American bombshell? Roe vs. Wade....

[mudsticks]

As a total none believer, I don’t agree with one word @Unkraut says, but, he has the right to believe it and say it (IMHO). You dismissing it as “garbage” says more about you than him.

Oops! Think I misplaced the ball for a minute there.

Yes you did..
But you're 'allowed to' right ??

It's not the 'religious beliefs'

They're none of my business.
So long as they don't impinge on my life.

Currently they do threaten to impinge on the lives and rights of half the population of the US.

You'll have to excuse me if I find that a 'bit annoying'

It's actually the offensive stuff (supposed facts) about abortions, and the people that support free access to them that I take issue with, not private religious beliefs..

I agree with BL.

The rationale set out by @Unkraut is completely foreign to me as an unbeliever but that's the sort of theory that's driving US States.

It's usually helpful to understand how your opponent thinks...

Please see above.

'My opponent' and his cohort have been telling us how they 'think' for far longer than is necessary.

They can stay out of our private and personal medical business..

Some support on that ..

Rather than "well there's two sides to all this" would be 'nice'...

But clearly too much to expect..

However it looks like the majority of people in the US are also on the side of women's bodily autonomy, rather than forced pregnancy .

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sup...-americans-support-abortion/story?id=84468131

How this plays 'democratically' (sic) in terms of influencing the decisions of Supreme Court idk..

 

[winjim]

You don't have to leave it because of people posting stuff like this..

But I would understand why you would..

it's not possible to have rational discussions with garbage
such as above flying around .

Especially when it's contributed by someone who won't even engage with many of the real live women on this thread, or their challenges..

.. Which is of course is quite telling in itself...

Claud gets 'told off' for calling someone a naughty name..

Mr @Unkraut gets a 'sensible' answer for posting garbage..

Same old same old..

I seem to have a very busy week / life coming up...

I've not hit the ignore button yet, but to clarify it's more to prevent myself reacting in what would be an antagonistic and hostile manner and would not move the discussion forwards in a constructive manner.

I hold to my initial point that I don't consider this a debate. I would consider it disrespectful to people directly affected by the provision of abortion care for two cis men to be arguing over religion in this thread, so I'm removing the temptation for me to get involved in such an argument.

 

[Julia9054]

I have to give the benefit of the doubt on this one and declare that you are both correct.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/abortion/what-happens/

In the UK both medical and surgical abortion are available up to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
It's also important to note that you attend an assessment appointment where you discuss the termination with medical professionals have the option of speaking to a trained counsellor, have an ultrasound to establish how many weeks pregnant you are etc. You don't just "pop in" and get given a couple of pills.

In 2020, 85% of abortions were medical rather than surgical (source:ONS)
In developed countries 90% of abortions are in the 1st trimester (source: BMJ)
It is safe to conclude that the vast majority of abortions in the first trimester are medical rather than surgical.
You need to consult with a doctor. Since 2020, this could be by telephone or video rather than in person. Due to covid, abortion pills could be taken at home. This procedure has continued for those who want it since the pandemic has “ended”

 

[icowden]

It's not the 'religious beliefs'
They're none of my business.
So long as they don't impinge on my life.

That's a bit I have to take exception to seeing as Religion is essentially organised, legalised coercion.

Believers don't just go around quietly believing. Those who organise the religion extract money from their followers and encourage those same followers to spread the belief and coerce other people into joining the religion. The same people who worship God and Jesus, who believe in Christian acts such as helping the poor have no difficulty being racist, homophobic and wanting to control women in particular. The rewards for the believer are community in this life and promises of an "afterlife" that never have to be fulfilled.

Even the saintly Mother Theresa was somewhat less than saintly in many regards. There are few senior church leaders who live in poverty. The Church of England is worth about 12 billion. The Catholic Church (Vatican) is around 30 billion, with 26 Billion in Germany and 23 Billion in France, 20 Billion in Australia. The Islamic faith has assets of nearly 1.6 trillion, The Mormons are worth 100 billion. Even Scinetology is worth about 2 billion. Then you have the US Evanglical pastors raking in money from the gullible, the likes of Kenneth Copeland (760 million dollars), Bishop Jakes (45 million dollars), Pat Robertson 100 million.

Religion is a political tool and it's important to keep an eye on it.

 

[mudsticks]

That's a bit I have to take exception to seeing as Religion is essentially organised, legalised coercion.

Believers don't just go around quietly believing. Those who organise the religion extract money from their followers and encourage those same followers to spread the belief and coerce other people into joining the religion. The same people who worship God and Jesus, who believe in Christian acts such as helping the poor have no difficulty being racist, homophobic and wanting to control women in particular. The rewards for the believer are community in this life and promises of an "afterlife" that never have to be fulfilled.

Even the saintly Mother Theresa was somewhat less than saintly in many regards. There are few senior church leaders who live in poverty. The Church of England is worth about 12 billion. The Catholic Church (Vatican) is around 30 billion, with 26 Billion in Germany and 23 Billion in France, 20 Billion in Australia. The Islamic faith has assets of nearly 1.6 trillion, The Mormons are worth 100 billion. Even Scinetology is worth about 2 billion. Then you have the US Evanglical pastors raking in money from the gullible, the likes of Kenneth Copeland (760 million dollars), Bishop Jakes (45 million dollars), Pat Robertson 100 million.

Religion is a political tool and it's important to keep an eye on it.

Absolutely I agree.

I've not hit the ignore button yet, but to clarify it's more to prevent myself reacting in what would be an antagonistic and hostile manner and would not move the discussion forwards in a constructive manner.

I hold to my initial point that I don't consider this a debate. I would consider it disrespectful to people directly affected by the provision of abortion care for two cis men to be arguing over religion in this thread, so I'm removing the temptation for me to get involved in such an argument.

Also agree.

I might be tempted to say that the breathtaking ignorance, and arrogance displayed by some 'debating' this issue, on here, whilst possessing no 'uterus in the game' absolutely beggars belief .

I would say that...
But in fact it does no such thing, it's just routine behaviour, from people who feel their 'opinion' is as valid as anyone elses, however ignorant they may be.

 

[mudsticks]

That's a bit I have to take exception to seeing as Religion is essentially organised, legalised coercion.

Believers don't just go around quietly believing. Those who organise the religion extract money from their followers and encourage those same followers to spread the belief and coerce other people into joining the religion. The same people who worship God and Jesus, who believe in Christian acts such as helping the poor have no difficulty being racist, homophobic and wanting to control women in particular. The rewards for the believer are community in this life and promises of an "afterlife" that never have to be fulfilled.

Even the saintly Mother Theresa was somewhat less than saintly in many regards. There are few senior church leaders who live in poverty. The Church of England is worth about 12 billion. The Catholic Church (Vatican) is around 30 billion, with 26 Billion in Germany and 23 Billion in France, 20 Billion in Australia. The Islamic faith has assets of nearly 1.6 trillion, The Mormons are worth 100 billion. Even Scinetology is worth about 2 billion. Then you have the US Evanglical pastors raking in money from the gullible, the likes of Kenneth Copeland (760 million dollars), Bishop Jakes (45 million dollars), Pat Robertson 100 million.

Religion is a political tool and it's important to keep an eye on it.

And for how many years , decades, centuries even have women been 'politely' requesting that they be treated as full human beings..

Not just as half-persons whose main function still seems to be, in the eyes of many religions, and even secular men to be as the vessels to carry the next generation..

Or chattels of servitude.

Whether they wish that or not...

Their bodies not wholly their own.

This is not some 'theoretical, or even 'theocratic' debate to be pawed over by the patriachy.

This is our bodies, our autonomy.

If you 'sit on the fence' or 'dont much care' - or even - wont listen, unless women are 'polite' about about women's rights being eroded ( if they were ever 'allowed' in the first place) then you're tacitly siding with the oppressors..

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes you did..
But you're 'allowed to' right ??

It's not the 'religious beliefs'

They're none of my business.
So long as they don't impinge on my life.

Currently they do threaten to impinge on the lives and rights of half the population of the US.

You'll have to excuse me if I find that a 'bit annoying'

It's actually the offensive stuff (supposed facts) about abortions, and the people that support free access to them that I take issue with, not private religious beliefs..


Please see above.

'My opponent' and his cohort have been telling us how they 'think' for far longer than is necessary.

They can stay out of our private and personal medical business..

Some support on that ..

Rather than "well there's two sides to all this" would be 'nice'...

But clearly too much to expect..

However it looks like the majority of people in the US are also on the side of women's bodily autonomy, rather than forced pregnancy .

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sup...-americans-support-abortion/story?id=84468131

How this plays 'democratically' (sic) in terms of influencing the decisions of Supreme Court idk..

IMHO. People are allowed to have their beliefs/opinions, religious or otherwise, what I do not accept is this beliefs/opinions being forced on the rest of society who may not hold those beliefs. That does not mean I (we) cannot show some respect for the fact that some people hold those beliefs/opinions. Referring to such beliefs/opinions as "garbage" is not showing respect.

I repeat, I do not hold or agree with the beliefs/opinions in question.

 

[Xipe Totec]

IMHO. People are allowed to have their beliefs/opinions, religious or otherwise, what I do not accept is this beliefs/opinions being forced on the rest of society who may not hold those beliefs. That does not mean I (we) cannot show some respect for the fact that some people hold those beliefs/opinions. Referring to such beliefs/opinions as "garbage" is not showing respect.

I repeat, I do not hold or agree with the beliefs/opinions in question.

So to be clear, all holders of 'beliefs/opinions' regardless of how foul those beliefs or opinions might be, are deserving of 'respect'?

 

[mudsticks]

IMHO. People are allowed to have their beliefs/opinions, religious or otherwise, what I do not accept is this beliefs/opinions being forced on the rest of society who may not hold those beliefs. That does not mean I (we) cannot show some respect for the fact that some people hold those beliefs/opinions. Referring to such beliefs/opinions as "garbage" is not showing respect.

I repeat, I do not hold or agree with the beliefs/opinions in question.

Hey !!

Hang on a goddarn minute..

Aren't you the guy who routinely and I mean routinely ...

Approves / endorses / encourages , the far far ruder random postings from a guy whose name rhymes with schlepp.??

Don't tell me there's some kind of double standard operating here.??

Crivens

Are we expecting a certain sort of language from the 'working man*' and another sort from elsewhere??
Surely not !!!

And I did clarify, but clearly it was too much trouble for you to read that far, that the 'garbage' I was referring to was the supposed 'quotes about abortion' from a supposed pastor...

- I wasn't referring to religious beliefs - although I very much object, as doubtless you do to their being used as justification for oppressing others.
I'd definitely call that garbage too.



* As it happens I'm a 'working woman' myself... Pretty filthy right now ..

But oh no - I must be nice..

Whilst I still have to protest the basic rights of womankind...

Thanks for your support

 

[BoldonLad]

So to be clear, all holders of 'beliefs/opinions' regardless of how foul those beliefs or opinions might be, are deserving of 'respect'?

On the basis of "who decides what is foul vs acceptable" then, yes.

 

[Xipe Totec]

On the basis of "who decides what is foul vs acceptable" then, yes.

It's unclear what you mean by that, however 'foul' was perhaps an overly emotive choice of word.

So let's say 'controversial'. There exist people with deeply held 'controversial' opinions and beliefs that are widely viewed as unacceptable, even outrageous - so should we respect the views of those who think black people are not deserving of equal rights? That homosexuality should be outlawed and gay people criminalised? That women should have no autonomy over their own bodies?

It sounds a lot like you think that we should.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You can respect people's right to hold those opinions, and respect their right to express them, within the law, without giving any credence to the actual opinions themselves.
I assumed that is what BL meant.

 

[icowden]

IMHO. People are allowed to have their beliefs/opinions, religious or otherwise, what I do not accept is this beliefs/opinions being forced on the rest of society who may not hold those beliefs.

Show me a religious person who does not want to convert someone else to their religion. Even in the Church of England it is not possible to politely stick to one's own beliefs. That isn't a thing that religion does.

 

[Xipe Totec]

You can respect people's right to hold those opinions, and respect their right to express them, within the law, without giving any credence to the actual opinions themselves.
I assumed that is what BL meant.

You certainly can't stop people holding abhorrent views, but I can't help thinking the word 'respect' is coming under undue strain here.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Sounds like you're looking to argue over semantics and put the worst possible spin on someone's post just to try to make them look bad tbh.