?



Well quite. Although we all know that sometimes people's approach to sex and relationships is anything but rational. Still, we might hope that the unavailability of a legal "fall-back option" would improve matters.


----------



## spanglechick (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> That's an obvious downside, but I see that situation as being _less bad_ than the widespread legal abortion that occurs at present.
> 
> For the sake of clarity, that doesn't mean that I think that illegal abortions are a good thing.



and an increase in the deaths (through medical complications or suicide) of actual, born, sentient individuals (and of course the foetuses living inside them?) That's a price worth paying too?


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Other people seem happy to continue the discussion even if you're not.
> 
> Perhaps you could leave us to it, or does your criticism also apply to everyone else here as well as me?



Happy to discuss it? Or unhappy to leave a thread with your unpleasant views as the last word?

There are posters like Sas that have decided views on abortion but that exercise some judgment in terms of when they post them and what they say.

What on earth made you bump this thread again when you could have just left it for the next time the subject came up?

But yes, ok, carry on if you want to repeat.

You never actually answered the question of whether believed you had any children of your own.

Do you?


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> That's an obvious downside, but I see that situation as being _less bad_ than the widespread legal abortion that occurs at present.
> 
> For the sake of clarity, that doesn't mean that I think that illegal abortions are a good thing.



Illegal abortions less bad? Would you like to carry them out?

What methods do you suggest for carrying them out?

Unless you think they wouldn't happen?


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> and an increase in the deaths (through medical complications or suicide) of actual, born, sentient individuals (and of course the foetuses living inside them?) That's a price worth paying too?



Where people are injured and killed through illegal abortions, a large part of the responsibility lies with those performing them. No-one is compelled to seek one, but at least those seeking them may sometimes be swayed by their emotions. Those providing illegal abortions have no such excuse.


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Well quite. Although we all know that sometimes people's approach to sex and relationships is anything but rational. Still, we might hope that the unavailability of a legal "fall-back option" would improve matters.




Improve in what way - your vaunted celibacy route?


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Where people are injured and killed through illegal abortions, a large part of the responsibility lies with those performing them. No-one is compelled to seek one, but at least those seeking them may sometimes be swayed by their emotions. Those providing illegal abortions have no such excuse.




If abortion were illegal, there'd be a whole new market for illegal abortions with no restrictions on the methods used.

You'd be happy with that?


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> Happy to discuss it? Or unhappy to leave a thread with your unpleasant views as the last word?



You won't be surprised to hear that I'm not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent. I've been off the boards for a few days. When I returned, there were some points on this thread I wanted to follow up. Others were happy to join me.

Now is it fine with you for us to carry on? You can always unsubscribe if you're not willing to continue reading.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> Improve in what way - your vaunted celibacy route?



I support both abstinence and the informed and skilled use of contraception for those that are best able to benefit from each.


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> You won't be surprised to hear that I'm not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent. I've been off the boards for a few days. When I returned, there were some points on this thread I wanted to follow up. Others were happy to join me.
> 
> Now is it fine with you for us to carry on? You can always unsubscribe if you're not willing to continue reading.




No, as I said, although you selectively didn't quote it : carry on.

Have you any children y/n?


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> If abortion were illegal, there'd be a whole new market for illegal abortions with no restrictions on the methods used.
> 
> You'd be happy with that?



I'm very unhappy about anyone having an abortion under any circumstances. However, I think it's implicit that much greater regulation of abortion would have some negative effects. They have to be seen in the context of the policy as a whole, rather than something which as you seem to be suggesting, must be avoided at all costs.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> No, as I said, although you selectively didn't quote it : carry on.
> 
> Have you any children y/n?



That's none of your business. However, I fail to see the relevance?

Is having an opinion on abortion only available to those with children? Or perhaps, those without them?


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I support both abstinence and the informed and skilled use of contraception for those that are best able to benefit from each.



Really. 

How do you know that Mrs untethered isn't practicing methods that you wouldn't approve of?


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> Really.
> 
> How do you know that Mrs untethered isn't practicing methods that you wouldn't approve of?



I'm not here to discuss any aspect of my personal life that I don't specifically raise myself.


----------



## spanglechick (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Where people are injured and killed through illegal abortions, a large part of the responsibility lies with those performing them. No-one is compelled to seek one, but at least those seeking them may sometimes be swayed by their emotions. Those providing illegal abortions have no such excuse.



i'm not talking about illegal abortions, actually (though now you come to metion it, it does lend a little to my arguement).  I'm talking about factors outside of anyone's control - such as suicidal depression - or the fact that even for a perfectly healthy woman with free access to first world medical support, pregnancy and childbirth are the single most life-threatening state she could enter into.  

to compel an unwilling person to a medical condition that poses more chance of killing them than any other they are likely to encounter is one thing - to accept that increased death rate of actual, sentient, born individuals as being preferable to the termination and disposal of potential human beings is a very  extreme proposition.


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> That's none of your business. However, I fail to see the relevance?
> 
> Is having an opinion on abortion only available to those with children? Or perhaps, those without them?



It's relevant in terms of placing you as a first hand observer of pregnancy or a theoretical observer of pregnancy


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'm not here to discuss any aspect of my personal life that I don't specifically raise myself.



But you're quite happy to discuss pregnancy and abortion which can never happen to you, and is probably the most personal aspect of any of the lives of women posting on this thread.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> It's often said that many women use abortion as a form of "contraception". I've no idea to what extent this is true.



No, son, you don't.



untethered said:


> Well quite. Although we all know that sometimes people's approach to sex and relationships is anything but rational.


No, son, it isn't.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> i'm not talking about illegal abortions, actually (though now you come to metion it, it does lend a little to my arguement).  I'm talking about factors outside of anyone's control - such as suicidal depression - or the fact that even for a perfectly healthy woman with free access to first world medical support, pregnancy and childbirth are the single most life-threatening state she could enter into.



Well it simply isn't true. Try fighting a war or visiting a place were an infectious disease is prevalent. Try climbing high peaks in Winter or trekking to the South Pole.

Pregnancy is a natural state. It is one that in most cases the woman has accepted the possibility of willingly. In most cases, the woman survives it perfectly well.



spanglechick said:


> to compel an unwilling person to a medical condition that poses more chance of killing them than any other they are likely to encounter is one thing - to accept that increased death rate of actual, sentient, born individuals as being preferable to the termination and disposal of potential human beings is a very  extreme proposition.



It would seem so, unless you're coming from the viewpoint that an unborn child is a separate human being with a right to life. In that case, every negative effect of greater regulation on abortion has to be weighed against the current 193,000 legal abortions a year in this country.

I'm sure you could think of many negative consequences and risks you'd be prepared to tolerate to save the lives of 193,000 people per year. I know that's not how you see it, but it's how I see it.


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'm very unhappy about anyone having an abortion under any circumstances. However, I think it's implicit that much greater regulation of abortion would have some negative effects. They have to be seen in the context of the policy as a whole, rather than something which as you seem to be suggesting, must be avoided at all costs.



The 'negative effects' as you term them would be creating a market for illegal abortions.

So that's what you want to do - in a nutshell. Create a market for illegal abortions.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Donna Ferentes said:


> No, son, it isn't.



You seem to be confused about the best way to discuss a sensitive and serious subject. Perhaps you would be wise to reflect further before you continue.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> The 'negative effects' as you term them would be creating a market for illegal abortions.
> 
> So that's what you want to do - in a nutshell. Create a market for illegal abortions.



Logically that doesn't follow. Just because a _consequence _of trying to do a thing is another thing doesn't mean that the other thing is what one is trying to achieve.


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> You seem to be confused about the best way to discuss a sensitive and serious subject. Perhaps you would be wise to reflect further before you continue.



You are offensive and bumped the thread in order to continue with your swear free offence. Perhaps you would be wise to reflect on that?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

Look son. An absolute prerequisite for the right to pontificate on ethics is some knowledge of human beings, their character and nature and the circumstances in which they operate. Apart from anything else, this is because people rarely listen to people who speak from a position of ignorance.

You have very little or none of this and you don't much care about it. This lack of experience doesn't make you more cautious, as it should: it has rather the opposite effect.

You are perfectly happy to make some very large and very priggish assumptions about the inability of other people to demonstrate responsibility, but you have absolutely no awareness of the complete absence of ethical and intellectual responsibility which you exhibit every time you pontificate on this subject. And, I must say, more than a few others.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> You are offensive and bumped the thread in order to continue with your swear free offence. Perhaps you would be wise to reflect on that?



Do you want to discuss the topic or just abuse me?


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Logically that doesn't follow. Just because a _consequence _of trying to do a thing is another thing doesn't mean that the other thing is what one is trying to achieve.



Perhaps we should have a poll. It would only be a limited sample size based on urban women but possibly quite useful.

Poll question:

If abortion was made illegal in the UK and you had an unwanted pregnancy, would you (a) have an illegal abortion (b) go to a jurisdiction where abortion was legal (if you had the money; or (c) have the child.


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Do you want to discuss the topic or just abuse me?



You were abusing Donna. Don't you like it when that's turned back on you?


----------



## spanglechick (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Well it simply isn't true. Try fighting a war or visiting a place were an infectious disease is prevalent. Try climbing high peaks in Winter or trekking to the South Pole.
> 
> Pregnancy is a natural state. It is one that in most cases the woman has accepted the possibility of willingly. In most cases, the woman survives it perfectly well.
> 
> ...



all the examples you give as being hazardous are optional - as, thankfully is pregancy - but you would rather it were not optional if the preliminary preventative of contraception or absitinence has not been fulfilled (being the fault of one, both or neither party).  

the idea of pregnancy being the most medically hazardous phase of a woman's (of child bearing age's) life was given to me by my GP when she was enabling me to abort the foetus I concieved through the deception of the man i'd slept with.  

I coulld google to look up its veracity - and maybe tomorrow i will - but i've had only three hours sleep in the last two days and i can't face google right now.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Donna Ferentes said:


> You have very little or none of this and you don't much care about it. This lack of experience doesn't make you more cautious, as it should: it has rather the opposite effect.



You can infer what you like. You know very little about me personally, my background or life experiences. No matter what they may be, I hope I'm entitled to want to explore the issues, hold an opinion and discuss the merits of others'. I'm well aware that you don't agree with my views, but your objection seems to be that I appear unqualified to hold any views at all.

That seems a little snobbish to me.

Are you implying that anyone with suitable qualifications would hold views more similar to yours, or just that I haven't yet reached the stage where holding the views I have currently is justifiable?


----------



## spanglechick (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> Perhaps we should have a poll. It would only be a limited sample size based on urban women but possibly quite useful.
> 
> Poll question:
> 
> If abortion was made illegal in the UK and you had an unwanted pregnancy, would you (a) have an illegal abortion (b) go to a jurisdiction where abortion was legal (if you had the money; or (c) have the child.



i would: b), if not possible follwed by a), if not possible followed, i'm afraid and predict by d) (kill myself)


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> You were abusing Donna. Don't you like it when that's turned back on you?



I think a reasonable view would be that Donna is giving at least as much as he gets.

It's undeniable that he's quite capable of speaking for himself.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> Perhaps we should have a poll. It would only be a limited sample size based on urban women but possibly quite useful.



I imagine it wouldn't be the size but the composition of the sample that would make such an exercise little more than interesting.


----------



## fractionMan (May 26, 2008)

oh look, he's crawled back out from his rock


----------



## toggle (May 26, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> i would: b), if not possible follwed by a), if not possible followed, i'm afraid and predict by d) (kill myself)



b followed by a in my case. 

I am preggers atm, and the thought of forcing someone to go through this against their will is absolutely abhorrent to me. An easy pregnancy is hard to cope with at times, a more difficult one causes no end of problems, some of which are permanent.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> the idea of pregnancy being the most medically hazardous phase of a woman's (of child bearing age's) life was given to me by my GP when she was enabling me to abort the foetus I concieved through the deception of the man i'd slept with.



I'm not sure any of this is relevant. Pregnancy may be the most hazardous stage of the average woman's life, but it doesn't follow from there that a woman should necessarily be allowed to abort her unwanted child.

If you want to look up something, you might want to find the number of healthy mothers per 1000 childbirths.


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> but your objection seems to be that I appear unqualified to hold any views at all.



Unless you've been pregnant, you're views are based on a position of observation at best.

Unless you've been in a homosexual relationship, your views are based on a position of observation at best.

Unless you've experienced these things, why would views based on your observation be more valid than views based on personal experience?


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I think a reasonable view would be that Donna is giving at least as much as he gets.
> 
> It's undeniable that he's quite capable of speaking for himself.



As am I


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> You can infer what you like. You know very little about me personally, my background or life experiences. No matter what they may be, I hope I'm entitled to want to explore the issues, hold an opinion and discuss the merits of others'. I'm well aware that you don't agree with my views, but your objection seems to be that I appear unqualified to hold any views at all.


My objection is that you can't talk about this or most other subjects without doing so from a position of ignorance. It's plain to see, whatever your background or life experiences are, they cannot have been very wide-ranging.


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> i would: b), if not possible follwed by a), if not possible followed, i'm afraid and predict by d) (kill myself)





It might be a good poll to start


(again)


----------



## spanglechick (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'm not sure any of this is relevant. Pregnancy may be the most hazardous stage of the average woman's life, but it doesn't follow from there that a woman should necessarily be allowed to abort her unwanted child.
> 
> If you want to look up something, you might want to find the number of healthy mothers per 1000 childbirths.



it's relevant if you want to keep as many actual, live, born human beings as possible alive.  it would be an odd thing for the state to mandate a person to continue with a course of action that has a greater chance of killing them than the one you seek to forbid.


----------



## _angel_ (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Pregnancy is a natural state. It is one that in most cases the woman has accepted the possibility of willingly. In most cases, the woman survives it perfectly well.
> 
> 
> 
> .



A lot of things are natural like illness and death.

Please don't be dismissive of the physical and emotional demands of a pregnancy. A woman is more at risk of death than any other time, apparently.

I have a friend who's basically got to stay at home for months now cos of complications with pregnancy.


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I imagine it wouldn't be the size but the composition of the sample that would make such an exercise little more than interesting.



What do you mean?


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> Unless you've been pregnant, you're views are based on a position of observation at best.
> 
> Unless you've been in a homosexual relationship, your views are based on a position of observation at best.
> 
> Unless you've experienced these things, why would views based on your observation be more valid than views based on personal experience?



I didn't say _more _valid, though perhaps I implied _as _valid.

These are not personal matters. They affect the whole of society in one way or another. The context in which people have sex, form relationships, have children and raise them affects everyone.

Do you have views on the Iraq war? Are you or have you been in the forces? Are you qualified in international law or relations? Have you been directly affected by it?

Whatever your experiences or qualifications, matters that affect the whole of society are for all of us to discuss and determine.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> What do you mean?



A sample of Urban75 readers would be about as applicable to the general population as that of Catholic Herald readers.

By all means create a new thread and a poll, but I doubt it'd tell you anything very useful.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> It might be a good poll to start
> 
> 
> (again)



I don't see why a poll is necessary tbh. It's not as if there aren't plenty of current and historical examples of places where abortion has been illegal.

This news story cites the number of women killed or injured through illegal abortions in Peru alone at 50,000 per year. I'm sure you could look up stats all day if you were required.

Obviously in untethered-land all the bad women will behave themselves as he sees fit but anywhere else it's pretty clear what the consequences of a ban are.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I didn't say _more _valid, though perhaps I implied _as _valid.
> 
> These are not personal matters. They affect the whole of society in one way or another. The context in which people have sex, form relationships, have children and raise them affects everyone.


Explain to us then how *you personally* are affected by a woman having an abortion.


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

It's the only area, the only one, where women can choose.

And choose to die to keep that choice if they want.

Suck it up, untethered.


----------



## mysterygirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> It would seem so, unless you're coming from the viewpoint that an unborn child is a separate human being with a right to life.



Of course an unborn child has a right to life, no-body is saying otherwise.  But you seem to be saying that the pregnant woman immediately ceases to have any rights at all?  She _does_ have rights - take for instance equation girl's rights - if pregnancy could / would kill her, what about _her _right to life?

How do you feel about the morning after pill?  Isn't is essentially an abortion?  

Rape - iirc, abortion is more acceptable to you in the case of a woman who's been raped?  Why?  Surely an unborn child resulting from a rape cannot be held responsible and by your reasoning has just as much right to life as any other unborn child?  



cesare said:


> Perhaps we should have a poll. It would only be a limited sample size based on urban women but possibly quite useful.
> 
> Poll question:
> 
> If abortion was made illegal in the UK and you had an unwanted pregnancy, would you (a) have an illegal abortion (b) go to a jurisdiction where abortion was legal (if you had the money; or (c) have the child.



It would depend on my circumstances and mental health.  d) suicide (already mentioned by someone else) would be on my list of options.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> Explain to us then how *you personally* are affected by a woman having an abortion.



Unless it's someone close to me, I'm not. So what?


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> Suck it up, untethered.



Do you think I should let you goad me for a few more posts, or would it save everyone's time just to put you on ignore right now?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> You can infer what you like. You know very little about me personally, my background or life experiences. No matter what they may be, I hope I'm entitled to want to explore the issues, hold an opinion and discuss the merits of others'. I'm well aware that you don't agree with my views, but your objection seems to be that I appear unqualified to hold any views at all.


No, my objection is that you have no appreciation whatsoever either of the need to consider other people's motives and problems very seriously before making judgements on them, or of the relationship between one's knowledge of a subject and one's confidence in one's opinions thereupon.

In normal circumstances this would just be a bit twattish, but given the severity of your judgements of other people, and the seriousness of the topics involved, it's rather worse than that.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Unless it's someone close to me, I'm not. So what?


So you can pontificate to the women close to you(if there are any), and leave the rest free to choose then, yes?


----------



## trashpony (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Unless it's someone close to me, I'm not. So what?



So until you are in the position, I really don't think you've got a fucking clue. Contraception fails, people fuck up. Bringing unwanted children into the world is a recipe for misery for their parents and the children themselves. I can't see how this is better than the current situation.

My dad always says that he doesn't think male MPs should be allowed to vote on abortion. I've always thought this a rather misandrist POV but I can see his perspective sometimes. But then he has watched his wife nearly die during pregnancy twice so I suppose he's rather biased.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

mysterygirl said:


> Of course an unborn child has a right to life, no-body is saying otherwise.



They're saying precisely otherwise. Most people that support abortion don't think of the foetus as a person at all. It may be disposed of at the mother's request.



mysterygirl said:


> But you seem to be saying that the pregnant woman immediately ceases to have any rights at all?  She _does_ have rights - take for instance equation girl's rights - if pregnancy could / would kill her, what about _her _right to life?



I didn't say that pregnant women should cease to have any rights, just cease to have the right to have an abortion except where medically necessary.



mysterygirl said:


> How do you feel about the morning after pill?  Isn't is essentially an abortion?



Yes, it is. I'm against it.



mysterygirl said:


> Rape - iirc, abortion is more acceptable to you in the case of a woman who's been raped?  Why?  Surely an unborn child resulting from a rape cannot be held responsible and by your reasoning has just as much right to life as any other unborn child?



Absolutely. An unborn child has a right to live, however they may have been conceived.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

sleaterkinney said:


> So you can pontificate to the women close to you(if there are any), and leave the rest free to choose then, yes?



I've got no idea how you worked that out.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Absolutely. An unborn child has a right to live, however they may have been conceived.



Ah, that confident "absolutely" there. How much misery religious people have managed to inflict in the name of "absolutely".


----------



## toggle (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> I didn't say that pregnant women should cease to have any rights, just cease to have the right to have an abortion except where medically necessary.



actually, every abortion in this country is carried out on the grounds that 2 doctors think it is medically necessary.......


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

Of course this all stands or falls on the bizarre notion that an "unborn child" is in any real sense a human being like the rest of us. It's not, of course, but once you assume it is, then it has that magic quality of all dogmatic assumptions - it anables you to override every other consideration.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

Donna Ferentes said:


> No, my objection is that you have no appreciation whatsoever either of the need to consider other people's motives and problems very seriously before making judgements on them, or of the relationship between one's knowledge of a subject and one's confidence in one's opinions thereupon.



If it puts your mind at rest, I've lived long enough to have been in many situations and to have known enough people to have a reasonably good idea how people think and act. People are reckless. People make mistakes. People change their minds. Circumstances change. Accidents happen, etc.

I've also been in a number of relationships and I'm currently in one.

Do you think I live in a vacuum?


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

toggle said:


> actually, every abortion in this country is carried out on the grounds that 2 doctors think it is medically necessary.......



And everyone knows that this is in most cases abortion on demand, the only issue being able to find two doctors who will sign for absolutely anyone.

And that's not very hard usually.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> If it puts your mind at rest, I've lived long enough to have been in many situations and to have known enough people to have a reasonably good idea how people think and act.


No son, you've not acquired that latter by any manner of means.



untethered said:


> I've also been in a number of relationships and I'm currently in one.


Could you define "relationship" for the purposes of this thread?


----------



## mysterygirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> They're saying precisely otherwise. Most people that support abortion don't think of the foetus as a person at all. It may be disposed of at the mother's request.



I disagree, tbh.  I don't think there's a single person posting here who seriously believes that an unborn child does not have a right to life.  I think they're saying that the mother has the right to choose not to go ahead with the pregnancy, which is not quite the same thing IMO.




untethered said:


> I didn't say that pregnant women should cease to have any rights, just cease to have the right to have an abortion except where medically necessary.



You're saying that as soon as a woman falls pregnant she has no right to physical or mental health as the unborn child takes precedence.  You also said you were unsure about equation girl's right to life as in her instance her hypothetical unborn child might take precedence.  If you refuse the right to physical and mental health, and potentially life itself, I don't see many rights being left to the mother. 




untethered said:


> Absolutely. An unborn child has a right to live, however they may have been conceived.



I thought you said earlier that rape may be considered differently however I may recall incorrectly, apologies if so.


----------



## fractionMan (May 26, 2008)

god he goes on doesn't he?


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

I'm waiting to see if the argument for girls' reformatory schools is presented, or if women shouldn't be educated, or allowed to vote.

I have to admit, I find untethered's views strange in this day and age, and they make me sad 

But then, if I was ever in the position of considering an abortion, I wouldn't let his views affect my decision


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Do you think I should let you goad me for a few more posts, or would it save everyone's time just to put you on ignore right now?



Put me on ignore so I can say what I want without you responding


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Do you think I live in a vacuum?



Yes.

Because there's so much that you don't know for sure. Including what the current Mrs Untethered/s are up to, being as you don't allow them overt choice. You want to control their bodies.


----------



## Poot (May 26, 2008)

People.

Untethered places the life of the foetus above the life of its mother. This is his absolute view. You're not going to change this view. Is there really any point in addressing his views? There are no interesting grey areas here where people are suddenly going to learn anything new. We're all just going to get frustrated.


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

Untethered, consider this (if you want).

One day you might be in a relationship where your partner becomes pregnant, maybe as a result of her being raped. And you would try and force her to have the child of another man's rape.

She might suicide rather than do that.

You would be the cause of two deaths.


----------



## mysterygirl (May 26, 2008)

Poot said:


> People.
> 
> Untethered places the life of the foetus above the life of its mother. This is his absolute view. You're not going to change this view. Is there really any point in addressing his views? There are no interesting grey areas here where people are suddenly going to learn anything new. We're all just going to get frustrated.




Im not trying to change his view, he may be trying to change mine but I won't.

Many people place the life of the foetus above that of the mother but not as extremely as untethered seems to.  Im interested in trying to understand his point of view better, as it seems harsh to me.  But I won't come round to it, that's true.


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

What would you be prepared to do, untethered? In that situation?

Force feed her so she doesn't starve herself? Keep watch over her day and night so she doesn't kill herself?

Keep her from fleeing to make sure she didn't abort the rapist's child?

What lengths are you prepared to go to in order to assert the rights of these cluster of cells over her?


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

If I was in a relationship with a man that was trying to force me to bear the child of another man's rape - I would contemplate suicide if there was no other way out.

Am I the only woman to think this?


----------



## toggle (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> If I was in a relationship with a man that was trying to force me to bear the child of another man's rape - I would contemplate suicide if there was no other way out.
> 
> Am I the only woman to think this?



depends how much anatomy/physiology knowledge i could get. I'd try everything i could to get it out of me first. i'd probably be tempted to carve the bloke into pieces as well.


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> If I was in a relationship with a man that was trying to force me to bear the child of another man's rape - I would contemplate suicide if there was no other way out.
> 
> Am I the only woman to think this?



No. Definitely not.



toggle said:


> i'd probably be tempted to carve the bloke into pieces as well.



Oh yes. With a blunt spoon and no anaesthetics.

Criminalising abortion again would force desperate women to do desperate things.


----------



## ajdown (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> You would be the cause of two deaths.



How come?

When it's "the man's fault", the foetus suddenly becomes a person and is 'killed' by the man?

Yet when a woman chooses to abort, it's just exercising her rights over her own body and nothing else?  Many people have argued that a foetus isn't a real person until it's born.

Can't have it both ways.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2008)

ajdown said:


> How come?
> 
> When it's "the man's fault", the foetus suddenly becomes a person and is 'killed' by the man?
> 
> ...


----------



## mysterygirl (May 26, 2008)

ajdown said:


> How come?



Untethered argues that the unborn child's rights outweigh that of the mother.  By his own reasoning, if the mother is dies or is killed & the unborn child dies with her then that must be two deaths.

Well, that's how I read it anyway.


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

Me too - cesare was asking what he would do and how he would feel about the two deaths he would have caused.

He's not answered though, must have gone elsewhere.


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

If untethered was able to make me bear that rapist's child, I would wait until untethered wasn't looking and then top myself, so he'd have to bring it up.


----------



## ajdown (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> Me too - cesare was asking what he would do and how he would feel about the two deaths he would have caused.



But when did this 'little lump of cells' suddenly become a person that can die?

Earlier on in the discussion, when this little lump of cells is aborted, it's not a person, it's not 'killed', it's just 'removed' by a woman 'exercising her rights over her own body'.

If the woman dies because of direct action by the man (in the example given, 'forcing' her to keep the baby) then that's apparently wrong, but when the baby dies because of direct action by the woman (ie abortion) that's suddenly acceptable?


----------



## spring-peeper (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> If untethered was able to make me bear that rapist's child, I would wait until untethered wasn't looking and then top myself, so he'd have to bring it up.



You would kill yourself and leave your child to be raised by the rapist?


----------



## cesare (May 26, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> You would kill yourself and leave your child to be raised by the rapist?



No. I would kill myself and leave the child to be raised by the man that forced me to bear the rapist's child.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> No. I would kill myself and leave the child to be raised by the man that forced me to bear the rapist's child.



I think that's what's known as 'cutting off your nose to spite your face.'


----------



## spring-peeper (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> No. I would kill myself and leave the child to be raised by the man that forced me to bear the rapist's child.



Your child would be put up for adoption.  duh!!!


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

I'm not saying I think it would be two deaths, we're asking untethered how he would feel about causing two deaths _as defined by his (untethered's) logic_.


----------



## spanglechick (May 26, 2008)

ajdown said:


> But when did this 'little lump of cells' suddenly become a person that can die?
> 
> Earlier on in the discussion, when this little lump of cells is aborted, it's not a person, it's not 'killed', it's just 'removed' by a woman 'exercising her rights over her own body'.
> 
> If the woman dies because of direct action by the man (in the example given, 'forcing' her to keep the baby) then that's apparently wrong, but when the baby dies because of direct action by the woman (ie abortion) that's suddenly acceptable?



by the terms of untethered's debate, (since it was he who suggested women wouldn't be allowed to abort, one has to test his premise by his own standards) there would be two lives lost.

by my standards, it would be only one (and the sad extinguishing of the potentiality of life) - but since i'm not advocatig forcing women to carry unwanted pregancies - i don't need to justify that scenario.  From my perspective it's even worse - not the jeopardy of two lives for the sake of one, but the jeopardy of one life for the sake of none.


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> Your child would be put up for adoption.  duh!!!



Put in the 'care of the state', you irresponsible woman!


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> by the terms of untethered's debate, (since it was he who suggested women wouldn't be allowed to abort, one has to test his premise by his own standards) there would be two lives lost.
> 
> by my standards, it would be only one (and the sad extinguishing of the potentiality of life) - but since i'm not advocatig forcing women to carry unwanted pregancies - i don't need to justify that scenario.  From my perspective it's even worse - not the jeopardy of two lives for the sake of one, but the jeopardy of one life for the sake of none.



Plus what spangles says, far more eloquently than I can.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> Put in the 'care of the state', you irresponsible woman!



...and the state would put the child up for adoption.

Why am I irresponsible?


----------



## spanglechick (May 26, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> Your child would be put up for adoption.  duh!!!



along with the sudden thousands of other babies born of unwanted pregnancies, and the older childer initially kept by parents who actually didn't want and we ill eqipeed to cope with them, before having to place them in the care system at a later date.  but that's ok, because there will somehow be a corresponding rise in the numbers of adoptive parents, even for older kids, won't there?

and if not - well, an inspection programme and everyone ensuring high standards will eliminate the problems of growing up in care (because of course, nobody wants the very best for te care system now...)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 26, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> by the terms of untethered's debate, (since it was he who suggested women wouldn't be allowed to abort, one has to test his premise by his own standards) there would be two lives lost..



How can you take seriously, anything said by someone who would force women to carry the children of rapists?

That's either a troll, or else a mushbrain.


----------



## mysterygirl (May 26, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> How can you take seriously, anything said by someone who would force women to carry the children of rapists?
> 
> That's either a troll, or else a mushbrain.



Go back a couple of pages - only needs to be a couple - it will give you the gist of why what's being said now is being said......... iyswim........


----------



## spring-peeper (May 26, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> along with the sudden thousands of other babies born of unwanted pregnancies, and the older childer initially kept by parents who actually didn't want and we ill eqipeed to cope with them, before having to place them in the care system at a later date.  but that's ok, because there will somehow be a corresponding rise in the numbers of adoptive parents, even for older kids, won't there?
> 
> and if not - well, an inspection programme and everyone ensuring high standards will eliminate the problems of growing up in care (because of course, nobody wants the very best for te care system now...)



Thousands?  Where the heck did you get thousands?

oh - i get it - you think i'm anti-abortion and the thousands would be all now-aborted fetus!!!


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> ...and the state would put the child up for adoption.
> 
> Why am I irresponsible?



No, no! Not you personally! I meant we're all irresponsible women in untethered's eyes!!

Sorry sorry sorry.


----------



## mysterygirl (May 26, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> Thousands?  Where the heck did you get thousands?



untethered said there were 193,000 abortions in England & Wales in 2006. Stop the abortions, you get 193,000 extra babies born a year.


If everyone goes back a couple of pages it will be much clearer........


----------



## spring-peeper (May 26, 2008)

equationgirl said:


> No, no! Not you personally! I meant we're all irresponsible women in untethered's eyes!!
> 
> Sorry sorry sorry.



Thanks for clearing that up.

As for the irresponsible part, it's his f'ing sperm that is being irresponsible, not us.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

cesare said:


> Untethered, consider this (if you want).
> 
> One day you might be in a relationship where your partner becomes pregnant, maybe as a result of her being raped. And you would try and force her to have the child of another man's rape.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't try to _force_ anyone to bear a child in that situation. I'm assuming that the context here is the current one; legally-available abortion effectively on demand.

I would try to persuade her not to have the abortion, but I wouldn't and probably couldn't stop her.

So while the outcome you suggest I would view as two deaths, it would be unlikely to occur. If it did, I wouldn't be the cause of it.

If the law prohibited abortion, things might be different.


----------



## untethered (May 26, 2008)

mysterygirl said:


> untethered said there were 193,000 abortions in England & Wales in 2006. Stop the abortions, you get 193,000 extra babies born a year.



Very poor logic.


----------



## mysterygirl (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Very poor logic.



  how so?  If you stop aborting 193,000 unborn children why don't you end up with the same number of extra babies?


----------



## Poot (May 26, 2008)

untethered said:


> Very poor logic.



Yeah, you'd probably get about 50,000 extra babies and a whole lot of women bleeding to death after illegal abortions and many afraid to go to a doctor for fear of arrest. So that's better.


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

I _suppose_ you could knock off 1/6th of 193,000 because of natural miscarriage, but I don't think that's mathematically correct, as you don't know WHY these abortions were being carried out in the first place, e.g. unsurvivable birth defects.


----------



## equationgirl (May 26, 2008)

Poot said:


> Yeah, you'd probably get about 50,000 extra babies and a whole lot of women bleeding to death after illegal abortions and many afraid to go to a doctor for fear of arrest. So that's better.



Don't forget the rise in infertility through botched abortions, and the rise in infections and septacaemia!


----------



## mentalchik (May 26, 2008)

This is almost a pointless argument neither side is going to change it's mind or agree.........


----------



## ymu (May 27, 2008)

untethered said:


> That's an obvious downside, but I see that situation as being _less bad_ than the widespread legal abortion that occurs at present.
> 
> For the sake of clarity, that doesn't mean that I think that illegal abortions are a good thing.


Surely there is a much better solution available which will eliminate both unwanted pregnancy and abortion (legal or illegal)? We simply require all boys to have their sperm frozen and then have a vasectomy shortly after their first productive ejaculation. 

This procedure could be done in a few hours with less need for analgesia than many women use during childbirth and at virtually zero risk of serious complications. The financial cost of the procedure is less than that of childbirth, and the cost of storing sperm would be trivial compared to that of bringing up hundreds of thousands of unwanted children. Both men and women would be able to choose exactly when and with whom to have children.

Sorted.


----------



## cesare (May 27, 2008)

ymu said:


> Surely there is a much better solution available which will eliminate both unwanted pregnancy and abortion (legal or illegal)? We simply require all boys to have their sperm frozen and then have a vasectomy shortly after their first productive ejaculation.
> 
> This procedure could be done in a few hours with less need for analgesia than many women use during childbirth and at virtually zero risk of serious complications. The financial cost of the procedure is less than that of childbirth, and the cost of storing sperm would be trivial compared to that of bringing up hundreds of thousands of unwanted children. Both men and women would be able to choose exactly when and with whom to have children.
> 
> Sorted.


----------



## cesare (May 27, 2008)

Actually ymu, I'd never really considered that before. It's quite inspired as a win-win solution. 

Just think, all that money saved from no more need for ongoing contraception that might not be 100% effective. No more unwanted pregnancies. No risk of creating a market for illegal abortionists. No more unwanted children being put up for adoption. Control the world's population levels.

Relatively pain-free. A simple pre-emptive snip instead of 9 months of carrying an unwanted embryo/foetus (with scans, and medical monitoring etc) followed by labour sometimes involving CS. Much more cost effective. AND it would stop all those single women that have a kid just to get council accommodation and live on benefits.

I can't see any down-side tbh. Maybe women should campaign for this instead?


----------



## cesare (May 27, 2008)

No need for abortion clinics


----------



## cesare (May 27, 2008)

'A simple snip for a Better Britain'


----------



## the button (May 27, 2008)

cesare said:


> 'A simple snip for a Better Britain'





Of course, you'd need to install snip facilities at every port of entry into the UK. A single male asylum seeker can produce enough unwanted pregnancies to populate a town the size of Stoke-on-Trent every three weeks. I read it in the papers.


----------



## the button (May 27, 2008)

Thinking about it, this fits in exactly with Gordon Brown's plans to introduce a sense of civic responsibility into Britain's youth.

It could become a rite of passage for every adolescent boy in Britain. Crack one off for Blighty, then into the freezer, and *snip*.


----------



## cesare (May 27, 2008)

Instead of hanging about on street corners terrorising old ladies, they could be contributing to the sperm banks. Far cheaper than 'training schemes'.


----------



## _angel_ (May 27, 2008)

untethered said:


> Yes, it is. I'm against it.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. An unborn child has a right to live, however they may have been conceived.



The MA pill isn't necessarily an abortion, it can also act like the normal pill to stop an egg being released.

Even if it does stop a fertilised egg developing further- very very early on in it's development (ie hours, not days , weeks or months) I can't see how this can be put on the same par as an abortion of a potentially viable foetus several months later.


----------



## frogwoman (May 27, 2008)

cesare said:


> 'A simple snip for a Better Britain'


heh


----------



## London_Calling (May 27, 2008)

ymu said:


> Surely there is a much better solution available which will eliminate both unwanted pregnancy and abortion (legal or illegal)? We simply require all boys to have their sperm frozen and then have a vasectomy shortly after their first productive ejaculation.
> 
> This procedure could be done in a few hours with less need for analgesia than many women use during childbirth and at virtually zero risk of serious complications. The financial cost of the procedure is less than that of childbirth, and the cost of storing sperm would be trivial compared to that of bringing up hundreds of thousands of unwanted children. Both men and women would be able to choose exactly when and with whom to have children.
> 
> Sorted.


It might also be an idea to harvest female eggs at the same time, sterilise the girls and then everything can be done much more easily in a test tube.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 27, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> It might also be an idea to harvest female eggs at the same time, sterilise the girls and then everything can be done much more easily in a test tube.



But then you would be doing away with a woman's right to choose!!!!


----------



## ymu (May 27, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> It might also be an idea to harvest female eggs at the same time, sterilise the girls and then everything can be done much more easily in a test tube.



When we can bring foetuses to term in vitro, absolutely. 

Until then, to do so would require women to undergo several entirely unnecessary operations (one plus one per child) at considerable risk to their lives and a far greater expense than necessary, so it's a no-go at the moment I'm afraid. 

I realise it's not perfect until true equality is possible, but surely it will save vastly more human lives compared to banning abortion.


----------



## spanglechick (May 27, 2008)

ymu said:


> Surely there is a much better solution available which will eliminate both unwanted pregnancy and abortion (legal or illegal)? We simply require all boys to have their sperm frozen and then have a vasectomy shortly after their first productive ejaculation.
> 
> This procedure could be done in a few hours with less need for analgesia than many women use during childbirth and at virtually zero risk of serious complications. The financial cost of the procedure is less than that of childbirth, and the cost of storing sperm would be trivial compared to that of bringing up hundreds of thousands of unwanted children. Both men and women would be able to choose exactly when and with whom to have children.
> 
> Sorted.



applauds.

btw - if female sterilisation were similarly medically simple, and didn't have a serious and expensive knock on complicatio for the time when a couple did decide to have children, i would be equally supportive of that (especially if it meant no periods!).  this isn't about women winning.  But I genuinely see no downsides.

no more babies of rapists.  no more babies of incest.  no more children of infidelity un knowingly being brought up by the wrong father. no more teenagers screwing up their education by getting up the duff.

every conception is planned and wanted by both parents.


----------



## _angel_ (May 27, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> applauds.
> 
> btw - if female sterilisation were similarly medically simple, and didn't have a serious and expensive knock on complicatio for the time when a couple did decide to have children, i would be equally supportive of that (especially if it meant no periods!).  this isn't about women winning.  But I genuinely see no downsides.
> 
> ...



Is this meant to be voluntary or compulsory.

I don't want the state deciding if or when I can have kids.

*Shudder*


----------



## ymu (May 27, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Is this meant to be voluntary or compulsory.
> 
> I don't want the state deciding if or when I can have kids.
> 
> *Shudder*


They don't. A man's sperm is stored and only accessible by him. When you're both ready, he makes a withdrawal and you do the turkey-baster thing.

As I said on the other thread, once we can bring children to term _in vitro_ we can go the whole hog and freeze eggs too so that women can be entirely protected from rogue males. But in the meantime, it would mean a major operation to remove the eggs and then (at least) one more major operation per child born. This is clearly an unacceptable risk until we have the technology to avoid it.


----------



## mentalchik (May 27, 2008)

Has untethered done a runner then ?


----------



## equationgirl (May 27, 2008)

ymu - an inspired solution 

cesare - loving your phrases 

How this already law I simply do not know...


----------



## the button (May 27, 2008)

cesare said:


> 'A simple snip for a Better Britain'



I thought of that. But as an OWM, my talents are doomed to go unrecognised.


----------



## cesare (May 27, 2008)

the button said:


> I thought of that. But as an OWM, my talents are doomed to go unrecognised.



True 

But it was MY highly popular poll 

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=251637


----------



## the button (May 27, 2008)

cesare said:


> But it was MY highly popular poll
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=251637



I lack the confidence of the modern woman of today.


----------



## cesare (May 27, 2008)

the button said:


> I lack the confidence of the modern woman of today.



You're an oppressed white male, stand tall and be strong


----------



## equationgirl (May 27, 2008)

I can teach you how to have balls, button


----------

