American bombshell? Roe vs. Wade....

[mudsticks]

What do you think abuse and seeking to give 'gratuitous offence' adds to the discussion in hand? It's no wonder NACA has such a small membership and a limited number of contributors when so many threads end up descending into this sort of stuff. This thread had actually run sensibly for 8 or so pages. It would have been nice if it could have stayed that way.

I think 'sensibly' is stretttccchhing things a bit far...

People coming up with 'scenarios' such as labouring women demanding terminations ...

- Let alone being given them, as a result of alliwing a woman the right to choose.

Is enough to test the patience of even the most tolerant of participants..

I'm all for 'civilised' debate, but that requires both sides to keep to that contract.

Otherwise you'll just get people chucking in any old fatuous, derailing, and even offensive nonsense, and trying to pass it off under the guise of 'contributing to the debate'.

When it's clearly anything but.

 

[fozy tornip]

What do you think abuse and seeking to give 'gratuitous offence' adds to the discussion in hand? It's no wonder NACA has such a small membership and a limited number of contributors when so many threads end up descending into this sort of stuff. This thread had actually run sensibly for 8 or so pages. It would have been nice if it could have stayed that way.

Whether this thread had run sensibly for 8 pages or so is a matter of opinion. As is whether its climaxing in a welter of gratuitous abuse would in any sense be a descent.
I'm not advocating giving gratuitous abuse, merely pointing out that should you wish to, w@nker will usually do it. Except in those cases where it's merely descriptive, e.g. Tory MPs.
I doubt I've killed it, but wouldn't regret it if I have.
If you want further to indulge Craig's appetite for disingenuous attention seeking, any number of new threads suggest themselves: "Slavery: must it always in every case be a bad thing? What about where a sub-saharan African child is rescued from certain death at the incisors of a rabid hippo by avuncular slave traders, and gets to go on a cruise, all expenses paid? Well? You haven't thought this though like I have", "Fritzl; better mad with much love than idiot with none?" etc.
Just for the record, I'm of the view that women should have the right to feed their offspring into a wood-chipper head first at any time until the child has achieved financial independence.

 

[AuroraSaab]

If we take Craig's contributions out, just on the basis that you personally find them to be trolling rather than genuine, this is actually a thread with a number of posters, with various positions, managing to discuss a serious subject without finding the need to abuse each other. I'd call that sensible.

Why don't you put posters you think are trolls on 'ignore', and just engage with those you consider genuine?

 

[fozy tornip]

'Trolling' isn't a word I've used: too much of a lazy catch-all.
No-one is preventing you or anyone else from being sensible.

Why don't you put posters you think are offensive/not sensible/not nice on 'ignore', etc..?

 

[icowden]

You have taken umbrage at my point about last minute abortion saying that it wouldn't happen, and it was deliberately misrepresenting the views of other contributors. But if the law is framed as 'abortion on request at any point' then why is it out of the question that someone will demand that?

What you are doing here is called arguing the logical extreme. If you are going to insist on doing this then no premise will ever be correct, and no law ever perfect.

No one has said that it is out of the question that someone will demand that. What many of us have pointed out is that you don't need a law to deal with exceptions. There are ways to manage very rare and exceptional situations, and these are best dealt with at the time. If you want to legislate around abortion then you legislate for majority cases. Hence our laws requiring an arbitrary cut off date after which termination will not ben considered unless there is an "exception". You don't *need* that rule though, if you have the right people to help make the decisions.

This is the person carrying the baby, and the professionals involved in her care.

 

[AuroraSaab]

'Trolling' isn't a word I've used: too much of a lazy catch-all.
No-one is preventing you or anyone else from being sensible.

Why don't you put posters you think are offensive/not sensible/not nice on 'ignore', etc..?

I don't need to because ordinarily it doesn't bother me that much - I just don't join the thread again until it moves back to the discussion. Like most people on here, I just leave you guys to fight amongst yourselves for bit. Craig seems to bother you more.

I think directly referring to another member as a 'maggot' and 'w*nker' oversteps the mark though. Still, this is why we have a separate forum I suppose, so we can post what we like.

 

[mudsticks]

I don't need to because ordinarily it doesn't bother me that much - I just don't join the thread again until it moves back to the discussion. Like most people on here, I just leave you guys to fight amongst yourselves for bit. Craig seems to bother you more.

I think directly referring to another member as a 'maggot' and 'w*nker' oversteps the mark though. Still, this is why we have a separate forum I suppose, so we can post what we like.

Please will you give me some sisterly support next time one of our 'members' () calls me a pr*ck then...

Cos that's not very 'nice' either..

I think Craig 'bothers people more' because he does quite knowingly set up ridiculous scenarios as detailed above, and I think he does it to deliberately provoke, not in a light hearted way, nor in a genuine 'seeking information' way.

Call it trolling or whatever you like.

Of course we can use the ignore button, but then we'd get accused of being in a 'bubble'..

Although is it really a 'bubble' or is it just setting firm boundaries, as to what grade of nonsense, or bad faith argument you're willing to put up with..

Theres always another question isn't there..

 

[AuroraSaab]

I probably would have if I had seen it. I stop reading threads once they turn into the back and forth stuff. Language like that is obviously of order.

I assumed the same as Craig in reference to the comments that said abortion should be the woman's choice 'no if, no buts'. I guess I'm learning that the first rule of NACA is to assume the worst of every poster. I'll leave this now as it's diverting the thread further.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

and no law ever perfect.

You are correct on this.

There will always be a loophole or a challenge, and those challenges will always be on one extreme or the other. When the laws being framed relate to subjects as emotive as abortion the extremes are even more extreme.

 

[icowden]

You are correct on this.

There will always be a loophole or a challenge, and those challenges will always be on one extreme or the other. When the laws being framed relate to subjects as emotive as abortion the extremes are even more extreme.

Which is why we don't legislate for extremes generally speaking and why (for example) Barristers have been so concerned about nonsense like "Harper's law" coming on to the books.

 

[mudsticks]

I probably would have if I had seen it. I stop reading threads once they turn into the back and forth stuff. Language like that is obviously of order.

I assumed the same as Craig in reference to the comments that said abortion should be the woman's choice 'no if, no buts'. I guess I'm learning that the first rule of NACA is to assume the worst of every poster. I'll leave this now as it's diverting the thread further.

I don't think the 'rule' has to be to assume the worst .

I think it's more perhaps assume the people whom you have observed to be reasonably measured and well informed beforehand, are not suddenly coming up with stuff like.

"Terminations on demand at full term"

And that anyone suggesting they had said that might be making mischief..

Anyhow this thread is about the Yanks trying to outlaw, what are currently normal and safe and legal abortion rights in The States..

This will of course disproportionately affect poorer, and otherwise marginalised women.
I don't see that this could happen here..

But then who could have predicted the half of what's happened in the last five or so years, erosion of rights and democracy, a slide towards right wing populism..
..
So vigilance is required..

 

[mudsticks]

Reading assignment ...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/07/abortion-pill-at-home-activists-future-roe-v-wade

 

[Unkraut]

The briefest of Wikipedia searches confirms that abortion predates the OT.

That's not the point it was practiced by the pagan nations but never by the Jews. They regarded it a breaking the second highest commandment you shall love your neighbour as yourself. In this instance the unborn baby is the neighbour. The early church took this over - the Didiche a manual of teaching in the late first early second century thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born. The sixth commandment would likewise have been understood to cover this.

If you want to use it as a basis for your own morality that's fine, but you mustn't push it onto others.

Have you ever thought of the implications if it were pushed onto others? There would be no incest or rape, no seduction and teenage pregnancies, fewer homes without both parents to help with the load of bringing up children (i.e it would force men to be responsible) , it would probably elimate all STD's.

To say 'life begins at conception' and give a foetus at any stage of development equal status (and status which exceeds that given to the mother) simply makes no sense. It overrides what we know about both biology and human experience.

I just don't think this is true. It is (or was - I don't know if this has changed) true legally in the UK and also scientifically/medically. Everything is there from conception. If that is not the case, when do the unborn become human? When do they cease to be part of the mother's body?

This is not as a rule how people view the unborn if the subject is not abortion. When colleagues or friends have got pregnant they never talk about having a foetus, they are expecting a baby, and if they sadly have a miscarriage they mourn the loss. It's not like having a tooth or appendix out. Babies born very prematurely can now be saved by near miraculous medical intervention, and it is a baby, a human being that is saved and that all rejoice over.

 

[mudsticks]

That's not the point it was practiced by the pagan nations but never by the Jews. They regarded it a breaking the second highest commandment you shall love your neighbour as yourself. In this instance the unborn baby is the neighbour. The early church took this over - the Didiche a manual of teaching in the late first early second century thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born. The sixth commandment would likewise have been understood to cover this.

Have you ever thought of the implications if it were pushed onto others? There would be no incest or rape, no seduction and teenage pregnancies, fewer homes without both parents to help with the load of bringing up children (i.e it would force men to be responsible) , it would probably elimate all STD's.

I just don't think this is true. It is (or was - I don't know if this has changed) true legally in the UK and also scientifically/medically. Everything is there from conception. If that is not the case, when do the unborn become human? When do they cease to be part of the mother's body?

This is not as a rule how people view the unborn if the subject is not abortion. When colleagues or friends have got pregnant they never talk about having a foetus, they are expecting a baby, and if they sadly have a miscarriage they mourn the loss. It's not like having a tooth or appendix out. Babies born very prematurely can now be saved by near miraculous medical intervention, and it is a baby, a human being that is saved and that all rejoice over.

Yes the unborn baby is 'the neighbour'..
Not the woman who has a right to her own body.

Let's look at those countries that have much lower rates of sexual offending, lower teenage pregnancy etc shall we..??


Are they the ones most controlled by patriachal religions?

With the all powerful 'priests' of whatever sort, forcing their views, their woman repressing ideas, and then not infrequently forcing themselves onto the less powerful.??


Or are they the more progressive countries that work for greater equality between the sexes, have good sex ed programmes which teach true consent, and respect for the bodies of other people, have good access to reproductive healthcare .

You want to force your religious beliefs onto others, in the belief that that would make the world a 'better' place.?

That's got a pretty poor track record throughout history, hasn't it??

Here's an idea, how about men start a movement for respecting and upholding the equal rights and humanity of woman.
The rights to have lives free from fear of men and their brutal 'forcings'

Don't worry it already exists..
It's called feminism - you could be an ally - if you like.. .

But no, you still want to force women to do something with their own bodies .ie carry a pregnancy, that they have no wish to do, that will so radically affect and even endanger their bodies and lives.

With all the subsequent consequences, and risks to that woman - and to any child born of that pregnancy.

How about come back to us when medical science has made it possible to take on board someone else's unwanted pregnancy, into your body - at a random time of our choosing..

No you don't get to choose when and where..You just take it on - sorry - that's just what we've decided..

For people who really want to have a baby then pregnancy, and any medical interventions necessary to save it, are indeed wonderful positive things.

Although very premature babies still have poor outcomes .

For a woman who really doesn't want to have a baby then forcing her to continue with that pregnancy is a terrible, brutal thing to do, and anyone trying to force a woman to do that is assaulting both her body and her mind.

You can't put the status of an already living woman, above that of a 'potential' person that she is carrying in the form of a foetus.
That overrides her humanity.

And anyway, as I said in an earlier post, if a woman really doesn't want to continue a pregnancy, she will very often seek a termination anyway 'legally permitted' or otherwise..

It's just likely to be far less safe, and potentially endanger her health.

Thankfully with the development of medical abortion taken in a two pill form, a self supervised 'home' abortion is now much more possible, so that is generally a good development of medical science.

So every child born is a wanted child,

So long of course as any woman who wishes to continue being pregnant is not forced to take such pills by a controlling partner or family..

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-coercion-reproduction-abortion-a8834306.html

It's all about us having our own bodily autonomy, isn't it.??

Some people just don't seem able to cope with that idea..

I think we need to work on 'fixing' those people, rather than forcing women to have children against their will..

 

[theclaud]

Regardless of whether his response was genuine or disingenuous, I don't think calling other members of the forum a 'maggot' and 'w*nker' does much to win people over to your point of view.

I'm not interested in 'winning' the likes of 'Craig' over to anything. 'Maggot' is not an epithet, as Bromptonaut has explained - it's a reference to his former CC moniker, under which he was every bit as vile, in-thread and elsewhere. I'm also not interested in decorum - you can worry, if you want to, about the etiquette of how you address someone whose forum behaviour is so reliably and deliberately repugnant. Anyway, 'w*nker' is, in these circumstances, as close to a compliment as I can muster.

None of it matters, of course - Unkraut's stifling moral sensibilities, Craig's horribleness, Spen's bizarre conviction that anyone is interested in his 'views' on what women should be 'allowed' to do... Women need abortions, and women have abortions - they always will. When your back is against the wall of an unwanted pregnancy, as I think Katha Pollitt said, it's neither here nor there whether the foetus is a 'person' or not (it isn't). But of course endangering, hurting, frightening, immiserating, policing, controlling and judging women is the point, not a means to an end.