Am currently mate
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.
America is fecked, is there any other country in the so-called civilised west that is still as far behind as they are?
This topic makes me remember this:
Mississippi going full Mississippi
Because your very first line is you asking how it works for 'the man to have a say', not how it works for the man to have the deciding say.
As I said, I'm very Pro choice and I don't know how everyone else's relationship works but in mine, my wife and I talk through all major life decisions and come to a consensus. It's not just that either of us decides and the other be damned.
Maybe I should have worded it differently, but I meant having a say in the final decision. I don’t think anybody is saying it’s unreasonable for a man to get to put in his two cents, provided there’s the prerequisite relationship in place.
I’m going to get stick for this post but oh well.
America opened Pandora’s box by forcing Vaccines and Masks. The democrats fell for it. Now how can they bang on about my body my choice when they were acting like they were against the anti vax people. I know it’s apples and oranges. But by giving the government power to force lockdowns, vaccines, masks, they’ll go on to do more like abortions. What’s next? Uniforms? Length of hair? France have banned hijabs.
It doesn’t matter if vaccines and masks were for the greater good. This power couldn’t have been given to the government. Pandora’s box.
America opened Pandora’s box by forcing Vaccines and Masks. The democrats fell for it. Now how can they bang on about my body my choice when they were acting like they were against the anti vax people. I know it’s apples and oranges. But by giving the government power to force lockdowns, vaccines, masks, they’ll go on to do more like abortions. What’s next? Uniforms? Length of hair? France have banned hijabs.
It doesn’t matter if vaccines and masks were for the greater good. This power couldn’t have been given to the government. Pandora’s box.
How is pregnancy comparable to an infectious disease?
Do you?
It’s not comparable to me. But it is to the US Government.
Disgusting take.
Very difficult to get truly accurate numbers but I've seen stats that say approx 40% of rapes occur within families.
Wow...
I sincerely hope so.
Most likely a higher number since it's not brought to light in most cases.
Is it? The Republican party had many members complaining about the pandemic restrictions but those same individuals never once wavered on their commitment to deny women that same bodily autonomy when it comes to pregnancy. Indeed, I believe some of them were even asked what the difference was and not one of them could provide a viable answer.
Furthermore, the restrictions were a combination of state and federal level initiatives depending on jurisdiction, so to claim the US Government sees them as comparable is erroneous. Each state had different levels of restrictions as far as stay at home orders and business closures went as they have significant autonomy in those areas.
Wouldn't codifying abortion just be shot down by the supreme court? Or is it not possible for the supreme court to shoot down a law codified by the government? I would doubt that.
Just on your last paragraph; I work in operating theatres- I see terminations all the time, I’ve taken part in thousands. Any doctor, nurse, or medical staff who don’t want to be present for one can choose that, without consequence. I’d say 99% don’t take that option. As for the mothers, they are choosing to do it, much as they could also choose not to. It’s their choice. Please stop talking like you are somehow protecting the mental health of the people involved, all of whom have consented to the process. By all means use your right to take a moral/ethical stance on this, but please don’t dress this up as concern for the people involved, none of whom you know, and none of whose reasons you know.
Fair point, didn't even think of that.
Yet he bangs on about pushing the "happy family" narrative.
That is a question for someone much smarter than I.
Oh dear.
You'd think the Supreme Court just legalized abortion, judging by that post, instead of effectively banning it in half the country.
Congratulations. I wasn't trying to pry as such. Just wondering with regards to your response earlier.
Genuinely do you not think that in your (or mine) situation where you are married and in a long term relationship an issue of pregnancy is something that should be discussed over a wife just going and getting an abortion?
Even if the situation is one of risk to health and abortion is the only answer to prevent harm/death it's still something that you would be doing together.
You mentioned balls before. But even here if going for a snip it's a joint decision. And if there was no kids and the bloke wanted it anyway (his body his choice) and the woman wanted kids then she is within her rights to end the relationship
I really don't see why this is an issue. I just think a blanket her body her choice and bloke has no right to engage in at least a discussion is a strange approach.
Most abortions I know of where it's a relationship have been a result of the man "forcing" or strongly advocating a termination.
In two cases where the woman was hit in the stomach causing miscarriage. Both women wanted the baby but the man didn't. Both involved married blokes who had relationships with these women whilst married. One stayed with him, the other went to the police etc.
Any ideas how this works with morning after pills etc?
I mean in America generally. Would they be something that is supported or accessible or is that seen as a no no?
Depends on how they are viewed. Morning after pills aren’t abortion pills, but many see a distinction without a difference between the two. A large hospital provider declared they were stopping administering plan b pills throughout their setup, fearing that they were next on the chopping block in Missouri. After rancorous criticism, they began administering them again.
No doubt the right will try to cast any pill taken after intercourse to be an abortifacient in due time.
That remains to be seen, I think. There are plenty of Republicans who want to get rid of the Supreme Court decision that deals with contraception (Griswold), which I believe was made using the same kinds of privacy arguments that were used for Roe. Right now I don't think they can ban morning after pills, but if they get rid of that one then the states can do whatever they want.
Thanks for that. I have no idea on the American thought processes for these things.
About 25-30 years ago I read a report from a place (can't remember the details) that was on about banning the contraceptive pill because it basically causes "abortions" a sort of sperm attached to egg then is aborted (again I forget the terminology). The proposal was to say "coitus interruptus" was the only form of contraceptive allowed. And condoms. No other form allowed. And yeah it was as nuts as it sounds.
Cheers. Thanks for responding. I really don't have a clue about what's happening in America.
I read that as one of the participants was to say ‘coitus interruptus’ & they’d stop having sex right then & there.
I'm not making much sense of this. They surely can't make it illegal for any of their residents once they're out of state?
It’s stopping anyone from out of a state that has a trigger law in place to come into Montana for a medical abortion via pills.
Yes I understood that. Maybe I didn't word it very well. Why would they do that?
Potential lawsuits / legal action? It’s obviously out of fear, I just can’t think of anything else than legal action.
That's what I was getting at. As you say it's likely they're afraid of a legal kickback of some kind. However, the states that ban abortion surely have no jurisdiction over their residents once they're out of state. Wouldn't that set an untenable precedent?
We’ve seen how important precedents have been recently. I would think the trigger law states wouldn’t give a flying feck.
To me, it’s all about the cruelty & control. They aren’t bugs, they’re features.