American bombshell? Roe vs. Wade....

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
A

AuroraSaab

Squire
theclaud said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can make a compelling defence for the right to abortion without snarkiness and abusive language. The arguments are strong enough on their own.

I doubt anything you say will affect Craig, but it might affect others who are reading the thread and make them reflect on the issue.

I'd much rather NACA had lots of different contributors rather the hard core of half a dozen regular posters, but I think the bickering on here puts them off, so the style of posting does affect more people than just those doing the posting. It was you who dragged me into your row in the first place btw. I am quite happy for you (and Craig etc) to keep posting as you do. It does nothing to advance the discussion though, which surely is the point.
 
A

AuroraSaab

Squire
Unkraut said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think 'life starts at conception' (even if you accept this as true, which I don't) was an ancient or Biblical thing because surely the knowledge that it's the sperm meeting the egg didn't come till much later. I don't think most people regard an abortion as the as having a tooth out either. For most women it is a decision they give some thought to, and for many it's a difficult decision.

The trouble with saying that if we all followed the Bible there wouldn't be any rape or incest and thus no need for abortion is that, even if that were true, we have to deal with the world as it is now, where there is rape, poverty, serious foetal disability etc.

The reality is that carrying a baby to full term is hugely more dangerous than having a proper medical abortion. It is still a leading cause of death amongst women, especially in the developing world. If the pregnancy is unwanted or not viable, it is asking too much of any girl or women to put her body through this when the physical and psychological effects of pregnancy can be so dangerous.
 
Mugshot

Mugshot

Über Member
AuroraSaab said:
The trouble with saying that if we all followed the Bible there wouldn't be any rape or incest and thus no need for abortion is that, even if that were true, we have to deal with the world as it is now, where there is rape, poverty, serious foetal disability etc.
Click to expand...

The problem is denying that all these things aren't in the bible.
 
theclaud

theclaud

Reading around the chip
AuroraSaab said:
You can make a compelling defence for the right to abortion without snarkiness and abusive language. The arguments are strong enough on their own.

I doubt anything you say will affect Craig, but it might affect others who are reading the thread and make them reflect on the issue.

I'd much rather NACA had lots of different contributors rather the hard core of half a dozen regular posters, but I think the bickering on here puts them off, so the style of posting does affect more people than just those doing the posting. It was you who dragged me into your row in the first place btw. I am quite happy for you (and Craig etc) to keep posting as you do. It does nothing to advance the discussion though, which surely is the point.
Click to expand...

And I reckon liberal tone policing and the delusion that this is some sort of debating society governed by decorum and procedure probably puts off more people than I do by being insufficiently respectful of re-incarnated gremlins from over the road. Who can say?
 
All uphill

All uphill

Well-Known Member
theclaud said:
And I reckon liberal tone policing and the delusion that this is some sort of debating society governed by decorum and procedure probably puts off more people than I do by being insufficiently respectful of re-incarnated gremlins from over the road. Who can say?
Click to expand...

I'm put off by bickering when I'd like to hear differing views.
 
The Crofted Crest

The Crofted Crest

Active Member
I quite like a wee biker.
 
A

AuroraSaab

Squire
Atwood is pretty much spot on. A baby isn't a gift if it's forced on you. And of course those on the American Right who want to outlaw abortion are also the ones who don't want to pay for free maternity care or even free contraception and sex education, which would negate the need for many abortions. She's also right that there is no equivalent of forced birth for men.

I can't find it now but I read a thing that said that the proposition to overthrow Roe v Wade mentioned that abortion had caused a lack of new borns being available for adoption in the US. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was one of the motivations behind it.
 
theclaud

theclaud

Reading around the chip
AuroraSaab said:
I don't get what you are saying with this post. Are you saying it is acceptable to go to someone's personal residence to demonstrate against something that they believe? Or that you agree with the Tweet saying you shouldn't?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that if someone is trying to control what you do with your own body, it's fine to go round their house to take issue with it. I mean, they're against buffer zones, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C R
Birbalsingh vs Phillips
Replies
36
winjim
Laurence Fox vs Mukhtar
Replies
535
matticus
Eddie Vs The Greens
Replies
36
matticus
HM Gov vs Free Speech : who will win??
Replies
41
Top Bottom