Is the morning-after pill murder?
Abortion
- Thread starter Pagh Wraith
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Short answer, obviously not.
I understand what you're getting at but one way to spin it around is like this, in the scenario you proposed I have no control over it in the sense that your condition is not due to my actions rather without my consent and knowledge , but in the case of an abortion the woman took a choice with her consent to commit to the act of intercourse, if your mentally sound and have consented to the act I don't think you could simply escape from the responsibility, you had a direct hand in it.(thats why I think rape is such a hideous crime)
Also here's another way to spin the scenario you proposed, suppose i wake from sleep and see you unconscious with your hand attached to me due to cuffs and my blood connected to you through a tube, I could make a call and wait for help to arrive or could just cut you off and let you die. The circumstances are similar (a bit different but you get my point) but one is much more for lack of a better word vicious and direct so I'll assume people would answer much differently due to that alone.
Abortion especially the later it gets is a very crude and inhumane procedure, you could look it up if you want to .
Men and women are responsible for conception, but only women are responsible for giving birth; it is restricted to women because that is what it is. Justifying this supposed restriction of rights we could allow abortion up to 35 weeks.
It is a pity and you are absolutely right. You cannot impose a measure and then leave women in serious difficulties, or have juvenile facilities in a deplorable state (if that is the case in America).
I get what your getting at here but it's not exactly the slam dunk you think it is.
First of the reasons cited in that article is not very attractive now is it population control? (Its the opposite off the argument that the government shouldn't intervene as basically the government would be forcing abortion on the poor as controlling measures, rooted in eugenics and not very moral if you asked me)
Not to mention their lack of medical understanding, we now know a fetus is a different entity than the hose obviously dependent on it for its existence but nonetheless separated .
Another thing is Roman's presumably had a lot of the same discussions that we have today , to my knowledge early in the empire the emperors used to extoll traditional values as a form of objections to the late republic decadence and simply in more expedient ways to curb the population decline (which had some success i think ).
And lastly not very sound to base our morals and ethics on what the ancients did , after all they practiced widespread slavery and other such acts .
To religious nutters it probably is.
Cheers for that, I'd heard the argument in various places but never knew from where it had been originally sourced. Interesting read.
Thanks for the answer.
Decadent is a huge red flag.
Mike Huckabee going full Handmaid’s Tale
Some would consider it premeditated.
Religion is the worst manmade construct to ever exist on this planet.
Agreed.
Not meant as a slam dunk, especially as we have few if any female voices from the ancient world giving their viewpoints. The thoughts on abortion have been mediated through men.
What it does show is that we have at least 3,500 years of recorded evidence of women (generally the better off) procuring abortions to gain control over their bodies, even in the face of legal prohibitions on abortion, and even in the face of the risks to life that many of these methods posed.
Abortion bans have never worked.
I dunno, there's the GOP and Fox News...
Which are botchling offspring of religion.
Truth. Anyone supporting this abortion rule is a lunatic. A truly crazed individual.
If this actually get passed USA is even more fecked up than I thought
In contrast:
MPs vote to continue abortion ‘pills by post’ scheme in England
Government will be forced to abandon its plan to end a two-year trial of the scheme in August
MPs took advantage of a free vote in the House of Commons on Wednesday afternoon to vote by 215 to 188 to force the government to abandon its plan to end the two-year trial of the scheme, which was brought in temporarily when Covid struck in spring 2020, on 29 August.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...inue-abortion-pills-by-post-scheme-in-england
I find it so bizarre how the UK and US right-wing parties are so far apart on this issue. Not that I am complaining much about the UK's position.
We already know without a pre-frontal cortex no human thought is possible. Therefore, it makes zero sense to call any stage of development before a prefrontal cortex "a human." Around 17 to 25 weeks is when that happens. So 16 weeks and before, there is supporting evidence from science to call a collection of cells a "human."
The problem with banning abortion is two-fold. First, it relies on completely subjective or religious belie being imposed by others. You might believe that "life" equals "human" or that potential life equals human life but many do not and there is really no science or logic that supports that automatic equivocation. Just because hardcore religious people believe the moment of conception equals "human baby" doesn't give you the right to force that believe on others. You don't like abortion, then don't get one. You shouldn't have the right to force that belief on others.
Second, from a pragmatic point of view legalized abortion is simply better for society.
https://law.stanford.edu/publicatio...-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/
The real problem is many articles were written around 2008 that Democrats should use their supermajority and Obama as Pres to pass a law in Congress legalizing abortion at the federal law. Legal sholars said Roe v Wade was always too flimsy a ruling to continue to base pro-choice rights on and those rights could and should have been enshrined 14 years ago when the Democrats had the chance. This highlights another failure in the Dems actually getting stuff done.
That is not even close to a viable policy or strategy recommendation. It would make no sense to waste any time pursuing such an extreme goal.
I wonder what it'll take for the American citizens to finally break. Something seriously rotten at the core of the country. Maybe they should have privatised and monetised abortion. The 'morals' of politicians usually don't extend further than their wallets.
Good luck voting, bro. I'm sure it will work this time.
Last edited:
Better chance of working than wasting time trying to eliminate the Supreme Court.
Good on that, "bro"
On the first piece:
The thing is, at a fundamental level I disagree with abortion and I know plenty of people who do - all left wing voters. What’s made this issue problematic, is that it actually, this really isn’t about abortion, but it’s about choice.
I’m with you, for example, that a woman who goes around sleeping with men, unprotected, happy knowing that if she gets pregnant she can get an abortion, isn’t something I would personally agree with.
HOWEVER, convince me that we should restrict the right for a woman to make that choice, rather than not restrict it and let them make that choice? Tell me other important rules in place focussed on restricting choice, rather than restricting something for the general safety of others? And it’s not the same as murder before you go there (see below).
On the second point, this really is a silly example (sorry but being candid). As someone who has family who works in IVF, your premise is that at all stages of pregnancy the unborn child is equivalent to a human being. Which is factually untrue. Which is why there is sympathy from many people on restrictions on abortion beyond a certain term within pregnancy.
Abolitionism has been part of American politics since forever.
We're just generally more secular here though, we've had a long time to shake off all the nonsense committed in the name of religion. It took us long enough to push it out of our institutions.
Given the US essentially started from scratch they took a few steps back towards monetisation and political control of/via religion. At some point they'll catch up to the civilised world.
We would have to be in full Handsmaid Tale /Civil War 2 territory for any of this 'abolish the Supreme Court' to be anything other than extreme hyperbole. It is just a ridiculous assertion right now.
Why don't you or @Sweet Square post what you believe is a viable strategy for abolishing the Supreme Court instead of making pointless snarky comments or, even worse, pointless meme lord images?
I'm very curious how you truly believe this might work out considering you don't believe enough people care to vote to make a difference, the Democrats couldn't enshrine abortion rights when they had a supermajority but you think its viable strategy for them to call a constitutional convention to abolish the Supreme Court? Sounds like a complete unviable pipe dream, but please, lay out how you think that's a realistic suggestion.
What percentage of people do you believe will take action to try to abolish the Supreme Court? If you actually think that is somehow viable, please outline how you believe that will work in reality. You think over 150 million people in the US are ready to go to war (metaphorically or literally) to abolish the Supreme Court? What's the actual plan of action to abolish the Supreme Court?
Yeah, it's a pretty bonkers view to suggest as a viable response.
@oneniltothearsenal I have posted multiple articles that argue for getting rid of the supreme court. Maybe give it a read before labeling it a pipedream or asking us why/how to go about it.
However, a mass of cells does not have a heart or form a brain from the first weeks.
17 to 24 weeks is a very high range. From week 13 or 14 they can hear their own heart.
Can a doctor ensure that the fetus has not heard or has no thoughts at an exact week of pregnancy? You mark a border in the thoughts, but why not at the moment of the first heartbeat. Another will tell you that when they listen their own heart, another when they react to sounds from outside and the most radical ones that until the moment they feel pain or have developed the lungs. I think I've heard them all.
And does it not clash with the woman's right to continue to decide, being strict up to the moment the umbilical cord is broken?
The religion part is quite misleading. It would be to assume that all voters are pro-life or all democratic voters are pro-choice, or that there are no non-religious people against abortion.
Feel free to link them right here along with your own personal analysis of how you think that's actually a viable plan. You and Sweet Square made the assertion, back it up (I'm not digging through your profile to find something you might have posted months ago).
But really, I'd love to hear your personal strategy for what constitutes a viable course of action to eliminate the supreme court since you don't think it's a pipe dream but a realistic strategy.
A heart doesn't allow human thoughts, a pre-frontal cortex does. Science tells us that a clump of cells in the first trimester is simply not capable of human thought, thus it's not human life. And 17 weeks is the extremely low end of the range for pre-frontal cortex development. And while I am sure some non-religious people are anti-choice, they are an extremely low percentage as all the vocal anti-choice people and politicians are also very vocally hardcore Christians. But if you have a study that shows most or even many anti-choice people are not religious please link it.
I posted it on here just today. You've been on the caf long enough, It shouldn't be hard to find. Here are a few more
https://www.annenbergpublicpolicyce...onsider-abolishing-or-limiting-supreme-court/
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-case-for-ending-the-supreme-court-as-we-know-it
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/30/us/politics/supreme-court-commission.html
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...americans-think-about-abortion-or-gun-rights/
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-mark-tushnet
Honestly just enjoy your day out voting. Put a nice shirt, get a haircut a few hours before, make a voting playlist and rage post the day after it doesn't work. Really live the moment. Tbh @entropy is a far nicer person than me and I know these conversations are a waste of time. Although I did enjoy finding that Biden meme, so not all was lost.
Last edited:
They've monetised childbirth, so there's that.
I don't see any viable plans of action for abolishing the Supreme Court.
The NYTimes is behind a paywall but the subheader mentions Biden is not even willing to try to pack the court (so curious where the will is to fight the far tougher battle to abolish it entirely). The 538 is just commenting on public opinion of a highly conservative Supreme Court, no plan of action And Annenberg is just a poll that says 1/3 of people survey might believe it's better to get rid of it altogether if the conservative majority keeps making extreme rulings. And that's only 1/3 think it might be better not 1/3 are ready to take up arms and storm the capitol to make it happen. The New Yorker piece just goes over history and concludes with a sentence about "It is long overdue to end the Court’s undemocratic role in U.S. society" but no actual steps for how achieving that might look. None of these have plans of action, steps forward, or recommendations on viable policy changes to actually achieve this goal that you and Sweet seem to believe is somehow more viable than voting.
So I ask again, what is your realistic plan of action for abolishing the Supreme Court? How are you going about doing that? If voting is pointless, how are you going to abolish the Supreme Court?
Honestly, just enjoy your day posting meaningless memes all day without any actual discussion of how your beliefs are even possible. Your posts are the real waste of time as they do nothing constructive. I get it. You don't want to actually be challenged to come up with meaningful solutions but just want to act superior and condescending when challenged. Good luck with that, "bro."
Honestly this very abusive and not at all constructive. Not wonder the democrats can't win votes!.
The Biden meme was a massive hint that I don't want to have a discussion with you, bro.
Why don't you just answer the questions? What needs to happen to abolish the Supreme Court? What next steps do you believe should be taken for that to be possible? What is the plan of action to achieve this goal that you think is not just more viable than voting for change but so obviously more realistic that anyone questioning it just gets stupid memes in response?