Ban ALL guns then.....
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.
Ban ALL guns then.....
That last quote can't be real, surely?
Oh it is. These people are batshit.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-lockman-rape-balancing-20140618-column.html
I love the “in most cases” part of that quote. If we legalize abortion, men should be able to rape, since it only involves murder some of time
These people are unbelievable.
You are wasting your time. When we get down to the brass tacks, most of these people don't really give two fecks about women and foetuses. Try to debate them with reasonable arguments, nuances and the desire for an honest compromise, and they'll keep beating around the bush (with silly quotes like the ones posted on this page) until they get their way. And don't think for a second that they are dumb and ignorant. They are not, they know very well what they are doing. What conservatives crave above all is the illusion that they are able to shape their world into their liking. All Christian churches, when they understood that their days of dictating what is moral and what is not were well behind them, played a blinder by attaching themselves to the right as vessels of tradition. In an age when moral relativity has become the norm in most aspects of life, it's ridiculous that some people like to treat it as an unassailable authority that transcends humans and their right to choose what is best for their own lives. Not on all matters, mind you. Oh, the same people will bend the moral rules whenever it fits the promotion of their goals (or their desires). Their personal right, for instance, to own guns is off the table despite the deaths and all the drama. They'll just cherry-pick certain topics, preferably the ones that don't touch them directly, so that they can say they are doing the "right thing in a world that has gone to hell". Because that's what they want: A moral hill to die upon. The church offers them the platform/agenda, and the right-wing politicians give them the ammunition. They are fine with a rigid and unfair system as long as they have someone to point the finger at. It's the same ones who have an orgasm whenever the likes of Peterson talk about "rules", "hierarchies" and "structured social pyramids".
They're engineering a fully theocratic society and openly and actively dismantling the concept of secularism. That's all they care about.
Was this posted ? Insane shit.
feck me...
Oh, no, they are.
I don't even know what to say...
Don’t worry, you’re already doing better than them.
They're all terrible, but the last one should lead to a criminal investigation
And this time those quotes came from a woman.
Actually, by any meaningful objective use of the word, evil.
Woman should simply have fulls rights to her body and the right to terminate her fetus at any stage of pregnancy until the day it is out of the womb.
It's her choice to keep or eliminate and she shouldn't be needing to 'justify it' due to rape or health implications. Period.
America is a joke. It's bad enough, that late term abortions need to be still justified across the world.
It's her choice to keep or eliminate and she shouldn't be needing to 'justify it' due to rape or health implications. Period.
America is a joke. It's bad enough, that late term abortions need to be still justified across the world.
Never far behind are we?
Wouldn't surprise me.
They are consistent. If a woman don't have the right to abort and have control over her body, they shouldn't have control of their body during sex, so rape make sense
There is no justification for a healthy woman to abort a healthy foetus "at any stage of pregnancy." This is a completely unreasonable position to take. Have you ever been in an operating theatre and seen a breathing, fully-formed and probably-viable baby be removed from a woman's body? I have. I watched the baby die, too.
The time limit for abortion has been reduced over the years. It used to be 28 weeks in the UK - now it's 24 weeks, because many babies are able to survive and thrive at 28 weeks of gestation, due to advances in neonatal care.
I think if you approach it from the perspective that an individual has complete autonomy over their own body you are more likely to accept the absolute rights of the pregnant woman over the unborn child and see that as a justification in itself, as a principle.
Of course in reality you don't have autonomy and at some point the state will consider its interest in the unborn child - in the UK its decided as you say above.
Rowe v Wade always reminds me of a UK right to die case one of my bosses did a few years ago, as one of the grounds for the case was very similar.
The reasoning that case was unsuccessful was fairly similar to the overturning of Rowe v Wade too, at least from memory.
Last edited:
Boris would absolutely outlaw abortion to prop himself up all while paying some toff bird he knocked up for the 38th time to have an abortion
The Sun and Daily Mail would report on Starmer wanking into a tissue accusing of genocide of sperm
The Sun and Daily Mail would report on Starmer wanking into a tissue accusing of genocide of sperm
Some of the quotes on this page are disgusting and make me sick. They are disgraceful. And people vote for people like this.
I'm not saying they can kill someone but they can stop someone from crossing state borders at gunpoint without breaking any laws, especially if they know the woman crossing the border is going there for abortion.
The power to decide should be the woman's.
But I am fine with a time limit from about 12 weeks to 5 months when there is no medical reason and that there might be a consultation (not morally or religiously but informative about e.g. financial helps by state etc.) and a short waiting period between decision and abortion.
The last points are in the interest of the women as the abortion is not reversible.
But I am fine with a time limit from about 12 weeks to 5 months when there is no medical reason and that there might be a consultation (not morally or religiously but informative about e.g. financial helps by state etc.) and a short waiting period between decision and abortion.
The last points are in the interest of the women as the abortion is not reversible.
Having a baby, carrying it to term, and raising it is a significant deterrent for socially mobile women. Those who do not trust their partner may avoid casual intercourse as a result, but it will almost certainly drive some women to unsafe abortions.
It's the woman's choice. If she is okey with it, then it is how it is. Neither you or I should have any say in this matter.
I'm sorry, but you're absolutely wrong on this one. You have no idea what you're suggesting.
How do you think a full-term baby would be "aborted"? It would be the same way as a full-term baby is born - via natural birth. So, how are you going to find a doctor who's willing to kill a perfectly-healthy baby in utero? Gynaecologists and obstetricians have the right to not perform abortions, and you might be surprised at how many of them decline this work.
This is a horrible and grotesque scenario.
I'd say at that late stage it should only be an option if they mother is in serious danger. For other reason a term limit until the fetus is viable (not the correct word I think) to survive on its own.
I find unrestrictes abortion until birth a rather extreme view.
Unless you’re advocating for more reproductive rights for women, all the men here need to stop weighing in with their opinions about what women choose to do with their bodies.
Viable is the correct word. And in that situation, where there was an imminent risk to the life of the woman, the baby would be delivered by caesarean section and would be fine, because it was already at a point where it could survive independently of the mother.
This actually is a pretty common scenario, where a woman is preeclamptic and has a dangerously high blood pressure. The baby is delivered by section (if it's really urgent) and the woman can then recover.
Which is fine, right? There shouldn't be a law to dictate any kind of time limit for an abortion. It should be let to the decision of the doctor and medical staff to take the call - and possibly there can be some strict guidelines for what they should be accepting and not. If a doctor thinks it's too late to abort and can provide a formal medical justification for the same which are in line with the general medical guidelines, there won't be a situation that you were alluding to. Conversely, if they think that despite being at a later stage there's a valid reason to carry out an abortion say a danger to the mother's life or anything else, then again they can provide a justification and carry it out.
Basically it's saying that we aren't just letting people go to an abortion clinic few days before birth and have the right to demand an abortion, but at the same time there cannot be a law stopping them from submitting a request and letting the doctor decide. Lawmakers don't need to have any say whatsoever in this entire process - it's between the parents and the medical authorities to make the decision and should be done strictly on the basis of medical justification with zero involvement of any religious/political agendas ever getting involved.
Yeah, it was the same with my sister - and even after birth she did not have a heartbeat for a few minutes and it was actually a miracle that she survived - so despite there being quite a few medical complications everyone went ahead with the birth through surgical methods. However the point relevant to this thread/discussion is that the decision was taken as per the medical advise provided by a doctor and nothing else. I bet there would be a lot of cases where the doctors themselves cannot 100% predict how safe delivering a child even through surgical methods would be, and they inform the risk to the family and ask for their consent - something that happens in countless surgeries. The parents need to have an option in the scenario where the doctor is giving them an option even at a later stage to abort if that's what they feel is the best for their situation.
Few days ago one of my friends who were pregnant heard few weeks into their pregnancy that the there was an abnormal condition where twice the number of chromosomes were supplied from the father and one one set from the mother (I think) which basically meant that there was a fair chance (let's say 30%) that the child will be born with abnormalities. That was fairly early but they were given a choice by the doctor and had to take the call. Unfortunately for them before they could decide, the heartbeat subsided and the pregnancy ended anyway but if that had not happened, they were in the position to make that decision and it would have been absolutely terrible if they never had the option to abort.
If a healthy foetus is over the legal limit for viability and the mother's health is in danger, there won't be an abortion, there'll be a birth.
There shouldn't be a 'legal' limit, there should be a 'medical' limit which is decided by the medical authorities. Lawmakers/Religious institutions/etc have zero role to play in this entire process.
There are medical guidelines that dictate literally every single medical procedure - which is what is doctors are taught throughout the time they are studying to become doctors and they apply that reasoning into every single decision they make. All of that is based on actual scientific logic and has been deduced and agreed upon by the entire community. The exact same needs to be applied here. No legal intervention is required.
I think it's exceptional, but aren't there cases where women don't realize they are pregnant until they are already a few months into their pregnancy? Like, I think I've read about cases where someone continued to get her period whilst being pregnant, stuff like that. Since the viability of a foetus will continue to be earlier and earlier due to advanced technology, this could lead to (once again, likely exceptional) situations where a woman finds out she's pregnant but can't abort anymore.
The uniqueness of each case is what makes it so hard to codify something like abortion imo, because laws are usually pretty black or white, while this topic is anything but. As a man I don't want to impose anything whatsoever about what women should do with their own bodies. However, people who go on about "so we should just let a heavily pregnant woman go to the hospital for an abortion" are talking besides the point imo. If you want an abortion you'd have done it way earlier, I can't imagine a scenario where a mother-to-be carries a baby for up to 8 months, builds an emotional connection with it, then decides to have an abortion after that. Of course there are scenarios where the health of the mother is in jeopardy but like you say, that can/will be solved by giving birth rather than abortion.
Medical practice has legal regulations generally and for good reason. Abortion is no exception. The decision to conduct an abortion should be between the woman and doctor, but I see no concern with a legal viability standard: if a doctor believes a fetus is viable outside of the womb and healthy, birth should be induced.