Gender again. Sorry!

[classic33]

Is it the vagaries of public opinion or simply that the law is being informed by public consensus, which can change over time? (and has on abortion).

Are you saying that a foetus has no rights whatsoever at any stage during a pregnancy?

How do you feel about people selling their kidneys? Or paying to inflict serious injury on someone? These are also adult decisions made about your own body.

The selling of most body parts is illegal in the UK, so you really have no say in it. Unless you like breaking the law.

As for paying to inflict serious injury on another person, elaborate to avoid confusion.

 

[theclaud]

'Get in the f*cking sea' lol. I'd be surprised if your view - which is that a foetus has no rights whatsoever, literally zero - until the moment it appears outside the mother's body at 39 weeks is a common one, even amongst women. Most people seem to acknowledge that a foetus has increasing rights after the stage where they could live independently outside the womb. There's very little difference between a 38 week foetus and a new born.

Yes, late term abortions are rare and their availability is a necessity but suggesting that late stage foetuses might have some rights is not an anti-feminist position. There's an obvious discussion to be had whether these rights should ever override the wishes of the woman.

This position you seem to hold - that if every woman doesn't endorse bodily autonomy in every single situation - it means women will lose all their abortion rights is simply blackmailing women to feel their reproductive rights depend on them endorsing something entirely different than the concensus we have achieved in the UK.

It's also astounding that when it comes to 38 week old foetuses you seem to know for certain they aren't human beings with their own rights, but when it comes to 'What's a woman?' then suddenly you're all 'It's complicated and nuanced but anyone can be one'.

In short, you're just misrepresenting Stocks's position in order to take a pot shot at a woman you don't like.

It's up to you, like I said, if you want to be some kind of foetal rights advocate. You just need to own it and stop pretending to give a shit about women's rights, if you can't get your head around the basics and can't even manage the mildest feminist critique of the status quo. A young woman has just been found guilty of murder, which has a mandatory life imprisonment sentence, for a newborn infanticide committed when she was 15 (pregnant at 14, in denial, sexually active at 13, with an abusive father). How would this be possible in a country that actually believed that girls and women were human beings and not incubators for babies?

 

[theclaud]

Anyway, before we all get our knuckles rapped by Fozy again, I came across a decent gag on Twitter...


View: https://twitter.com/PatrickLenton/status/1672909933111824384?t=L79ltIYcpVR3NXg56smMIw&s=19

 

[AuroraSaab]

Public opinion and public consensus are pretty much interchangeable terms, aren’t they?

If we don't have legislation that reflects public consensus, what should legislation reflect? The wishes of the politicians we've elected? Seems a bit risky as it gives them a free hand once in power.

I think the only person that should make decisions about a pregnancy is the woman carrying it. Who better?

Nobody, but your position presupposes that a 39 week foetus has no rights of its own unless it's outside the womb. Fortunately in the UK very late term abortions are rare but I don't think it's an extreme position to suggest that a near full term foetus should have some rights. Whether they should override those of the woman is another point.

 

[theclaud]

Have we done cats yet?

 

[AndyRM]

Have we done cats yet?

That would be an ecumenical matter.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's up to you, like I said, if you want to be some kind of foetal rights advocate.

I think foetal rights are something you need to think about in the discussion of very late stage abortion on demand. There's little difference between a 38 week foetus and a new born.

You just need to own it and stop pretending to give a shit about women's rights, if you can't get your head around the basics and can't even manage the mildest feminist critique of the status quo.

And you think anybody can be a woman, so there aren't really such a thing as women's rights anymore as literally everybody can be a woman. It's you who thinks women aren't a distinct group, in which case you've made it harder for them to organise politically and agitate for their specific needs including reproductive rights. For somebody who thinks being a woman is open to everybody you certainly do a lot of gate-keeping over who can be a feminist.

A young woman has just been found guilty of murder, which has a mandatory life imprisonment sentence, for a newborn infanticide committed when she was 15 (pregnant at 14, in denial, sexually active at 13, with an abusive father). How would this be possible in a country that actually believed that girls and women were human beings and not incubators for babies?

The CPS could have chosen not to charge her or issued a different charge. Completely wrong that she was charged or found guilty of murder. It's a miscarriage of justice situation.

 

[newfhouse]

Nobody

I'm glad we sorted that, at least. My case rests.

 

[monkers]

Bloody trans women stealing the right to have an abortion; it's stealing women's right I tell ya! We have to stop them! Aghhhhhhh!!!!

It's the thin end of the wedge; they'll be all kinds of men having abortions willy-nilly all over the place. Don't say Aurora didn't warn us!

 

[monkers]

Have we done cats yet?

She wickedly said with a Rye smile.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...cat-post-truth-politics-media-gender-identity

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm glad we sorted that, at least. My case rests.

Your case seems to be that a foetus has no rights until it's actually born. My case is that in a very late pregnancy the foetus has some rights, though whether these should ever take precedence over the woman's is open for discussion.

Doesn't it follow from your position that a man who uses violence to make his partner miscarry is guilty only of assaulting her, not a higher charge of child destruction?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-32332040.amp

 

[newfhouse]

Your case seems to be that a foetus has no rights until it's actually born.

My case rests on the premise that any such rights are solely the responsibility of the woman carrying the pregnancy.

 

[monkers]

Your case seems to be that a foetus has no rights until it's actually born. My case is that in a very late pregnancy the foetus has some rights, though whether these should ever take precedence over the woman's is open for discussion.

Stuff and nonsense.

 

[AndyRM]

Unborn foetus rights? Am I tripping? WTAF?

 

[classic33]

The CPS could have chosen not to charge her or issued a different charge. Completely wrong that she was charged or found guilty of murder. It's a miscarriage of justice situation.

She took the life of another person, to me that's murder.
That she stuffed cotton wool balls in the mouth and that the newborn had a damaged skull, indicative of a crush injury caused by a foot to the skull. Are signs that it wasn't accidental, according to those who testified in court.
She cleaned up the murder scene, put the baby in a black bag and got it placed outside, before going to bed as though nothing had happened.

And you say she shouldn't have been charged with murder!
You should have been on her defense team, you'd have got her off.