American bombshell? Roe vs. Wade....

[mudsticks]

Yes it is. Women are people, and healthcare for people is good.

There used to be this trope, (maybe there still is in some circles) that the decision to have a termination, was 'always' an angst ridden one, and that having an abortion was something that women 'always' regretted..

It transpires that's nonsense, just another device used to control, and even to try to shame.

Choosing not to continue a pregnancy is just another grown up healthcare decision that women (should be able to) make - whether or not to carry and bring a child into their lives and the world.

I really don't understand why anyone else thinks they should have a say in that healthcare decision..

 

[mudsticks]

Maggot really does not have a point, unless you count repeatedly demonstrating oneself to be a tendentious w*nker as a point of some kind. He's quite deliberately misrepresenting what happens. I don't mind a bit of trolling, as it happens, but I like a more entertaining class of wind-up artist.

Either deliberately misrepresenting, for a wind up, or incredibly ignorant..

(I suspect the first)

Trolling jollies on a subject where ignorance appears to already be rife, isn't a great look.. .

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Either deliberately misrepresenting,

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?

It is the other end of the extreme position of no abortion under any circumstances.

Somewhere in the middle is a place that works. I am pretty sure that you don't inhabit either extreme end, but to say that no-one will is just wrong I am afraid. Some people will find themselves at either extreme end, we have two on here who have already said the favour the abortion at any point up being born.

So that isn't misrepresenting or being a troll or anything else, just pointing out that you cannot frame a law based on the principle that "no-one would ask for that, don't be silly".

 

[mudsticks]

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?

It is the other end of the extreme position of no abortion under any circumstances.

Somewhere in the middle is a place that works. I am pretty sure that you don't inhabit either extreme end, but to say that no-one will is just wrong I am afraid. Some people will find themselves at either extreme end, we have two on here who have already said the favour the abortion at any point up being born.

So that isn't misrepresenting or being a troll or anything else, just pointing out that you cannot frame a law based on the principle that "no-one would ask for that, don't be silly".

And you already know that the law is not framed in that way.

You already know that medical practice, and the laws surrounding that do not operated in that way.

In the (highly) unlikely event that that would be 'demanded' it wouldn't happen.

Late term medical abortions are very rare, as has been detailed earlier.

And are only going to be carried out for medical reasons.

I'm sure you know that, all of the above and if you didn't you could research it, before making such 'contributions'


Otherwise, like it or not, it does look like you are just trying to be deliberately obtuse, to derail, or distract with such ridiculous propositions.


To what end I don't know.
That's your business.

 

[mudsticks]

Interestingly not much take up of 'shock' or 'outrage' on behalf of women coerced into either continuing, or terminating a pregnancy against their will.

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

Oh but they're just the vessels through which we propagate the species right .??

Of secondary imprtance...So why bother getting all upset about that..??

 

[Craig the cyclist]

And you already know that the law is not framed in that way.

You already know that medical practice, and the laws surrounding that do not operated in that way.

I know, but we are talking about changes to laws here, not how it is now aren't we?

Two contributors want the law changed to allow abortion at any point, which would include up to the point when the baby is delivered wouldn't it? Others want it changed to outlaw abortion entirely. Both positions are crazy in my opinion.

I was hoping that you had seen that, we are discussing changes not the status quo!

Otherwise, like it or not, it does look like you are just trying to be deliberately obtuse, to derail, or distract with such ridiculous propositions.

So not being obtuse at all, if we are discussing the status quo, then yes I get all the points about late term abortions etc. If we are discussing changes as two contributors have suggested then instead of being ridiculous propositions they become potential outcomes of such a law change would you not agree?

 

[qigong chimp]

Two contributors want the law changed to allow abortion at any point, which would include up to the point when the baby is delivered wouldn't it?

No.

 

[mudsticks]

I know, but we are talking about changes to laws here, not how it is now aren't we?

Two contributors want the law changed to allow abortion at any point, which would include up to the point when the baby is delivered wouldn't it? Others want it changed to outlaw abortion entirely. Both positions are crazy in my opinion.

I was hoping that you had seen that, we are discussing changes not the status quo!

So not being obtuse at all, if we are discussing the status quo, then yes I get all the points about late term abortions etc. If we are discussing changes as two contributors have suggested then instead of being ridiculous propositions they become potential outcomes of such a law change would you not agree?

We're talking about changing the established law (in the US) to restrict lawful access to abortion.

And more than a few of us, see that what happens in the US can often spread over here.

We're not talking about changing established law or medical practice to make late term abortions available 'on demand'.

You have form for arguing the toss in bad faith, and trying to take things to their illogical conclusion in arguments, so I'll not be bothering to engage with you again on this topic..

 

[AuroraSaab]

Maggot really does not have a point, unless you count repeatedly demonstrating oneself to be a tendentious w*nker as a point of some kind. He's quite deliberately misrepresenting what happens. I don't mind a bit of trolling, as it happens, but I like a more entertaining class of wind-up artist.

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.

 

[Bromptonaut]

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 suspect Maggot is a reference to @theclaud suspecting Craig had a previous ID here.

It took me a while to twig that I'd met @Pale Rider before under another name and in another forum.

 

[fozy tornip]

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.

True, but for giving gratuitous offence, rather than seeking to persuade, w@nker works OK.

 

[Mr Celine]

Biblically the answer is life begins at conception, and the obvious implications of this are why American evangelicals feel so strongly about it.

Are you sure it's as late as conception?

 

[mudsticks]

Are you sure it's as late as conception?

Ha classic..
I'd quite forgotten this, thanks.

 

[mudsticks]

Are you sure it's as late as conception?

Trouble is I've got to go to the shops this avo, and now I've got this as an earworm..

I'll be prancing up and down the aisles of Waitrose in my cycling shorts humming it..

 

[AuroraSaab]

True, but for giving gratuitous offence, rather than seeking to persuade, w@nker works OK.

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.