Welcome to Gilead

[SueEllen]

Who said anything about equal rights? This morning you and Sue made it very clear you believed men had absolutely no rights in the matter and if any man dared to suggest they may have an interest they are clearly a rapist and abuser. The figures have proven you wrong.

As we are doing aggressive - How many little children are you prepared to murder before we actually have a sensible discussion and work out how to reduce unwanted pregnancies and support fathers rights?

They aren't children as they aren't a people in English and Welsh law. To be a person you need to be born and live a few minutes .

That's why if you stab a woman who is 5 months pregnant in the stomach, killing the fetus and also kill her you don't get done for killing 2 people. There as if you stab a woman his 8 months pregnant, a C-section is done and the baby lives a few hours then you get done for killing 2 people. And yes these are edge cases but some domestic abusers have done same/similar.

[vetran]

They aren't children as they aren't a people in English and Welsh law. To be a person you need to be born and live a few minutes .

That's why if you stab a woman who is 5 months pregnant in the stomach, killing the fetus and also kill her you don't get done for killing 2 people. There as if you stab a woman his 8 months pregnant, a C-section is done and the baby lives a few hours then you get done for killing 2 people. And yes these are edge cases but some domestic abusers have done same/similar.

again abusing men sorry rapist phallocrats as your argument?

this you?

[SueEllen]

again abusing men sorry rapist phallocrats as your argument?

this you?

Where have I abused men?

I simply pointed out to be considered a person legally you have to be born.

So your argument fails.

[ladymuck]

If you notice I also quoted this from the same link 99.9% is mental health. so 1 in 1000 may be physical, which I wouldn't argue with proceeding.



You are arguing for abortion on demand, it doesn't seem to be working maybe rethink it a bit?

I have never once said abortion on demand. I advocate for choice, and a safe choice at that. Banning abortion, or severely restricting access is not allowing choice.

It's interesting to note that you'd rather a mentally unstable woman be forced to carry and bear a child than allow her to abort. Who is going to pay for her care and that of the child she feels incapable of raising? I presume you're expecting her to have a kind, understanding husband to hold her hand and that the trauma of childbirth is something she can quickly get over with just a video consultation or two and a bucket of pills.

[NotAllThere]

It's easy to be unhappy about an abortion when you're not going through it.

I'd imagine it's pretty easy to be unhappy about it while you are going through it.

I'm sure the Dutch have shown that if you give kids sex and relationship education (with the emphasis on relationships) and wide access to contraceptives children/young adults have their first sexual encounters at a later age.

Obviously puts them right off the idea!

[NotAllThere]

Those weren't my arguments.

My arguments are on:

• women who miscarry. They aren't allowed to have D&C or any other surgery if there is a heart beat. Like the case of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland and this recent case - https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSt...abort-85635929 Reading more the ethnic/racial disparities around healthcare in the US mean that more non-white women are going to die in pregnancy. (I already know about them in the UK.)
• Those who have have genetic testing and find that their child isn't compatible with life. All genetic testing takes place after the pregnancy is know to be viable.
• Those who have cancer, any other life threatening condition or serious injury. They aren't allowed to have treatment that risks the pregnancy until the baby is born and it may be too late afterwards.

The question to be asked to both sides of the debate: if the law was changed to allow abortion except for these hard cases, and maybe some others, would you be happy with that?

Btw miscarriage isn't an edge case it is very common. 1 in 8 pregnancies according to the NHS.

1 in 16 requires a D&C (after 10 weeks gestation). And of those how many have a detectable heartbeat? I don't know. But it's that figure that decides whether your first argument is an edge case.

No because it just isn't the child's life you are talking about you are talking about, particularly in the US and UK about women of colour's, but in fact any women's right to life and right not to have life changing injuries.

You are basically stating you have a right to kill me over a non-viable pregnancy.

As I understand the majority of abortions in the UK are carried out as to go forward would be damaging to the woman's mental health. I assume you're against changing that?

It's not that these arguments aren't reasonable grounds to allow abortion for these cases, but they don't apply to the majority of abortions carried out. To my mind, that makes them weak.

[vetran]

I have never once said abortion on demand. I advocate for choice, and a safe choice at that. Banning abortion, or severely restricting access is not allowing choice.

It's interesting to note that you'd rather a mentally unstable woman be forced to carry and bear a child than allow her to abort. Who is going to pay for her care and that of the child she feels incapable of raising? I presume you're expecting her to have a kind, understanding husband to hold her hand and that the trauma of childbirth is something she can quickly get over with just a video consultation or two and a bucket of pills.

as I said earlier the figures say 99 % of abortions are because the woman is in real danger of insanity then its not very believable. The couples I know who have had abortions were very sane, they were too young or they couldn't afford another child. That is abortion on demand.

So now 99% of pregnant women undertaking an abortion are insane or have a real likelihood of becoming insane. Knowing a few pregnant women that is entirely possible.

[vetran]

Where have I abused men?

I simply pointed out to be considered a person legally you have to be born.

and that men have no right to have an opinion about abortion.
If they have an opinion they are probably abusers. etc.

So your argument fails.

Fails it does

[vetran]

The question to be asked to both sides of the debate: if the law was changed to allow abortion except for these hard cases, and maybe some others, would you be happy with that?

1 in 16 requires a D&C (after 10 weeks gestation). And of those how many have a detectable heartbeat? I don't know. But it's that figure that decides whether your first argument is an edge case.


As I understand the majority of abortions in the UK are carried out as to go forward would be damaging to the woman's mental health. I assume you're against changing that?

It's not that these arguments aren't reasonable grounds to allow abortion for these cases, but they don't apply to the majority of abortions carried out. To my mind, that makes them weak.

A very small portion of abortions are edge cases, as I have repeatedly said anything which threatens the physical health of the mother or is the result of a crime should be permitted. I would even test dna and prosecute abuse cases if that would help.

I think the 99% of abortions should be more tightly regulated and more heavily supported, preferrably so the pregnancy does not happen at all. Hardly controversial.

[SueEllen]

A very small portion of abortions are edge cases, as I have repeatedly said anything which threatens the physical health of the mother or is the result of a crime should be permitted. I would even test dna and prosecute abuse cases if that would help.

I think the 99% of abortions should be more tightly regulated and more heavily supported, preferrably so the pregnancy does not happen at all. Hardly controversial.

You are now openly admitting you don't care about women with mental health issues or learning disabilities.

If you have ever bothered speaking to a GP they will tell you that the majority of their patients mental health issues are linked to social issues.

And this will include patients who who have physical disabilities and learning disabilities due to how they are treated by others in society.

Anyway the fundamental point you are missing is that you cannot force a person to use their body to keep someone or something else alive.