(Soon to be) Former President Donald Trump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibsbollah

The New Republicans are now way to the right of Le Pen’s party in France. Repeal the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Biden is not the legitimate president, leave the UN, gays are all abnormal.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/...ight-positions

---

They absolutely are. It's a lunatic party: authoritarian, anti-democratic, intolerant, anti-science, conspiratorial. It's a process that has taken several decades to reach this point. It began really in the late 1970s, when the religious right started to push their agenda within the party. Reagan put that process on steroids, and now there is no place for moderate centre-right discussion; the GOP is an insane asylum of crackpot thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

As expected, Roe v Wade overturned by the hard right Supreme Court. Abortion will now be an issue for each state to decide for itself, reversing fifty years of guaranteed reproductive rights for women. A very sad day, and, IMHO, this is motivated by the anti-women's rights agenda of the Republican right wing. Of course they claim they are protecting the unborn, but the religious right is deeply misogynistic. They are not only anti-civil rights, anti-LGBT and anti-worker, anti-environmental protections; their war women has been part of their platform for decades. Women must be controlled and punished, and removing reproductive rights is a key component of that. Trump's three hard-line right wing appointees are determined to roll back progressive reforms. Only two days ago it overturned the decision of the New York SC on guns, thus making carrying guns in public a protected right.

Women in Republican controlled states will now have to cross state lanes and enter Democratic states to get an abortion. Those who can't afford it, well, will it back to the days of the back street abortionists? It will be interesting to see how laws are changed in Republican states regarding criminal prosecution of women and doctors found to be breaking the law, once abortion is outlawed. No doubt at least some states will outlaw abortion in all cases, including for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, which will have a huge impact upon women's mental health.

What a warped society, where controlling a woman's reproductive rights is deemed more important than controlling children being massacred in school.

https://youtu.be/zDztJN9-o4c

---

Justice Clarence Thomas (the most openly conservatives of the lot) already suggesting that other Supreme Court decisions could be re-evaluated, same-sex marriage and contraception safeguarding.

Just one more step towards America becoming the “Christian” Saudi Arabia

America needs to get a grip though. They need to stop relying on judges interpreting a 250 year old document. If they want to ban guns, or legalise abortion then they need to vote for it and get it passed into law. There is a majority for both in the US but they need to start voting for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lendo

Justice Clarence Thomas (the most openly conservatives of the lot) already suggesting that other Supreme Court decisions could be re-evaluated, same-sex marriage and contraception safeguarding.

Just one more step towards America becoming the “Christian” Saudi Arabia

---

Contraception is definitely in their firing line; many GOP politicians are open about that. Women should only have sex within marriage and for reproduction; it's a return to the nineteenth century.

I think it's also worth pointing out that ALL Republican appointed SC Justices, when asked by Congress during their nomination hearings, said they supported Roe v Wade as settled law. Furthermore, as 'conservatives' they couldn't envisage overturning settled precedent. Of course, the likes of Thomas, Coney-Barrett, Alito and Kavanaugh are not conservatives but are very radical right wingers, filled with religious fundamentalism.

This is why control of the SC matters so much. Republicans know they can only get a majority in the House by gerrymandering districts. They can only get control of the Senate because tiny rural states (Republican) get two senators, same as Democratic states with hue populations. The demographics are against them, thus appointing right wing Justices ensures they control one branch of government for decades. That's why Republicans blocked Obama's pick, Merrick Garland, for eleven months but rushed through Trump's three picks whilst they controlled Congress.

Missouri has already blanket banned abortion. In ALL cases.

Glad I live in NJ where a women's right to choose is encoded in state law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haymaker

Missouri has already blanket banned abortion. In ALL cases.

Glad I live in NJ where a women's right to choose is encoded in state law.

---

Which will include thirteen year old girls raped by a family member, forced to give birth. What a country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

Which will include thirteen year old girls raped by a family member, forced to give birth. What a country.

---

Indeed it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haymaker

Missouri has already blanket banned abortion. In ALL cases.

Glad I live in NJ where a women's right to choose is encoded in state law.

---

I worked in New Orleans for a month or so in my twenties, loved the place. It’s beyond belief that now Pakistan has more liberal abortion laws than Louisiana, one of the states that have now rushed to criminalise, and now as a dad with teenage daughters I would just never consider living there again. We talk about what’s happened to America a lot on here but I just have this massive feeling of sadness on a personal level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haymaker

Indeed it does.

---

Hard to imagine. It's lunacy and savagery.

So the decision on abortion has been handed back to the states and therefore the people. The way it should have been all along. This isn’t a ban on abortion, if the people who live in each state want it, they will vote for those who will give them it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

So the decision on abortion has been handed back to the states and therefore the people. The way it should have been all along. This isn’t a ban on abortion, if the people who live in each state want it, they will vote for those who will give them it.

---

You DO have a point of course, it’s democracy to a point. But 85% of US citizens want to retain abortion with certain controls and oversights, what about that vast majority that have their constitutional right removed? The militant right have control over the Republican Party now. That’s fine, major companies and investors will start to avoid otherwise booming urban centres like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas and New Orleans because successful people will start to avoid those places and the South and Rural America will get poorer for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

So the decision on abortion has been handed back to the states and therefore the people. The way it should have been all along. This isn’t a ban on abortion, if the people who live in each state want it, they will vote for those who will give them it.

---

What? And what about equal protection under the law? What about those women who vote for it but are denied abortion rights? It shouldn't depend upon accident of birth. A woman in Mississippi shouldn't have fewer rights than a woman in California.

If Republican states vote to bring back slavery, would that be okay? Anything the majority wants is okay. If they vote to allow stoning to death of homosexuals, that's okay, they voted for it in Alabama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

So the decision on abortion has been handed back to the states and therefore the people. The way it should have been all along. This isn’t a ban on abortion, if the people who live in each state want it, they will vote for those who will give them it.

---

Does that apply to other civil rights. Should they be able to outlaw homosexuality and introduce slavery if the majority want it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

So the decision on abortion has been handed back to the states and therefore the people. The way it should have been all along. This isn’t a ban on abortion, if the people who live in each state want it, they will vote for those who will give them it.

---

Your either half daft or fishing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibby70

Does that apply to other civil rights. Should they be able to outlaw homosexuality and introduce slavery if the majority want it?

---

Today's announcement has also come with a mention of "Reviewing" same sex and inter-racial marriage along with access to contraception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibby70

Does that apply to other civil rights. Should they be able to outlaw homosexuality and introduce slavery if the majority want it?

---

Yep and lynching and flogging, give the public their choice. Ban unemployment pay, transgender rights and separate water fountains. You want it you got it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibsbollah

You DO have a point of course, it’s democracy to a point. But 85% of US citizens want to retain abortion with certain controls and oversights, what about that vast majority that have their constitutional right removed? The militant right have control over the Republican Party now. That’s fine, major companies and investors will start to avoid otherwise booming urban centres like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas and New Orleans because successful people will start to avoid those places and the South and Rural America will get poorer for it.

---

Certain controls and oversights - that’s quite broad and I would be genuinely interested to know what that meant. Most states that have trigger laws that oppose unfettered abortion, still have some conditions like the welfare of the mother being in jeopardy.

Does the 85% you quoted cover that as a “control or oversight”?

I don’t believe this was ever an issue for the Supreme Court and it’s now with the people. I dislike how the Democrats and left are positioning this as a ban on abortion when it isn’t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Your either half daft or fishing?

---

Neither mate, maybe just differ in opinion to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibby70

Does that apply to other civil rights. Should they be able to outlaw homosexuality and introduce slavery if the majority want it?

---

Although this is a straw man as well as a dig at me, its an interesting question. At which point does democracy have to be set aside in the name of morality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Neither mate, maybe just differ in opinion to you.

---

But it's nuts. Democracy isn't the same thing as mob rule. There are rights that all must have, in order to protect minorities. Where would you stop, if you go down the line that every majority decision must be carried out? If the public votes to forcibly sterilise everyone with red hair, in order to remove the ginger gene from the gene pool, is that okay? What if the majority votes to euthanise gypsies and execute shoplifters? What are the limits?

Your argument supports the majority always getting their way in law. For the minority it's just tough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

But it's nuts. Democracy isn't the same thing as mob rule. There are rights that all must have, in order to protect minorities. Where would you stop, if you go down the line that every majority decision must be carried out? If the public votes to forcibly sterilise everyone with red hair, in order to remove the ginger gene from the gene pool, is that okay? What if the majority votes to euthanise gypsies and execute shoplifters? What are the limits?

---

It’s not mob rule. It’s voting for what you want.

What is the alternative? Let’s use your ridiculous example about people with red hair. What if the government or some court decided to sterilise them all against the democratic will of the people who live there? Is that fine because those in charge think it’s right?

It works both ways. In your world it’s better the minority get what they want over the majority? That makes no sense. I suggest you just don’t agree with what the majority in these states want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

It’s not mob rule. It’s voting for what you want.

What is the alternative? Let’s use your ridiculous example about people with red hair. What if the government or some court decided to sterilise them all against the democratic will of the people who live there? Is that fine because those in charge think it’s right?

It works both ways. In your world it’s better the minority get what they want over the majority? That makes no sense. I suggest you just don’t agree with what the majority in these states want.

---

It's not really.

What about the women who vote for abortion rights in their State, but are outvoted? Is that fair? Is it fair, for example, that men should have a say?

I agree. If Americans want this then they have to make it happen. Relying on interpretations of judges of the constitution is a ridiculous way to run a country. Is that much different than allowing priests or imans to interpret the bible or Quran and making it law?
They need to take decisions out of the hands of the judges. They complain that the Supreme Court has become politicised but how could it not be when they allow it to make such massive decisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

It’s not mob rule. It’s voting for what you want.

What is the alternative? Let’s use your ridiculous example about people with red hair. What if the government or some court decided to sterilise them all against the democratic will of the people who live there? Is that fine because those in charge think it’s right?

It works both ways. In your world it’s better the minority get what they want over the majority? That makes no sense. I suggest you just don’t agree with what the majority in these states want.

---

It doesn't work both ways. There are fundamental human and civil rights that the majority must never be allowed to vote away from the minority simply because they don't like them. No population or court can remove them. The moment you say anything goes according to a majority, those protections are gone. Can you imagine a referendum just now on what should happen to refugees. It wouldn't surprise me if a majority in the UK voted in favour of putting them in concentration camps, for example, such is the toxicity of the issue. Does that mean it should happen? No, because every human has rights that cannot be breached. Democracy must come with safeguards. Mob rule would quickly lead to the breakdown of society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It's not really.

What about the women who vote for abortion rights in their State, but are outvoted? Is that fair? Is it fair, for example, that men should have a say?

---

That’s called democracy. What if at the next opportunity the state voted FOR abortion.

Is that fair on all the women who are against it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

That’s called democracy. What if at the next opportunity the state voted FOR abortion.

Is that fair on all the women who are against it?

---

But is isn't; it's called mob rule. Democracy is something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

It doesn't work both ways. There are fundamental human and civil rights that the majority must never be allowed to vote away from the minority simply because they don't like them. No population or court can remove them. The moment you say anything goes according to a majority, those protections are gone. Can you imagine a referendum just now on what should happen to refugees. It wouldn't surprise me if a majority in the UK voted in favour of putting them in concentration camps, for example, such is the toxicity of the issue. Does that mean it should happen? No, because every human has rights that cannot be breached. Democracy must come with safeguards. Mob rule would quickly lead to the breakdown of society.

---

So who decides these safeguards? A court? A President? You?

I don’t believe killing unborn children is a fundamental human or civil right. I believe the right of these children to live is the only human right worth discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

So who decides these safeguards? A court? A President? You?

I don’t believe killing unborn children is a fundamental human or civil right. I believe the right of these children to live is the only human right worth discussing.

---

And if one person’s human rights caused deliberate and lasting harm to another human being? Does the foetus’s human rights trump the mother’s human rights?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

So who decides these safeguards? A court? A President? You?

I don’t believe killing unborn children is a fundamental human or civil right. I believe the right of these children to live is the only human right worth discussing.

---

International human rights law is a good place to start.

The rights of the embryo/foetus isn't the ONLY right discussing. You are disregarding the woman and effectively saying you will force her to give birth against her will. Who are you, or anybody else, to force your views upon her? Nobody is saying you must have an abortion, but you don't have the right to make that decision for others. You must have heard the phrase ' your freedom ends where my freedom begins'. You are free from being persecuted by others, but you can't persecute them either. That's essential part of a democracy, it's called the rule of law. You are proposing abandoning the rule of law so that minorities can be persecuted by any vote from a majority wishing them harm. It's insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

And if one person’s human rights caused deliberate and lasting harm to another human being? Does the foetus’s human rights trump the mother’s human rights?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

The child’s right to live trumps the mothers right to use abortion as a matter of convenience, yes. And this is what abortion is used for in the vast majority of cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

So who decides these safeguards? A court? A President? You?

I don’t believe killing unborn children is a fundamental human or civil right. I believe the right of these children to live is the only human right worth discussing.

---

Now you are admitting your pro-life anti abortion bias

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

International human rights law is a good place to start.

The rights of the embryo/foetus isn't the ONLY right discussing. You are disregarding the woman and effectively saying you will force her to give birth against her will. Who are you, or anybody else, to force your views upon her? Nobody is saying you must have an abortion, but you don't have the right to make that decision for others. You must have heard the phrase ' your freedom ends where my freedom begins'. You are free from being persecuted by others, but you can't persecute them either. That's essential part of a democracy, it's called the rule of law. You are proposing abandoning the rule of law so that minorities can be persecuted by any vote from a majority wishing them harm. It's insane.

---

Well this is where we differ. Clearly you don’t believe an unborn child is a person and therefore has no rights? I believe they are viable people and to kill then as a matter of convenience is wrong. Somehow that’s become an evil immoral stance to take in todays world but there we go.

Nobody is forcing the woman to do anything. She is responsible for herself and for getting pregnant (other than in cases of rape where I believe abortion should be an option). Once pregnant, I don’t believe anyone has a right to kill the child unless in extreme circumstances.

I believe the rule of law should apply to everyone, especially the most vulnerable- like baby’s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Now you are admitting your pro-life anti abortion bias

---

Yes I’m pro life and I’m anti abortion. I’m not afraid or ashamed to say that.

I don’t believe killing the unborn is right, somehow I’m the bad guy. So be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Yep and lynching and flogging, give the public their choice. Ban unemployment pay, transgender rights and separate water fountains. You want it you got it

---

I've heard summary execution is on the cards for people driving slower than 55 on the highway, unless they're listening to country and western of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Well this is where we differ. Clearly you don’t believe an unborn child is a person and therefore has no rights? I believe they are viable people and to kill then as a matter of convenience is wrong. Somehow that’s become an evil immoral stance to take in todays world but there we go.

Nobody is forcing the woman to do anything. She is responsible for herself and for getting pregnant (other than in cases of rape where I believe abortion should be an option). Once pregnant, I don’t believe anyone has a right to kill the child unless in extreme circumstances.

I believe the rule of law should apply to everyone, especially the lost venerable - like baby’s.

---

You mean that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Certain controls and oversights - that’s quite broad and I would be genuinely interested to know what that meant. Most states that have trigger laws that oppose unfettered abortion, still have some conditions like the welfare of the mother being in jeopardy.

Does the 85% you quoted cover that as a “control or oversight”?

I don’t believe this was ever an issue for the Supreme Court and it’s now with the people. I dislike how the Democrats and left are positioning this as a ban on abortion when it isn’t.

---

Controls and oversights refer to all the mitigating circumstances that Alabama has just positioned itself to the outside of- in cases of rape, incest, rape AND incest, where the mother is in imminent medical danger and that sort of stuff. And of course early abortions where there is barely a foetus formed. The situations where even fundamentalist clerical states like Iran allow abortion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

You mean that?

---

Emm…..yep!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

The child’s right to live trumps the mothers right to use abortion as a matter of convenience, yes. And this is what abortion is used for in the vast majority of cases.

---

You are really badly informed on this subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Emm…..yep!

---

So by that, you mean that the man has no responsibilty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Well this is where we differ. Clearly you don’t believe an unborn child is a person and therefore has no rights? I believe they are viable people and to kill then as a matter of convenience is wrong. Somehow that’s become an evil immoral stance to take in todays world but there we go.

Nobody is forcing the woman to do anything. She is responsible for herself and for getting pregnant (other than in cases of rape where I believe abortion should be an option). Once pregnant, I don’t believe anyone has a right to kill the child unless in extreme circumstances.

I believe the rule of law should apply to everyone, especially the most vulnerable- like baby’s.

---

Holy ****.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

I've heard summary execution is on the cards for people driving slower than 55 on the highway, unless they're listening to country and western of course.

---

😂 Somehow I don't think everyone will appreciate this, does it only apply on motorways and dual carriageways? Asking for the old boy in Fife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Although this is a straw man as well as a dig at me, its an interesting question. At which point does democracy have to be set aside in the name of morality?

---

It’s not a straw man, it’s a very appropriate comparison. And you need to park your version of morality as well, because it’s very very debatable. So try answering it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

So by that, you mean that the man has no responsibilty?

---

Nope. Not what I said unsure where you inferred that from my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

So by that, you mean that the man has no responsibilty?

---

You're sowing the seed of doubt 😉

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Nope. Not what I said unsure where you inferred that from my post.

---

Probably from the use of "She is responsible for herself and for getting pregnant".

I'd say that's a reasonable inference.

You might want to re-phrase it to avoid others thinking the same.

https://www.publichealthscotland.sco...december-2021/

Just for context, scottish abortion statistics. Higher rates in areas of deprivation unsurprisingly, but let's force them into greater deprivation by making them have large families? 🤔

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Probably from the use of "She is responsible for herself and for getting pregnant".

I'd say that's a reasonable inference.

You might want to re-phrase it to avoid others thinking the same.

---

I never said solely responsible, did I? Nah, if others are unable to read and understand English then I’m not holding their hand.

I think men have a huge part to play too and I’m sure men are guilty of encouraging and sometimes forcing women into abortions in order to shirk their own responsibilities for the woman’s pregnancy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Well this is where we differ. Clearly you don’t believe an unborn child is a person and therefore has no rights? I believe they are viable people and to kill then as a matter of convenience is wrong. Somehow that’s become an evil immoral stance to take in todays world but there we go.

Nobody is forcing the woman to do anything. She is responsible for herself and for getting pregnant (other than in cases of rape where I believe abortion should be an option). Once pregnant, I don’t believe anyone has a right to kill the child unless in extreme circumstances.

I believe the rule of law should apply to everyone, especially the most vulnerable- like baby’s.

---

Men also don't have to do anything (other than in cases of rape), where does their responsibility start and end in your view?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibsbollah

It’s not a straw man, it’s a very appropriate comparison. And you need to park your version of morality as well, because it’s very very debatable. So try answering it.

---

It’s pretty much the definition of a straw man. He never refuted my point, just came up with a made up a hypothetical scenario and demanded I answer it. That’s a straw man.

Well, as I said it’s a very interesting question. There are lots of countries around the world that have laws and practices that don’t align with our western values and they are supported by the majority of people (gay rights in Africa). I’m not saying I know the answer. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

I never said solely responsible, did I? Nah, if others are unable to read and understand English then I’m not holding their hand.

I think men have a huge part to play too and I’m sure men are guilty of encouraging and sometimes forcing women into abortions in order to shirk their own responsibilities for the woman’s pregnancy.

---

No need for the snide comments. It was a genuine request for clarification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Men also don't have to do anything (other than in cases of rape), where does their responsibility start and end in your view?

---

They should have to do something. They should take responsibility and be fathers to the child. It starts the moment they have sex and take the chance of having a child. If that comes to pass they should step up. The hook up culture we now live in means that most young men don’t agree and leave women to pick up the pieces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

No need for the snide comments. It was a genuine request for clarification.

---

Fair enough mate, my bad. Apologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Yes I’m pro life and I’m anti abortion. I’m not afraid or ashamed to say that.

I don’t believe killing the unborn is right, somehow I’m the bad guy. So be it.

---

Nobody is calling you a bad guy. I understand the arguments about protecting the most vulnerable. I was raised Catholic and I know it's an ethical issue a lot of people agonise over. In a perfect world there would never be need for abortion, but we don't live in a perfect world. Real life gets in the way. The central question for me is whether or not a woman should have the right to control her own reproduction. For me, yes, because forcing a woman to give birth against her will is, I believe, a violation of her human rights and even a from of torture. I don't think anybody is 'pro-abortion' in the sense of it being a good thing, but on balance I don't think there is an alternative. As the saying goes, you can't be a little bit pregnant, so what's the best thing to do? I think allowing a termination to a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy is a far lesser evil than forcing her to give birth against her will. Of course there are legal safeguards, such as time limits. We must also remember that outlawing abortions won't stop them. Women will still have illegal and unsafe abortions and will die as a result.

I used to long to go to America. Not now.
Maybe New York just to see the sights.

Interesting section in the classic data book freakanomics. There was a marked huge and steady decrease in every kind of crime starting about 15 year post roe v wade. Less people having children they couldn't afford or emotionally care for.

I hope none of the republican nutters have ever had an eduardo the tank, as every sperms is sacred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heretoday

I used to long to go to America. Not now.
Maybe New York just to see the sights.

---

New yorks a **** hole with undeniable jems in it. Poverty is just everywhere, even all over manhatten be good if you like a smoke as about the same amount of hash shops as the dam now.

Another question this throws up is what happens to women who are caught breaking the law by having an illegal abortion? Are they going to be prosecuted, given a criminal record, perhaps even jailed? How will it work in practice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

Nobody is calling you a bad guy. I understand the arguments about protecting the most vulnerable. I was raised Catholic and I know it's an ethical issue a lot of people agonise over. In a perfect world there would never be need for abortion, but we don't live in a perfect world. Real life gets in the way. The central question for me is whether or not a woman should have the right to control her own reproduction. For me, yes, because forcing a woman to give birth against her will is, I believe, a violation of her human rights and even a from of torture. I don't think anybody is 'pro-abortion' in the sense of it being a good thing, but on balance I don't think there is an alternative. As the saying goes, you can't be a little bit pregnant, so what's the best thing to do? I think allowing a termination to a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy is a far lesser evil than forcing her to give birth against her will. Of course there are legal safeguards, such as time limits. We must also remember that outlawing abortions won't stop them. Women will still have illegal and unsafe abortions and will die as a result.

---

Absolutely. I posted the Scottish statistics 20 minutes ago and they pointed out that most abortions were 'therapeutic' and the majority were in areas of deprivation.

So far there has been no response to the question, why increase deprivation by forcing large families on young women who are probably having to go to food banks already?

Macron trying to virtue signal but being shown up as the right wing nipple he is.

acron
@EmmanuelMacron

Abortion is a fundamental right for all women. It must be protected. I wish to express my solidarity with the women whose liberties are being undermined by the Supreme Court of the United States

Devan Sinha
@DevanSinha
·
11m
Abortion laws in France (14 weeks, even in cases of rape) are marginally more restrictive than the Mississippi law SCOTUS upheld today (Dobbs v. Jackson, 15 weeks) overruling Roe v. Wade.

Europe is not a paragon of women's reproductive rights. Some nations do better than others

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

They should have to do something. They should take responsibility and be fathers to the child. It starts the moment they have sex and take the chance of having a child. If that comes to pass they should step up. The hook up culture we now live in means that most young men don’t agree and leave women to pick up the pieces.

---

Just how do you juggle being a father to 4 kids by different mothers?

Isn't it strange how all these religious US political/preacher nutjobs who preach about morality, are normally the same guys who get caught sending photos of their trouser snakes to choir girls/boys.

Ahmed Ali
@MrAhmednurAli
·

You can never ban abortion, you can only ban safe abortions. Read that again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

Nobody is calling you a bad guy. I understand the arguments about protecting the most vulnerable. I was raised Catholic and I know it's an ethical issue a lot of people agonise over. In a perfect world there would never be need for abortion, but we don't live in a perfect world. Real life gets in the way. The central question for me is whether or not a woman should have the right to control her own reproduction. For me, yes, because forcing a woman to give birth against her will is, I believe, a violation of her human rights and even a from of torture. I don't think anybody is 'pro-abortion' in the sense of it being a good thing, but on balance I don't think there is an alternative. As the saying goes, you can't be a little bit pregnant, so what's the best thing to do? I think allowing a termination to a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy is a far lesser evil than forcing her to give birth against her will. Of course there are legal safeguards, such as time limits. We must also remember that outlawing abortions won't stop them. Women will still have illegal and unsafe abortions and will die as a result.

---

Well, some people absolutely do think pro-life is bad . A quick look on Twitter tonight is an eye opener on that one haha! Also, some people seem to very much be pro-abortion - with some even bragging about how many they have had on social media! Im not sure if that’s just due to how polarised some people are on the issue that they are being extreme?

I appreciate what you are saying though about women being forced to reproduce. My view is that the hook up culture we live in takes away the responsibility people (both sexes) have when having sex. Women aren’t forced to give birth, because in almost all cases they aren’t forced to have sex. Once sex is separated from reproduction, as it is in todays world, I can very much agree with the argument you are making.

Women and men have choices if they want to avoid pregnancy. The only party with no choice is the unborn child and I just can’t accept that ending their life due to the poor choices made by the parents is somehow morally right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Absolutely. I posted the Scottish statistics 20 minutes ago and they pointed out that most abortions were 'therapeutic' and the majority were in areas of deprivation.

So far there has been no response to the question, why increase deprivation by forcing large families on young women who are probably having to go to food banks already?

---

But again, nobody forced them to have unprotected sex? How about people take responsibility for themselves instead of getting pregnant when they can’t afford it and then using abortion as an easy way out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Absolutely. I posted the Scottish statistics 20 minutes ago and they pointed out that most abortions were 'therapeutic' and the majority were in areas of deprivation.

So far there has been no response to the question, why increase deprivation by forcing large families on young women who are probably having to go to food banks already?

---

My gran on my mother's side was very devout in her Catholicism and had twelve children as a result, which wasn't uncommon back then. Not only was abortion unthinkable, contraception was a total no-no. Of course it was never discussed, but if she was alive today I would ask her if she would do it differently, if she had the chance. Such a big family took a huge physical, emotional and financial toll on my grandparents. As stated, contraception availability is something the GOP also has its sights upon, in its quest to turn the clock back a century. Sex for women is purely within marriage and in order to get pregnant again. Women of childbearing age are to be brood mares, in and out of the maternity ward every year. Or of course there is the option of married couples having separate bedrooms, like good Christians should. Of course, the Republican Party doesn't believe the state should help those big families it will help create - that's socialism, you're on your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

But again, nobody forced them to have unprotected sex? How about people take responsibility for themselves instead of getting pregnant when they can’t afford it and then using abortion as an easy way out?

---

So, how do you intend to get these people out of poverty if you are preventing them from having a safe, clinical abortion?

Don't tell me you have never heard of accidents happening.


FWIW, I have no children, not by choice, but to tell people who are fortunate to become pregnant, possibly at the wrong time of their lives, under age for example, that they just have to suck it up and get on with it!!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

So, how do you intend to get these people out of poverty if you are preventing them from having a safe, clinical abortion?

Don't tell me you have never heard of accidents happening.


FWIW, I have no children, not by choice, but to tell people who are fortunate to become pregnant, possibly at the wrong time of their lives, under age for example, that they just have to suck it up and get on with it!!?

---

Yep the you've made a mistake now live with it is as stupid and victorian, as those that say the same about brexit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

Another question this throws up is what happens to women who are caught breaking the law by having an illegal abortion? Are they going to be prosecuted, given a criminal record, perhaps even jailed? How will it work in practice?

---

Yes, certainly in Missouri now, even assisting someone to get one is punishable by time inside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

But again, nobody forced them to have unprotected sex? How about people take responsibility for themselves instead of getting pregnant when they can’t afford it and then using abortion as an easy way out?

---

Surely you’re not advocating for the use of contraception? Isn’t that amoral and a sin too, just like abortion?

Every drop of sperm caught in that condom is a dead kid surely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

So, how do you intend to get these people out of poverty if you are preventing them from having a safe, clinical abortion?

Don't tell me you have never heard of accidents happening.


FWIW, I have no children, not by choice, but to tell people who are fortunate to become pregnant, possibly at the wrong time of their lives, under age for example, that they just have to suck it up and get on with it!!?

---

You're right, those American states which ban abortion will make the lives of poorer women even more difficult. It will be like the bad old days: those who can afford it will go to a private clinic where doctors charge big money for doing abortions illegally. It's a very nice side revenue. Everyone will be told she is visiting family for a few days and it will never be mentioned again. If the woman is poor, it's another baby to feed and clothe or the coat-hanger option...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

So, how do you intend to get these people out of poverty if you are preventing them from having a safe, clinical abortion?

Don't tell me you have never heard of accidents happening.


FWIW, I have no children, not by choice, but to tell people who are fortunate to become pregnant, possibly at the wrong time of their lives, under age for example, that they just have to suck it up and get on with it!!?

---

Well, if the alternative is killing a child then ….. yeah!

This ultimately comes down to that. Do you think killing an unborn child is wrong in almost all cases? In my case, yes I do.

I have a friend who’s sister got pregnant at 14. Her mother had high hopes for her to go to university, get a great job, married and do all that parents wish for their children. The girl chose to have her child and I can assure you she wouldn’t have it any other way. Accidents happen but only once you make the decision to have sex which is risky. I just don’t accept that killing the child because it’s not right for you at that particular time is right and I’m genuinely worried for a society that believes it is.

With the shockingly low rates of rapists being prosecuted. In some states you'll have more chance of being jailed for getting rid of the pregnancy, than committing the rape that caused it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Well, if the alternative is killing a child then ….. yeah!

This ultimately comes down to that. Do you think killing an unborn child is wrong in almost all cases? In my case, yes I do.

I have a friend who’s sister got pregnant at 14. Her mother had high hopes for her to go to university, get a great job, married and do all that parents wish for their children. The girl chose to have her child and I can assure you she wouldn’t have it any other way. Accidents happen but only once you make the decision to have sex which is risky. I just don’t accept that killing the child because it’s not right for you at that particular time is right and I’m genuinely worried or a society that believes it is.

---

Do you ****

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Do you ****

---

Sorry, what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Sorry, what?

---

Do you sherman tank. Where does the limit stop for you. Is it a wasted seed, the morning after, one week, wait until it has brain function.

What about in cases of incest, rape or being underage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Well, if the alternative is killing a child then ….. yeah!

This ultimately comes down to that. Do you think killing an unborn child is wrong in almost all cases? In my case, yes I do.

I have a friend who’s sister got pregnant at 14. Her mother had high hopes for her to go to university, get a great job, married and do all that parents wish for their children. The girl chose to have her child and I can assure you she wouldn’t have it any other way. Accidents happen but only once you make the decision to have sex which is risky. I just don’t accept that killing the child because it’s not right for you at that particular time is right and I’m genuinely worried for a society that believes it is.

---

Now you will have to explain, at what stage, after conception do you think that the zygote becomes an unborn child? 1 day, 1 week, 8 weeks?

What I suppose I'm saying is that, in the early stages, the assembly of cells in the uterus is just that, undifferentiated cells. Not a child.


Edit : Stairway beat me to it. At least I wasn't premature 😉

Trump, asked if he deserves credit for today’s abortion rights ruling, on FOX: “God made the decision." https://foxnews.com/politics/trump-p...ing-roe-v-wade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Do you sherman tank. Where does the limit stop for you. Is it a wasted seed, the morning after, one week, wait until it has brain function.

What about in cases of incest, rape or being underage

---

At the point of conception. I’ve already covered the cases of incest, rape etc.

My problem is with the vast, vast majority of cases where abortion is done as a matter of convenience by irresponsible people who have a disregard for human life. Using abortion as a form of delayed contraception.

Where does the limit stop for you? 6 months? 9 months? Just after primary 7?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Now you will have to explain, at what stage, after conception do you think that the zygote becomes an unborn child? 1 day, 1 week, 8 weeks?

What I suppose I'm saying is that, in the early stages, the assembly of cells in the uterus is just that, undifferentiated cells. Not a child.

---

At the point of conception I believe life begins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

At the point of conception. I’ve already covered the cases of incest, rape etc.

My problem is with the vast, vast majority of cases where abortion is done as a matter of convenience by irresponsible people who have a disregard for human life. Using abortion as a form of delayed contraception.

Where does the limit stop for you? 6 months? 9 months? Just after primary 7?

---

It’s heartening to see that you’re in the minority here at least.

You never answered my question about advocating for the use of contraception though? Surely if you believe a child is a child at the point of conception then a condom is just as bad as abortion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

At the point of conception I believe life begins.

---

So, where do you stand with a natural abortion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

At the point of conception. I’ve already covered the cases of incest, rape etc.

My problem is with the vast, vast majority of cases where abortion is done as a matter of convenience by irresponsible people who have a disregard for human life. Using abortion as a form of delayed contraception.

Where does the limit stop for you? 6 months? 9 months? Just after primary 7?

---

Conception 😆 it's a couple of cells.

You better not eat meat , harm a fly or masterbate surely then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Well, some people absolutely do think pro-life is bad . A quick look on Twitter tonight is an eye opener on that one haha! Also, some people seem to very much be pro-abortion - with some even bragging about how many they have had on social media! Im not sure if that’s just due to how polarised some people are on the issue that they are being extreme?

I appreciate what you are saying though about women being forced to reproduce. My view is that the hook up culture we live in takes away the responsibility people (both sexes) have when having sex. Women aren’t forced to give birth, because in almost all cases they aren’t forced to have sex. Once sex is separated from reproduction, as it is in todays world, I can very much agree with the argument you are making.

Women and men have choices if they want to avoid pregnancy. The only party with no choice is the unborn child and I just can’t accept that ending their life due to the poor choices made by the parents is somehow morally right.

---

I 100% think being anti abortion (I will never call it pro life as that is just bollocks) is bad and completely immoral. I think the position you're hold is wrong in every possible way.

If men got pregnant instead of women you could get the morning after pill from vending machines on every street corner. It wouldn't even be discussed.

Also, the language used in all anti abortion talk is nonsense. "ending theirs life" - what life does a ball of cells have 4 weeks after conception? How is its life being ended?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lendo

It’s heartening to see that you’re in the minority here at least.

You never answered my question about advocating for the use of contraception though? Surely if you believe a child is a child at the point of conception then a condom is just as bad as abortion?

---

Emm no. As condoms prevent conception. Would you like me to use a big green crayon for you??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil7908

I 100% think being anti abortion (I will never call it pro life as that is just bollocks) is bad and completely immoral. I think the position you're hold is wrong in every possible way.

If men got pregnant instead of women you could get the morning after pill from vending machines on every street corner. It wouldn't even be discussed.

Also, the language used in all anti abortion talk is nonsense. "ending theirs life" - what life does a ball of cells have 4 weeks after conception? How is its life being ended?!

---

That’s a good point, Mr McBizz, is the morning after pill also murder?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil7908

I 100% think being anti abortion (I will never call it pro life as that is just bollocks) is bad and completely immoral. I think the position you're hold is wrong in every possible way.

If men got pregnant instead of women you could get the morning after pill from vending machines on every street corner. It wouldn't even be discussed.

Also, the language used in all anti abortion talk is nonsense. "ending theirs life" - what life does a ball of cells have 4 weeks after conception? How is its life being ended?!

---

Yeah I’m very aware of what people think of my views. I don’t want to kill baby’s, you do. I’m the bad guy, gotcha [emoji106]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Yeah I’m very aware of what people think of my views. I don’t want to kill baby’s, you do. I’m the bad guy, gotcha [emoji106]

---

Again with your linguistic nonsense. Is a 4 week old ball of cells a baby?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

At the point of conception. I’ve already covered the cases of incest, rape etc.

My problem is with the vast, vast majority of cases where abortion is done as a matter of convenience by irresponsible people who have a disregard for human life. Using abortion as a form of delayed contraception.

Where does the limit stop for you? 6 months? 9 months? Just after primary 7?

---

Not in law, at least in English law.

The unborn has no legal status, until born!!!


https://academic.oup.com/medlaw/article/28/1/93/5510054

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Emm no. As condoms prevent conception. Would you like me to use a big green crayon for you??

---

Are you a vegetarian. As obviously killing a cow is more messed up than killing a couple of cells.

Killing babies 😆 imagine the baby 2 days post conception lying in a crib

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Conception [emoji38] it's a couple of cells.

You better not eat meat , harm a fly or masterbate surely then

---

What has eating meat or harming flys got to do with the sanctity of human life?

Masterbate isn’t a word but anyway, having a **** doesn’t involve impregnating anyone so again? What’s your point??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Are you a vegetarian. As obviously killing a cow is more messed up than killing a couple of cells.

Killing babies [emoji38] imagine the baby 2 days post conception lying in a crib

---

Do you think murdering a pregnant woman is worse than murdering a woman who isn’t pregnant?

The law does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Do you think murdering a pregnant woman is worse than murdering a woman who isn’t pregnant?

The law does.

---

Need some reference, is the woman murdered immediately after conception, or 10 weeks later?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Need some reference, is the woman murdered immediately after conception, or 10 weeks later?

---

Take your pick, I’m not fussy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Well this is where we differ. Clearly you don’t believe an unborn child is a person and therefore has no rights? I believe they are viable people and to kill then as a matter of convenience is wrong. Somehow that’s become an evil immoral stance to take in todays world but there we go.

Nobody is forcing the woman to do anything. She is responsible for herself and for getting pregnant (other than in cases of rape where I believe abortion should be an option). Once pregnant, I don’t believe anyone has a right to kill the child unless in extreme circumstances.

I believe the rule of law should apply to everyone, especially the most vulnerable- like baby’s.

---

Why can’t the abortion be the choice of the individual? Oh wait, it was. Nobody had to get an abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Take your pick, I’m not fussy.

---

I think you will find that the law is a bit more fussy than you on the matter.

A blastocyst has no legal status, neither has a zygote or even an embryo. You need to be born to have any legal status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

I have a friend who’s sister got pregnant at 14. Her mother had high hopes for her to go to university, get a great job, married and do all that parents wish for their children. The girl chose to have her child and I can assure you she wouldn’t have it any other way. .

---

Way you tell it, feel I've missed out a bit not having a mum who was 14 or 15.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Way you tell it, feel I've missed out a bit not having a mum who was 14 or 15.

---

😆

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article...20the%20embryo.

Ha, ha!!

Pregnancy begins on the 1st day of the menstrual cycle, even though it takes the rare chance of a sperm in week 3 meeting the egg


But according to the dotnet expert.....

13 states so far going to ban. That's what happens when you let religious fundamentals be in charge. Actually Pakistanis have more progressive rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Way you tell it, feel I've missed out a bit not having a mum who was 14 or 15.

---

Better that than a mum who decided to kill you I suppose.

Let’s be thankful we all had mums who took responsibility for their children eh? We can all agree on that one. Night all [emoji106]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article...20the%20embryo.

Ha, ha!!

Pregnancy begins on the 1st day of the menstrual cycle, even though it takes the rare chance of a sperm in week 3 meeting the egg


But according to the dotnet expert.....

---

He'll be pro the morning after pill then