Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you?" Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I hope its not one of them bad googles" It's a leaked opinion from the US Supreme Court. Roe v Wade will be struck down. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying." That won't affect you in any way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you?" Because she realises that decisions don't have to affect her directly to be fucking awful decisions that will have devastating affects on women. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. " Is that all you have to say? If so, feel free to leave the thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because she realises that decisions don't have to affect her directly to be fucking awful decisions that will have devastating affects on women. " Yes. Thank you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying." I agree. Utterly horrific. I read an article about doctors being told to re implant an ectopic pregnancy or face charges. The procedure doesn’t exist, it’s impossible. It boggles the mind the intelligence of these people making the ‘rules’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. I agree. Utterly horrific. I read an article about doctors being told to re implant an ectopic pregnancy or face charges. The procedure doesn’t exist, it’s impossible. It boggles the mind the intelligence of these people making the ‘rules’ " Just listening to some of the things these old men are saying about how to 'treat' eptopic pregnancies is pretty scary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. " Are you for real? Taking away a woman’s choice, making them face a murder charge, or seeking an unsafe abortion anyway and possibly dying - how can anyone not be outraged by it?!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. I agree. Utterly horrific. I read an article about doctors being told to re implant an ectopic pregnancy or face charges. The procedure doesn’t exist, it’s impossible. It boggles the mind the intelligence of these people making the ‘rules’ " Christ. I despair at some of the ignorant statements I am seeing and hearing. People controlling womens' bodies who have no clue about how they work.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. " Stoning and public execution happens in other countries too. Doesn't effect the majority of the world but it doesn't make it any less wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think they should be left to make their own minds up if they want an abortion or not and not have a bunch of Christians make the decision for them" In many cases it's men making those decisions and trying to control womens' bodies. It's sickening. There is no state law or federal law that controls any element of mens' health. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think they should be left to make their own minds up if they want an abortion or not and not have a bunch of Christians make the decision for them In many cases it's men making those decisions and trying to control womens' bodies. It's sickening. There is no state law or federal law that controls any element of mens' health. " It is yes but the main reason is because it's against their own beliefs because of religion. I only know this from watching the news a few days ago | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Roe v Wade? I feel sick. I feel scared. I feel anxious. And I am in no need of an abortion at my age. And I live in the UK, where abortion is still legal. "Totally get it. I wouldnt worry too much, if they push it through there'll be riots. Baffles me in 2022 we're allowing religion to come into it. Esp when hypocrites like JRM have shares in medical companies in Asia that perform abortion. We're fully in the age of the emporers new clothes. Big hugs to all the other struggling empaths  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. Is that all you have to say? If so, feel free to leave the thread. " I can understand being upset and it's a ridiculous thing that shouldn't even be an issue. But scared? There is no direct threat to you. Nothing is going to happen to you as a result. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only in america the land of the free "American abortion laws are far more liberal than in large parts of Europe. It was only a few years ago that Ireland legalised any abortions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you?" What some women go through will leave them truly empathetic towards other women that may have a different outcome should their choices be taken away, you should be careful with comments like the above as you don't know people's history. But even then women who haven't been through things will still empathise and understand it. PW | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. Is that all you have to say? If so, feel free to leave the thread. I can understand being upset and it's a ridiculous thing that shouldn't even be an issue. But scared? There is no direct threat to you. Nothing is going to happen to you as a result. " Thank you for invalidating my feelings, that's helpful.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. Is that all you have to say? If so, feel free to leave the thread. I can understand being upset and it's a ridiculous thing that shouldn't even be an issue. But scared? There is no direct threat to you. Nothing is going to happen to you as a result. " I’m scared at the fact that women could have this choice taken away from them. No nothing will happen directly to me, but the thought that men can make a law that dictates what women can do with their bodies?? Yes that’s terrifying!! - and there’s no women telling men what they can or can’t do with theirs | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think they should be left to make their own minds up if they want an abortion or not and not have a bunch of Christians make the decision for them In many cases it's men making those decisions and trying to control womens' bodies. It's sickening. There is no state law or federal law that controls any element of mens' health. It is yes but the main reason is because it's against their own beliefs because of religion. I only know this from watching the news a few days ago " The Supreme Court justices (who are largely Catholic, which I didn't know) shouldn't be basing their decisions on religious belief. Law is supposed to be objective. And Kavanaugh et Al all said that they would support Roe v Wade when appointed.
Is religion really a factor for every US state decision around abortion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. Is that all you have to say? If so, feel free to leave the thread. I can understand being upset and it's a ridiculous thing that shouldn't even be an issue. But scared? There is no direct threat to you. Nothing is going to happen to you as a result. " Have you heard of empathy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think they should be left to make their own minds up if they want an abortion or not and not have a bunch of Christians make the decision for them In many cases it's men making those decisions and trying to control womens' bodies. It's sickening. There is no state law or federal law that controls any element of mens' health. It is yes but the main reason is because it's against their own beliefs because of religion. I only know this from watching the news a few days ago The Supreme Court justices (who are largely Catholic, which I didn't know) shouldn't be basing their decisions on religious belief. Law is supposed to be objective. And Kavanaugh et Al all said that they would support Roe v Wade when appointed.
Is religion really a factor for every US state decision around abortion? "It seems that religion plays a big part in the decision unfortunately | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think they should be left to make their own minds up if they want an abortion or not and not have a bunch of Christians make the decision for them In many cases it's men making those decisions and trying to control womens' bodies. It's sickening. There is no state law or federal law that controls any element of mens' health. It is yes but the main reason is because it's against their own beliefs because of religion. I only know this from watching the news a few days ago The Supreme Court justices (who are largely Catholic, which I didn't know) shouldn't be basing their decisions on religious belief. Law is supposed to be objective. And Kavanaugh et Al all said that they would support Roe v Wade when appointed.
Is religion really a factor for every US state decision around abortion? "There is no evidence that religion affects the Supreme Court decisions. Also the Court will soon have four female Justices so it remains to be seen whether this is just men voting to overturn Roe v Wade; that seems unlikely. Roe v Wade has always been contentious for legal reasons. It takes away powers from individual States on the basis that abortion rights are Constitutional rights, which many legal authorities on the left and right have disputed. If it is overturned every State will retain the right to implement whatever abortion rights it wishes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think they should be left to make their own minds up if they want an abortion or not and not have a bunch of Christians make the decision for them In many cases it's men making those decisions and trying to control womens' bodies. It's sickening. There is no state law or federal law that controls any element of mens' health. It is yes but the main reason is because it's against their own beliefs because of religion. I only know this from watching the news a few days ago " Religion is no excuse to make the decisions they are making. Whether it's the USA, Mexico, Saudi Arabia or anywhere, I'd say the same. It's women who will die due to botched backstreet abortions or because of untreated ectopic pregnancies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. I agree. Utterly horrific. I read an article about doctors being told to re implant an ectopic pregnancy or face charges. The procedure doesn’t exist, it’s impossible. It boggles the mind the intelligence of these people making the ‘rules’ "
Absolutely disgusting. Middle aged white men thinking they own women.
'A home grown supply of babies up for adoption.'
Fucking evil they are. Demented. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think they should be left to make their own minds up if they want an abortion or not and not have a bunch of Christians make the decision for them In many cases it's men making those decisions and trying to control womens' bodies. It's sickening. There is no state law or federal law that controls any element of mens' health. It is yes but the main reason is because it's against their own beliefs because of religion. I only know this from watching the news a few days ago The Supreme Court justices (who are largely Catholic, which I didn't know) shouldn't be basing their decisions on religious belief. Law is supposed to be objective. And Kavanaugh et Al all said that they would support Roe v Wade when appointed.
Is religion really a factor for every US state decision around abortion?
There is no evidence that religion affects the Supreme Court decisions. Also the Court will soon have four female Justices so it remains to be seen whether this is just men voting to overturn Roe v Wade; that seems unlikely.
Roe v Wade has always been contentious for legal reasons. It takes away powers from individual States on the basis that abortion rights are Constitutional rights, which many legal authorities on the left and right have disputed. If it is overturned every State will retain the right to implement whatever abortion rights it wishes."And if women can’t afford to travel to states where it is legal to have the procedure they’ll end up in dangerous backstreet venues | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Personally I thi k it's disgusting. To take away the choice from women, to charge them with murder, to try an re implant and ectopic pregnancy, holy fuck! What are they thinking. Does this apply to terminations for medical reasons too? Because I've been there and I know that experience far too well and if they take that choice away I think I would actually throw up. I know the experience of ectopic too. My views are strong ones and I won't post some of it on here. Making abortion illegal would be truly damaging. PW " I think a few of the red states are considering banning abortions for medical reasons. I mean if they're going to criminalise miscarriage, they will do anything. Women don't matter. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Roe v Wade? I feel sick. I feel scared. I feel anxious. And I am in no need of an abortion at my age. And I live in the UK, where abortion is still legal. "Its a horrific decision. I completely agree with the way you feel. It stood for 50 years and over turning it now, feels like a retrograde step that will have far reaching consequences. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. " Do you only care about things that directly affect you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. Is that all you have to say? If so, feel free to leave the thread. I can understand being upset and it's a ridiculous thing that shouldn't even be an issue. But scared? There is no direct threat to you. Nothing is going to happen to you as a result. I’m scared at the fact that women could have this choice taken away from them. No nothing will happen directly to me, but the thought that men can make a law that dictates what women can do with their bodies?? Yes that’s terrifying!! - and there’s no women telling men what they can or can’t do with theirs" It scares me too. Because JRM is against abortion and has power. He spouted some nonsense about the morning after pill being abortion a few months back. I don't think the UK is 100% safe anymore. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think they should be left to make their own minds up if they want an abortion or not and not have a bunch of Christians make the decision for them In many cases it's men making those decisions and trying to control womens' bodies. It's sickening. There is no state law or federal law that controls any element of mens' health. It is yes but the main reason is because it's against their own beliefs because of religion. I only know this from watching the news a few days ago The Supreme Court justices (who are largely Catholic, which I didn't know) shouldn't be basing their decisions on religious belief. Law is supposed to be objective. And Kavanaugh et Al all said that they would support Roe v Wade when appointed.
Is religion really a factor for every US state decision around abortion?
There is no evidence that religion affects the Supreme Court decisions. Also the Court will soon have four female Justices so it remains to be seen whether this is just men voting to overturn Roe v Wade; that seems unlikely.
Roe v Wade has always been contentious for legal reasons. It takes away powers from individual States on the basis that abortion rights are Constitutional rights, which many legal authorities on the left and right have disputed. If it is overturned every State will retain the right to implement whatever abortion rights it wishes.
And if women can’t afford to travel to states where it is legal to have the procedure they’ll end up in dangerous backstreet venues"Yes, it will have to be underground. Some of the red states are planning to make it illegal to travel interstate as well. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think they should be left to make their own minds up if they want an abortion or not and not have a bunch of Christians make the decision for them" These people aren’t Christians in any real sense of the word. They’re not remotely ‘pro life’ - the US social system does nothing to provide for young mums or their children - they’re just anti women. America is returning to the dark ages in many ways and democracy is being continuously eroded. All this with a Democrat government. I can’t even imagine what’ll happen if the Republicans get in again.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think they should be left to make their own minds up if they want an abortion or not and not have a bunch of Christians make the decision for them In many cases it's men making those decisions and trying to control womens' bodies. It's sickening. There is no state law or federal law that controls any element of mens' health. It is yes but the main reason is because it's against their own beliefs because of religion. I only know this from watching the news a few days ago The Supreme Court justices (who are largely Catholic, which I didn't know) shouldn't be basing their decisions on religious belief. Law is supposed to be objective. And Kavanaugh et Al all said that they would support Roe v Wade when appointed.
Is religion really a factor for every US state decision around abortion?
There is no evidence that religion affects the Supreme Court decisions. Also the Court will soon have four female Justices so it remains to be seen whether this is just men voting to overturn Roe v Wade; that seems unlikely.
Roe v Wade has always been contentious for legal reasons. It takes away powers from individual States on the basis that abortion rights are Constitutional rights, which many legal authorities on the left and right have disputed. If it is overturned every State will retain the right to implement whatever abortion rights it wishes.
And if women can’t afford to travel to states where it is legal to have the procedure they’ll end up in dangerous backstreet venues
Yes, it will have to be underground. Some of the red states are planning to make it illegal to travel interstate as well. "Now that really boils my piss!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think they should be left to make their own minds up if they want an abortion or not and not have a bunch of Christians make the decision for them In many cases it's men making those decisions and trying to control womens' bodies. It's sickening. There is no state law or federal law that controls any element of mens' health. It is yes but the main reason is because it's against their own beliefs because of religion. I only know this from watching the news a few days ago " However these same "christians" Believe in your right to own and use a gun. It's OK for them to shoot someone who they feel is a threat to them, But not for a woman to terminate a pregnancy she believes is a threat to her for whatever reason. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. I agree. Utterly horrific. I read an article about doctors being told to re implant an ectopic pregnancy or face charges. The procedure doesn’t exist, it’s impossible. It boggles the mind the intelligence of these people making the ‘rules’
Absolutely disgusting. Middle aged white men thinking they own women.
'A home grown supply of babies up for adoption.'
Fucking evil they are. Demented. "Demented indeed. Can’t fathom it at all | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. Is that all you have to say? If so, feel free to leave the thread. I can understand being upset and it's a ridiculous thing that shouldn't even be an issue. But scared? There is no direct threat to you. Nothing is going to happen to you as a result. I’m scared at the fact that women could have this choice taken away from them. No nothing will happen directly to me, but the thought that men can make a law that dictates what women can do with their bodies?? Yes that’s terrifying!! - and there’s no women telling men what they can or can’t do with theirs It scares me too. Because JRM is against abortion and has power. He spouted some nonsense about the morning after pill being abortion a few months back. I don't think the UK is 100% safe anymore. " Don’t get me started on him | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? What some women go through will leave them truly empathetic towards other women that may have a different outcome should their choices be taken away, you should be careful with comments like the above as you don't know people's history. But even then women who haven't been through things will still empathise and understand it. PW " I was talking about this last night with my sister. I am open about having an abortion in my twenties since the draft decision was leaked. I'm ready to speak up about how important it is that women have the option. I had that option and I think if I'd been forced to have a baby I'd still be with my ex now. I'd never have got out. So yes it hits me because of my own circumstances. But also because I'm a woman and I care deeply for womens' rights. I'm empathetic for those fighting for control of their bodies in the States just as in Afghanistan and El Salvador. It matters. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think they should be left to make their own minds up if they want an abortion or not and not have a bunch of Christians make the decision for them In many cases it's men making those decisions and trying to control womens' bodies. It's sickening. There is no state law or federal law that controls any element of mens' health. It is yes but the main reason is because it's against their own beliefs because of religion. I only know this from watching the news a few days ago However these same "christians" Believe in your right to own and use a gun. It's OK for them to shoot someone who they feel is a threat to them, But not for a woman to terminate a pregnancy she believes is a threat to her for whatever reason. " America is a very bizzare place to live | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. Is that all you have to say? If so, feel free to leave the thread. I can understand being upset and it's a ridiculous thing that shouldn't even be an issue. But scared? There is no direct threat to you. Nothing is going to happen to you as a result. I’m scared at the fact that women could have this choice taken away from them. No nothing will happen directly to me, but the thought that men can make a law that dictates what women can do with their bodies?? Yes that’s terrifying!! - and there’s no women telling men what they can or can’t do with theirs It scares me too. Because JRM is against abortion and has power. He spouted some nonsense about the morning after pill being abortion a few months back. I don't think the UK is 100% safe anymore. " The guy is a religious fruitloop living in the dark ages, detached from reality and oblivious to how the real world works. He drives his wife and kids around in a vintage car with no seatbelts FFS. The sooner his kind are out of government the better. A | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't feel sick, scared or anxious about it. But I do think it's a fucking huge step backwards " Large parts of 'Merica still teach that the Bible is the truth, and Creationism and Darwinism is a lie....some ultra-Christian schools are but one step away from bringing back book-burning parties on Sunday School outings! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think they should be left to make their own minds up if they want an abortion or not and not have a bunch of Christians make the decision for them In many cases it's men making those decisions and trying to control womens' bodies. It's sickening. There is no state law or federal law that controls any element of mens' health. It is yes but the main reason is because it's against their own beliefs because of religion. I only know this from watching the news a few days ago However these same "christians" Believe in your right to own and use a gun. It's OK for them to shoot someone who they feel is a threat to them, But not for a woman to terminate a pregnancy she believes is a threat to her for whatever reason. America is a very bizzare place to live " It seems to be a very scary place to live if you are not a white wealthy heterosexual man. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watch The Family documentary on Netflix to see the conservative Christian influences within the American government for generations and how they have influenced policy throughout the world especially in relation to same sex relationships. Until you see how a US senator can use his high level access to encourage the reversal of LGBTQ legislation in Romania and government sanctioned murders in Uganda you might struggle to understand how these things don't stay within borders or how easily these people operate. " I've never heard of that one. Will see if I can kick someone off Netflix and watch it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. Is that all you have to say? If so, feel free to leave the thread. I can understand being upset and it's a ridiculous thing that shouldn't even be an issue. But scared? There is no direct threat to you. Nothing is going to happen to you as a result. " It depends upon perception. You don't see it as a threat, others might. For example, it highlights how laws can be so easily changed, what's to stop it happening in the UK. When you look at it like that, it makes it easier to understand another point of view. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. Is that all you have to say? If so, feel free to leave the thread. I can understand being upset and it's a ridiculous thing that shouldn't even be an issue. But scared? There is no direct threat to you. Nothing is going to happen to you as a result. I’m scared at the fact that women could have this choice taken away from them. No nothing will happen directly to me, but the thought that men can make a law that dictates what women can do with their bodies?? Yes that’s terrifying!! - and there’s no women telling men what they can or can’t do with theirs It scares me too. Because JRM is against abortion and has power. He spouted some nonsense about the morning after pill being abortion a few months back. I don't think the UK is 100% safe anymore. The guy is a religious fruitloop living in the dark ages, detached from reality and oblivious to how the real world works. He drives his wife and kids around in a vintage car with no seatbelts FFS. The sooner his kind are out of government the better. A" I don't think that the time has come for Labour to win a GE tbh. Not holding my breath. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think they should be left to make their own minds up if they want an abortion or not and not have a bunch of Christians make the decision for them In many cases it's men making those decisions and trying to control womens' bodies. It's sickening. There is no state law or federal law that controls any element of mens' health. It is yes but the main reason is because it's against their own beliefs because of religion. I only know this from watching the news a few days ago The Supreme Court justices (who are largely Catholic, which I didn't know) shouldn't be basing their decisions on religious belief. Law is supposed to be objective. And Kavanaugh et Al all said that they would support Roe v Wade when appointed.
Is religion really a factor for every US state decision around abortion? "Excluding NY, LA, San Francisco, the rest of the US is backward and in the Bible Belt. It depends on their electorate. Just sad and pathetic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They think they’ll end abortion. All they’re really doing is ending safe abortions. " this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. I agree. Utterly horrific. I read an article about doctors being told to re implant an ectopic pregnancy or face charges. The procedure doesn’t exist, it’s impossible. It boggles the mind the intelligence of these people making the ‘rules’
Absolutely disgusting. Middle aged white men thinking they own women.
'A home grown supply of babies up for adoption.'
Fucking evil they are. Demented. "I understand that you're angry, and I agree wholeheartedly with your stance, but blaming "Middle aged white men" is wrong. There are 9 current justices of the US Supreme Court. Three are women, one is black and two are Latino. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. " Misogyny at its finest | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. I agree. Utterly horrific. I read an article about doctors being told to re implant an ectopic pregnancy or face charges. The procedure doesn’t exist, it’s impossible. It boggles the mind the intelligence of these people making the ‘rules’
Absolutely disgusting. Middle aged white men thinking they own women.
'A home grown supply of babies up for adoption.'
Fucking evil they are. Demented.
I understand that you're angry, and I agree wholeheartedly with your stance, but blaming "Middle aged white men" is wrong. There are 9 current justices of the US Supreme Court. Three are women, one is black and two are Latino."And 2 of those 3 women have consistently voted against changing abortion rights. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. I agree. Utterly horrific. I read an article about doctors being told to re implant an ectopic pregnancy or face charges. The procedure doesn’t exist, it’s impossible. It boggles the mind the intelligence of these people making the ‘rules’
Absolutely disgusting. Middle aged white men thinking they own women.
'A home grown supply of babies up for adoption.'
Fucking evil they are. Demented.
I understand that you're angry, and I agree wholeheartedly with your stance, but blaming "Middle aged white men" is wrong. There are 9 current justices of the US Supreme Court. Three are women, one is black and two are Latino.
And 2 of those 3 women have consistently voted against changing abortion rights. "That may be so, but they're still not "middle aged white men". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. I agree. Utterly horrific. I read an article about doctors being told to re implant an ectopic pregnancy or face charges. The procedure doesn’t exist, it’s impossible. It boggles the mind the intelligence of these people making the ‘rules’
Absolutely disgusting. Middle aged white men thinking they own women.
'A home grown supply of babies up for adoption.'
Fucking evil they are. Demented.
I understand that you're angry, and I agree wholeheartedly with your stance, but blaming "Middle aged white men" is wrong. There are 9 current justices of the US Supreme Court. Three are women, one is black and two are Latino.
And 2 of those 3 women have consistently voted against changing abortion rights.
That may be so, but they're still not "middle aged white men"."Exactly! They also don't support a change in abortion law, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"They say it’s “murder”. How much blood will they have on their hands after innocent women die having backstreet abortions because of the laws they want to pass. Operating on women who are having ectopic pregnancies and trying to “re implant” the embryo into womb is barbaric. Giving (the word we aren’t aloud to say) families the right to sue victims for having abortions. There’s not one ounce of common sense or empathy in any of their heads. It’s sick. " I can't recall which state will let any member of a family sue a woman for aborting. Even if she was r@ped a member of his family could sue. Oklahoma has just introduced laws which are the harshest anywhere. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. Misogyny at its finest" Utter bollocks Misogyny (/m?'s?d??ni/) is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women. I was simply asking why something happening thousands of miles away is scary. I understand empathy, I understand being annoyed but being scared is an odd response. And the person who said 'you don't know what a person has been through' that works in more than one direction | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
.
We also still have virtually no provision for abortion services in Northern Ireland so the UK has its own issues in this area too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. Misogyny at its finest Utter bollocks Misogyny (/m?'s?d??ni/) is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women. I was simply asking why something happening thousands of miles away is scary. I understand empathy, I understand being annoyed but being scared is an odd response. And the person who said 'you don't know what a person has been through' that works in more than one direction " You're the only person having a problem with how I feel about something. Why is it for you to decide that it's odd and inappropriate? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Very sad but not surprised. Its been coming for a while. I protested about it during the trump state visit protest. People thought I was mad as well as others doing the same. And here we are .
We also still have virtually no provision for abortion services in Northern Ireland so the UK has its own issues in this area too. "It's unbelievable that NI is still not doing something. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I genuinely can't believe this is even a serious discussion in 2022 "Abortion is heavily restricted or illegal in much of the world including most of Europe. It is illegal in Germany for example although in reality available up to 12 weeks with conditions. The possible change to Roe v Wade is very troubling but I'm not sure why so much focus on USA compared to elsewhere. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because it's a major overturning of a basic right for women. Even bans on contraception are being threatened in some states. Murder charges for women who have an abortion. Horrifying. That won't affect you in any way. Misogyny at its finest Utter bollocks Misogyny (/m?'s?d??ni/) is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women. I was simply asking why something happening thousands of miles away is scary. I understand empathy, I understand being annoyed but being scared is an odd response. And the person who said 'you don't know what a person has been through' that works in more than one direction You're the only person having a problem with how I feel about something. Why is it for you to decide that it's odd and inappropriate? " And I agree with whoever said you were being misogynist as you're showing contempt for my feelings on my damned thread and despite a number of people saying so, you're still going. Please stop. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I genuinely can't believe this is even a serious discussion in 2022
Abortion is heavily restricted or illegal in much of the world including most of Europe. It is illegal in Germany for example although in reality available up to 12 weeks with conditions. The possible change to Roe v Wade is very troubling but I'm not sure why so much focus on USA compared to elsewhere."Possibly because they're very vocally regressing 40-odd years. Going backwards. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I genuinely can't believe this is even a serious discussion in 2022
Abortion is heavily restricted or illegal in much of the world including most of Europe. It is illegal in Germany for example although in reality available up to 12 weeks with conditions. The possible change to Roe v Wade is very troubling but I'm not sure why so much focus on USA compared to elsewhere.
Possibly because they're very vocally regressing 40-odd years. Going backwards. "Yet hardly any comment about Poland where changes have actually happened rather than internet speculation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I genuinely can't believe this is even a serious discussion in 2022
Abortion is heavily restricted or illegal in much of the world including most of Europe. It is illegal in Germany for example although in reality available up to 12 weeks with conditions. The possible change to Roe v Wade is very troubling but I'm not sure why so much focus on USA compared to elsewhere.
Possibly because they're very vocally regressing 40-odd years. Going backwards.
Yet hardly any comment about Poland where changes have actually happened rather than internet speculation."Lots was said about Poland when the Law and Justice party were campaigning for power and were then elected, at the time. Lots of people continue to say lots of things about provision in Poland. In Northern Ireland. In various other countries where it's nigh on impossible to access such services. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I genuinely can't believe this is even a serious discussion in 2022
Abortion is heavily restricted or illegal in much of the world including most of Europe. It is illegal in Germany for example although in reality available up to 12 weeks with conditions. The possible change to Roe v Wade is very troubling but I'm not sure why so much focus on USA compared to elsewhere.
Possibly because they're very vocally regressing 40-odd years. Going backwards.
Yet hardly any comment about Poland where changes have actually happened rather than internet speculation.
Lots was said about Poland when the Law and Justice party were campaigning for power and were then elected, at the time. Lots of people continue to say lots of things about provision in Poland. In Northern Ireland. In various other countries where it's nigh on impossible to access such services."I don't think 'lots of people' is true at all, at least in the UK. Our media is strangely fixated on the US, coupled with huge ignorance about how the law actually works there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Roe v Wade? I feel sick. I feel scared. I feel anxious. And I am in no need of an abortion at my age. And I live in the UK, where abortion is still legal. "It is beyond comprehension to me that this is even still an issue for some people. That the US might be reversing a basic right makes me very sad indeed. The idea a woman should/could not be free to make this choice is positively stone-aged. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I genuinely can't believe this is even a serious discussion in 2022
Abortion is heavily restricted or illegal in much of the world including most of Europe. It is illegal in Germany for example although in reality available up to 12 weeks with conditions. The possible change to Roe v Wade is very troubling but I'm not sure why so much focus on USA compared to elsewhere.
Possibly because they're very vocally regressing 40-odd years. Going backwards.
Yet hardly any comment about Poland where changes have actually happened rather than internet speculation.
Lots was said about Poland when the Law and Justice party were campaigning for power and were then elected, at the time. Lots of people continue to say lots of things about provision in Poland. In Northern Ireland. In various other countries where it's nigh on impossible to access such services.
I don't think 'lots of people' is true at all, at least in the UK. Our media is strangely fixated on the US, coupled with huge ignorance about how the law actually works there."It's a deeply unpopular thing within Poland itself https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jan/27/protests-flare-across-poland-after-death-of-young-mother-denied-an-abortion And the ECHJ has said it would support cases brought by Polish women who could claim infringement of their rights as EU citizens. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This decision to overturn Roe v Wade has been 50 years in the making. In the US 2016 Presidential debates Trump openly admitted that he would stack the Supreme Court with Pro-life judges if possible solely with the intention of overturning Roe, purely to secure the Evangelical vote...an entirely cynical political move, especially as he admitted a number of years earlier 9f being Pro-choice. As others have hinted at the Republican party is only Pro life, until the child is born, then they don't give a flying f**k. You can't have an abortion, but sure own as many guns as you like; we'll put immigrant children in cages and them disperse them throughout the country with no means of tracking them back to their mothers/families; we'll vote against a bill that would produce more baby formula; inc*st and r*pe, even of a minor, its illegal to have an abortion...how psychologically damaging is that And to the OP, I completely and utterly understand why this frightens you. Mostly middle aged white men and women, dictating what happens to the most vulnerable is totally and utterly shameful!!" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because she realises that decisions don't have to affect her directly to be fucking awful decisions that will have devastating affects on women. " Precisely this. It is not a step in the right direction. It is a huge leap backward for woman-kind. We should ALL be up in arms about it. What if the need for the UK to change policy became a pillar of a trade deal negotiation? (For example). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think U.K. people can be very judgmental about other cultures they don’t understand. My view is Americans are very different to Europeans, on lots of things, with exception of New York maybe. It’s their decisions. On abortion I believe unborn babies have rights, fathers have rights and of course the women carrying the feutus have rights. The last two also have responsibilities. It’s complex ! " This is not a cultural issue. It's funny how the discussion around abortion never seems to include any forced responsibility on the father's....ever. The woman is expected to carry an unwanted child. The 'father' can walk away as easy as anything and carry on with their care free life. Did you also know that they are trying to or have (can't remember if it's been passed yet) allowed the victims of SA to be sued by the perpetrator if they get an abortion of a pregnancy caused by the SA. The family of the perpetrator can also sue the victim as well. How fucked up is that! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think U.K. people can be very judgmental about other cultures they don’t understand. My view is Americans are very different to Europeans, on lots of things, with exception of New York maybe. It’s their decisions. On abortion I believe unborn babies have rights, fathers have rights and of course the women carrying the feutus have rights. The last two also have responsibilities. It’s complex ! This is not a cultural issue. It's funny how the discussion around abortion never seems to include any forced responsibility on the father's....ever. The woman is expected to carry an unwanted child. The 'father' can walk away as easy as anything and carry on with their care free life. Did you also know that they are trying to or have (can't remember if it's been passed yet) allowed the victims of SA to be sued by the perpetrator if they get an abortion of a pregnancy caused by the SA. The family of the perpetrator can also sue the victim as well. How fucked up is that!" This!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think U.K. people can be very judgmental about other cultures they don’t understand. My view is Americans are very different to Europeans, on lots of things, with exception of New York maybe. It’s their decisions. On abortion I believe unborn babies have rights, fathers have rights and of course the women carrying the feutus have rights. The last two also have responsibilities. It’s complex ! " I have no issues with individuals not believing in abortion but there's a massive difference between individual belief and blanket laws. Making abortion illegal kills people in a number of ways, puts additional strain on children's care services and increases child poverty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All men should be injected with chemical castration drugs. No libido and no pregnancy issues. Only allowed to have the castration reversed when in a long term, healthy relationship where they have both agreed to create a baby. " That’d never happen because the thought of stripping away mens rights over their own bodies is a barbaric idea  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All men should be injected with chemical castration drugs. No libido and no pregnancy issues. Only allowed to have the castration reversed when in a long term, healthy relationship where they have both agreed to create a baby. That’d never happen because the thought of stripping away mens rights over their own bodies is a barbaric idea "Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinda split on it, after trying to see both sides I get your body yoir choice, but does the baby have a choice? Does the father? Or are women the sole key holders to life and death during pregnancy As usual though, I think it’s not as black and white as people make it out to be. I don’t think abortion should be illegal outright, I also don’t believe you should be able to have an abortion at 9 months. With the extremes out the way, the devils in the details and that’s gonna fall on a state to state level. Although I’m still leaning towards more freedom to evacuate your womb when you want " I think using terms such as baby is a bit manipulative and simplistic. Can it survive outside of the woman's body at point of abortion? Not in all cases and in the small minority of cases where a viable life is terminated it is because of serious medical reasons to prevent unnecessary suffering after birth. Unfortunately the father doesn't have to go through a myriad of physical, mental and emotional changes for at least the 9 months that they are carrying a foetus they don't want, and then after that with post natal depression, physical damage during child birth, trauma from having to go through child birth when they didn't want to. Asking what about the father's rights is again too simplistic. I guess if there was a way of transferring that to the father they'd get more of a say. Become sea horses! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All men should be injected with chemical castration drugs. No libido and no pregnancy issues. Only allowed to have the castration reversed when in a long term, healthy relationship where they have both agreed to create a baby. That’d never happen because the thought of stripping away mens rights over their own bodies is a barbaric idea
Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed "It's not when used against the all women should have birth control argument that some pro lifers use. I watched a video the other day where men were asked if they would take a medication which could give them the side effects that female birth control has. Not one of them said yes. But Al women should have birth control. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All men should be injected with chemical castration drugs. No libido and no pregnancy issues. Only allowed to have the castration reversed when in a long term, healthy relationship where they have both agreed to create a baby. That’d never happen because the thought of stripping away mens rights over their own bodies is a barbaric idea " Poor men. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All men should be injected with chemical castration drugs. No libido and no pregnancy issues. Only allowed to have the castration reversed when in a long term, healthy relationship where they have both agreed to create a baby. That’d never happen because the thought of stripping away mens rights over their own bodies is a barbaric idea
Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed
It's not when used against the all women should have birth control argument that some pro lifers use.
I watched a video the other day where men were asked if they would take a medication which could give them the side effects that female birth control has. Not one of them said yes. But Al women should have birth control. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All men should be injected with chemical castration drugs. No libido and no pregnancy issues. Only allowed to have the castration reversed when in a long term, healthy relationship where they have both agreed to create a baby. That’d never happen because the thought of stripping away mens rights over their own bodies is a barbaric idea
Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed "There would be no need to “kill babies” if it was impossible for a woman to get pregnant until both were ready. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All men should be injected with chemical castration drugs. No libido and no pregnancy issues. Only allowed to have the castration reversed when in a long term, healthy relationship where they have both agreed to create a baby. That’d never happen because the thought of stripping away mens rights over their own bodies is a barbaric idea
Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed "Making good choices and having a solid foundation for the decision to jointly ‘make a baby’ should negate the need for the man to have any ‘rights’. If a man feels so strongly that a women should be forced to carry a baby that she does not want, then maybe same man should recompense the women for her sacrifice. Would men be so vocal if they had to make all the sacrifice? I think not. Mr. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All men should be injected with chemical castration drugs. No libido and no pregnancy issues. Only allowed to have the castration reversed when in a long term, healthy relationship where they have both agreed to create a baby. That’d never happen because the thought of stripping away mens rights over their own bodies is a barbaric idea
Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed "I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All men should be injected with chemical castration drugs. No libido and no pregnancy issues. Only allowed to have the castration reversed when in a long term, healthy relationship where they have both agreed to create a baby. That’d never happen because the thought of stripping away mens rights over their own bodies is a barbaric idea
Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed
I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"?"I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinda split on it, after trying to see both sides I get your body yoir choice, but does the baby have a choice? Does the father? Or are women the sole key holders to life and death during pregnancy As usual though, I think it’s not as black and white as people make it out to be. I don’t think abortion should be illegal outright, I also don’t believe you should be able to have an abortion at 9 months. With the extremes out the way, the devils in the details and that’s gonna fall on a state to state level. Although I’m still leaning towards more freedom to evacuate your womb when you want " You have the baby that you are unable to feed/support, as a consequence of r@pe or whatever. You carry it. You have your body torn to shreds. And you raise it on sweet FA afterwards. Oh, you don't have the baby incubating equipment, do you? So yes, it's the woman's decision about what happens to her body. Pregnancy has left me disabled. I would not be disabled and a wheelchair user if I'd not had a second child. In my case, I'd not have made any kind of abortion related decision but I'd support the right of other women to do so. I also had a child when I was 16. Again, abortion wasn't an option for me personally but I support it for other 16 year olds. My decisions in 2001/2 to have my son have impacted my entire adult life. His father fucked off and didn't give two shits about me or him, so his opinions are worth less than the shit on my shoe, quite frankly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Completely fair and understandable for OP to feel the way you do. It’s human to emphasise with so many that are having human rights stripped away from them. Right now, so much of their congress just voted against providing aid for those desperately struggling to get baby formula. So it’s really not a question of pro life to half the people driving the Roe Wade narrative I often worry that what we see in America can sometimes be used as a guide by some of the politicians in the UK and some copy cat exactly what they see over there. Personally I think we’ll be okay as our politics isn’t as intertwined with religion in comparison to the states Hope you’re doing okay OP " I feel the same about Afghanistan - every time the Taliban come up with another way to control women. How women there must feel as their freedom is slowly stripped away. Women worldwide still fighting to just be treated equally. In the 21st century it sickens me. Some people here think I'm too "feminist" and I regularly encounter hostility when I stand up for women. When I argue with the sexist tropes some men spin. I see it happen to other women too. Here and elsewhere. But look at the global attitudes towards women which mean that Roe v Wade will be struck down. That's why women (and male allies) keep arguing. Thank you. My feelings aren't important, I was just trying to convey the impact of this news. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Completely fair and understandable for OP to feel the way you do. It’s human to emphasise with so many that are having human rights stripped away from them. Right now, so much of their congress just voted against providing aid for those desperately struggling to get baby formula. So it’s really not a question of pro life to half the people driving the Roe Wade narrative I often worry that what we see in America can sometimes be used as a guide by some of the politicians in the UK and some copy cat exactly what they see over there. Personally I think we’ll be okay as our politics isn’t as intertwined with religion in comparison to the states Hope you’re doing okay OP I feel the same about Afghanistan - every time the Taliban come up with another way to control women. How women there must feel as their freedom is slowly stripped away. Women worldwide still fighting to just be treated equally. In the 21st century it sickens me. Some people here think I'm too "feminist" and I regularly encounter hostility when I stand up for women. When I argue with the sexist tropes some men spin. I see it happen to other women too. Here and elsewhere. But look at the global attitudes towards women which mean that Roe v Wade will be struck down. That's why women (and male allies) keep arguing. Thank you. My feelings aren't important, I was just trying to convey the impact of this news. " And the cultures argument is BS. Women are the same world over (biologically) and no matter how they choose to dress - in a burqa, a mini skirt or an 80s power suit - any attempts to control women’s actions is an attempt to grasp on or revert back to assert patriarchy. It is not cultural. It is universal in its objective and quite outdated and should be confined to the history books. This is not “extreme feminism” - this is simply humanity if we wish to progress as a species. (Mr). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This decision to overturn Roe v Wade has been 50 years in the making. In the US 2016 Presidential debates Trump openly admitted that he would stack the Supreme Court with Pro-life judges if possible solely with the intention of overturning Roe, purely to secure the Evangelical vote...an entirely cynical political move, especially as he admitted a number of years earlier 9f being Pro-choice. As others have hinted at the Republican party is only Pro life, until the child is born, then they don't give a flying f**k. You can't have an abortion, but sure own as many guns as you like; we'll put immigrant children in cages and them disperse them throughout the country with no means of tracking them back to their mothers/families; we'll vote against a bill that would produce more baby formula; inc*st and r*pe, even of a minor, its illegal to have an abortion...how psychologically damaging is that And to the OP, I completely and utterly understand why this frightens you. Mostly middle aged white men and women, dictating what happens to the most vulnerable is totally and utterly shameful!!" I remember Trump saying that and now here we are.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think it is causing that reaction in you? Because she realises that decisions don't have to affect her directly to be fucking awful decisions that will have devastating affects on women. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All men should be injected with chemical castration drugs. No libido and no pregnancy issues. Only allowed to have the castration reversed when in a long term, healthy relationship where they have both agreed to create a baby. That’d never happen because the thought of stripping away mens rights over their own bodies is a barbaric idea
Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed
I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"?
I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life
But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start.
Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months?
Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it.
I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy.
I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties
And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. "A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's a very concerning development. I do not understand how a vast majority of the so called pro life movement are also pro gun ownership. For a big group of these people it's not about pro life it's about control. " George Carlin said, if you're pre born you're fine, if you're pre school you're fucked. And with the formula shortage going on, what a great time to have lots of babies  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All men should be injected with chemical castration drugs. No libido and no pregnancy issues. Only allowed to have the castration reversed when in a long term, healthy relationship where they have both agreed to create a baby. That’d never happen because the thought of stripping away mens rights over their own bodies is a barbaric idea
Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed
I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"?
I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life
But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start.
Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months?
Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it.
I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy.
I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties
And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side.
A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life.
Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits.
Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. "I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ultimately it's just about keeping people in poverty, but with a nice story to reel people in. The rich and powerful will keep getting abortions, even if their foetuses were worthy and even if they claim to be pro life." Land of the free? Land of the contradictory rich x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ultimately it's just about keeping people in poverty, but with a nice story to reel people in. The rich and powerful will keep getting abortions, even if their foetuses were worthy and even if they claim to be pro life. Land of the free? Land of the contradictory rich x" I don’t agree that it is driven by an ideology to keep people poor. There are simpler ways to do that. Inflation and lack of investment in services that enable social mobility. This is more about religious ideology - at least in the US it would seem. Child poverty rises rapidly here (UK) and Abortion rights still available. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's an absolute disgrace What's next? Banning men from having vasectomys so they have to get women pregnant? " Don't jest. I'm sure I've seen something about just that  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ultimately it's just about keeping people in poverty, but with a nice story to reel people in. The rich and powerful will keep getting abortions, even if their foetuses were worthy and even if they claim to be pro life. Land of the free? Land of the contradictory rich x" Words mean whatever they decide they mean. Double plus ungood | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think U.K. people can be very judgmental about other cultures they don’t understand. My view is Americans are very different to Europeans, on lots of things, with exception of New York maybe. It’s their decisions. On abortion I believe unborn babies have rights, fathers have rights and of course the women carrying the feutus have rights. The last two also have responsibilities. It’s complex ! This is not a cultural issue. It's funny how the discussion around abortion never seems to include any forced responsibility on the father's....ever. The woman is expected to carry an unwanted child. The 'father' can walk away as easy as anything and carry on with their care free life. Did you also know that they are trying to or have (can't remember if it's been passed yet) allowed the victims of SA to be sued by the perpetrator if they get an abortion of a pregnancy caused by the SA. The family of the perpetrator can also sue the victim as well. How fucked up is that!" It’s kind of cultural , American culture is very much guns and pro life (ironic I know!) / religious right wing etc , with exception of New York , these attitudes don’t come from faith or religion or class (which doesn’t exist in the us) but from their history and cultures I don’t follow SA news tbh, I don’t like the country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ultimately it's just about keeping people in poverty, but with a nice story to reel people in. The rich and powerful will keep getting abortions, even if their foetuses were worthy and even if they claim to be pro life. Land of the free? Land of the contradictory rich x I don’t agree that it is driven by an ideology to keep people poor. There are simpler ways to do that. Inflation and lack of investment in services that enable social mobility. This is more about religious ideology - at least in the US it would seem. Child poverty rises rapidly here (UK) and Abortion rights still available. " Pro life is an ideology but it’s not got anything to do with with religion, most people of faith don’t hold strong positions just and Not a single mention of abortion in the bible or quaran. It’s about the right of one person to end the life of another vs laws that govern protection of life. Those that value the sanctity of life look to the legal system to protect it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think U.K. people can be very judgmental about other cultures they don’t understand. My view is Americans are very different to Europeans, on lots of things, with exception of New York maybe. It’s their decisions. On abortion I believe unborn babies have rights, fathers have rights and of course the women carrying the feutus have rights. The last two also have responsibilities. It’s complex ! This is not a cultural issue. It's funny how the discussion around abortion never seems to include any forced responsibility on the father's....ever. The woman is expected to carry an unwanted child. The 'father' can walk away as easy as anything and carry on with their care free life. Did you also know that they are trying to or have (can't remember if it's been passed yet) allowed the victims of SA to be sued by the perpetrator if they get an abortion of a pregnancy caused by the SA. The family of the perpetrator can also sue the victim as well. How fucked up is that! It’s kind of cultural , American culture is very much guns and pro life (ironic I know!) / religious right wing etc , with exception of New York , these attitudes don’t come from faith or religion or class (which doesn’t exist in the us) but from their history and cultures I don’t follow SA news tbh, I don’t like the country." SA news? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think U.K. people can be very judgmental about other cultures they don’t understand. My view is Americans are very different to Europeans, on lots of things, with exception of New York maybe. It’s their decisions. On abortion I believe unborn babies have rights, fathers have rights and of course the women carrying the feutus have rights. The last two also have responsibilities. It’s complex ! This is not a cultural issue. It's funny how the discussion around abortion never seems to include any forced responsibility on the father's....ever. The woman is expected to carry an unwanted child. The 'father' can walk away as easy as anything and carry on with their care free life. Did you also know that they are trying to or have (can't remember if it's been passed yet) allowed the victims of SA to be sued by the perpetrator if they get an abortion of a pregnancy caused by the SA. The family of the perpetrator can also sue the victim as well. How fucked up is that! It’s kind of cultural , American culture is very much guns and pro life (ironic I know!) / religious right wing etc , with exception of New York , these attitudes don’t come from faith or religion or class (which doesn’t exist in the us) but from their history and cultures I don’t follow SA news tbh, I don’t like the country. SA news? " He thought you meant South Africa. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yeah I agree, I’m scared for what it could bring if this goes through. Very “Handmaid’s tale”. Theocratic patriarchy. *shudder* " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ultimately it's just about keeping people in poverty, but with a nice story to reel people in. The rich and powerful will keep getting abortions, even if their foetuses were worthy and even if they claim to be pro life. Land of the free? Land of the contradictory rich x I don’t agree that it is driven by an ideology to keep people poor. There are simpler ways to do that. Inflation and lack of investment in services that enable social mobility. This is more about religious ideology - at least in the US it would seem. Child poverty rises rapidly here (UK) and Abortion rights still available. Pro life is an ideology but it’s not got anything to do with with religion, most people of faith don’t hold strong positions just and Not a single mention of abortion in the bible or quaran. It’s about the right of one person to end the life of another vs laws that govern protection of life. Those that value the sanctity of life look to the legal system to protect it " I’d agree to an extent. However - there are some areas where even if the life of the mother is under threat (as with ectopic pregnancy or a very young mother who’s the victim of r*pe/abuse) then the ‘No abortion under any circumstances’ rule still stands. That’s not pro life - that’s anti women and effectively murder. It’s effectively harking back to previous centuries - where the onus was always on the woman to remain ‘pure’ until marriage and if she didn’t - even if r*ped - her life was ruined but the guy got away scot free. Any legislation that forces a woman who was r*ped to give birth is inhuman and can’t be justified. Added to that - the American social system is practically third world. Maternity rights are virtually none existent in line with most employment rights and the minimum wage in many states is so low that many parents are forced to work 60+ hrs per week, 50+ weeks per year just to survive. There’s also little or no help with child care costs. A poor woman forced to give birth under that system is likely to stay poor for life - and so are her progeny. There’s nothing pro life about the US system - it’s anti women, anti minorities and pro poverty. The UK is utopia by comparison. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ultimately it's just about keeping people in poverty, but with a nice story to reel people in. The rich and powerful will keep getting abortions, even if their foetuses were worthy and even if they claim to be pro life. Land of the free? Land of the contradictory rich x I don’t agree that it is driven by an ideology to keep people poor. There are simpler ways to do that. Inflation and lack of investment in services that enable social mobility. This is more about religious ideology - at least in the US it would seem. Child poverty rises rapidly here (UK) and Abortion rights still available. Pro life is an ideology but it’s not got anything to do with with religion, most people of faith don’t hold strong positions just and Not a single mention of abortion in the bible or quaran. It’s about the right of one person to end the life of another vs laws that govern protection of life. Those that value the sanctity of life look to the legal system to protect it " I disagree. The pro-life movement has a great deal to do with religion. Particularly the Catholic Church. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think U.K. people can be very judgmental about other cultures they don’t understand. My view is Americans are very different to Europeans, on lots of things, with exception of New York maybe. It’s their decisions. On abortion I believe unborn babies have rights, fathers have rights and of course the women carrying the feutus have rights. The last two also have responsibilities. It’s complex ! This is not a cultural issue. It's funny how the discussion around abortion never seems to include any forced responsibility on the father's....ever. The woman is expected to carry an unwanted child. The 'father' can walk away as easy as anything and carry on with their care free life. Did you also know that they are trying to or have (can't remember if it's been passed yet) allowed the victims of SA to be sued by the perpetrator if they get an abortion of a pregnancy caused by the SA. The family of the perpetrator can also sue the victim as well. How fucked up is that! It’s kind of cultural , American culture is very much guns and pro life (ironic I know!) / religious right wing etc , with exception of New York , these attitudes don’t come from faith or religion or class (which doesn’t exist in the us) but from their history and cultures I don’t follow SA news tbh, I don’t like the country." Sexual assault. Not South Africa. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Completely fair and understandable for OP to feel the way you do. It’s human to emphasise with so many that are having human rights stripped away from them. Right now, so much of their congress just voted against providing aid for those desperately struggling to get baby formula. So it’s really not a question of pro life to half the people driving the Roe Wade narrative I often worry that what we see in America can sometimes be used as a guide by some of the politicians in the UK and some copy cat exactly what they see over there. Personally I think we’ll be okay as our politics isn’t as intertwined with religion in comparison to the states Hope you’re doing okay OP I feel the same about Afghanistan - every time the Taliban come up with another way to control women. How women there must feel as their freedom is slowly stripped away. Women worldwide still fighting to just be treated equally. In the 21st century it sickens me. Some people here think I'm too "feminist" and I regularly encounter hostility when I stand up for women. When I argue with the sexist tropes some men spin. I see it happen to other women too. Here and elsewhere. But look at the global attitudes towards women which mean that Roe v Wade will be struck down. That's why women (and male allies) keep arguing. Thank you. My feelings aren't important, I was just trying to convey the impact of this news. And the cultures argument is BS. Women are the same world over (biologically) and no matter how they choose to dress - in a burqa, a mini skirt or an 80s power suit - any attempts to control women’s actions is an attempt to grasp on or revert back to assert patriarchy. It is not cultural. It is universal in its objective and quite outdated and should be confined to the history books. This is not “extreme feminism” - this is simply humanity if we wish to progress as a species. (Mr). " Absolutely this. Of course it’s not extreme feminism. It’s basic human rights. I honestly can’t believe we’re even discussing this in 2022. It really is unbelievable and quite shocking. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined " You've suggested two things. That before the foetus is four months, either parent can waive responsibility. Why is that? Two people make a baby, two people have responsibility. Why do either of them get to duck out? The second thing you suggest is that either parent could opt for a termination. Does that mean a man could tell a woman she had to abort their baby? Do you think that's reasonable? I would say that I don't think a woman in a relationship should abort a baby without discussing it with her partner. That's morally wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ultimately it's just about keeping people in poverty, but with a nice story to reel people in. The rich and powerful will keep getting abortions, even if their foetuses were worthy and even if they claim to be pro life. Land of the free? Land of the contradictory rich x I don’t agree that it is driven by an ideology to keep people poor. There are simpler ways to do that. Inflation and lack of investment in services that enable social mobility. This is more about religious ideology - at least in the US it would seem. Child poverty rises rapidly here (UK) and Abortion rights still available. Pro life is an ideology but it’s not got anything to do with with religion, most people of faith don’t hold strong positions just and Not a single mention of abortion in the bible or quaran. It’s about the right of one person to end the life of another vs laws that govern protection of life. Those that value the sanctity of life look to the legal system to protect it " So there is no connection between the states that want to enact laws against abortion and their evangelical population? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’d agree to an extent. However - there are some areas where even if the life of the mother is under threat (as with ectopic pregnancy or a very young mother who’s the victim of r*pe/abuse) then the ‘No abortion under any circumstances’ rule still stands. That’s not pro life - that’s anti women and effectively murder. " This is what prompted Ireland to finally legalise abortion. A woman died due to a sceptic placenta because they couldn't legally abort the foetus that wouldn't survive to term anyway. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Roe v Wade? I feel sick. I feel scared. I feel anxious. And I am in no need of an abortion at my age. And I live in the UK, where abortion is still legal. "Life way to short to worrie what's happening in the US just chill out .. Also US get ready for presidential election it's all bullshit and also to hide the country is bankrupt.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Roe v Wade? I feel sick. I feel scared. I feel anxious. And I am in no need of an abortion at my age. And I live in the UK, where abortion is still legal.
Life way to short to worrie what's happening in the US just chill out ..
Also US get ready for presidential election it's all bullshit and also to hide the country is bankrupt.."Oh well now that you've told me to chill out, I will just forget all about it and not care. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’d agree to an extent. However - there are some areas where even if the life of the mother is under threat (as with ectopic pregnancy or a very young mother who’s the victim of r*pe/abuse) then the ‘No abortion under any circumstances’ rule still stands. That’s not pro life - that’s anti women and effectively murder. This is what prompted Ireland to finally legalise abortion. A woman died due to a sceptic placenta because they couldn't legally abort the foetus that wouldn't survive to term anyway. " And this is all that will end up happening. People will die. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’d agree to an extent. However - there are some areas where even if the life of the mother is under threat (as with ectopic pregnancy or a very young mother who’s the victim of r*pe/abuse) then the ‘No abortion under any circumstances’ rule still stands. That’s not pro life - that’s anti women and effectively murder. This is what prompted Ireland to finally legalise abortion. A woman died due to a sceptic placenta because they couldn't legally abort the foetus that wouldn't survive to term anyway. And this is all that will end up happening. People will die." But the pro life brigade will love that because it is THEY who (through their favoured legislation) get to choose. Not the person most directly impacted. Why anyone wishes to impost their own will onto a stranger’s body and future responsibility is beyond me. People who vote for this so called “pro life” legislation should have to pay more tax to help fund the extra babies they are imposing on other people. I wonder how quickly they’d change their mind if their misogyny cost them directly! (Mr) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Humanity is going backwards. Women's bodies are under the control of old white men. The schools bill over here is quite frightening too. Children's education is being taken over by rich men who put profit over people. " They recently proposed increasing how many children could be looked after by each person in nurseries too despite how unsafe that would be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Humanity is going backwards. Women's bodies are under the control of old white men. The schools bill over here is quite frightening too. Children's education is being taken over by rich men who put profit over people. They recently proposed increasing how many children could be looked after by each person in nurseries too despite how unsafe that would be. " A young child died in a nursery not to far away from here, just this week. Two women have been questioned and the nursery temporarily closed etc. I wouldn't leave my children in a nursery that changed the ratios. Trouble is, if the Govt did change the rules, they'd change the funding to match and so nurseries would struggle to function. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-issue-update-investigation-death-23976446 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Humanity is going backwards. Women's bodies are under the control of old white men. The schools bill over here is quite frightening too. Children's education is being taken over by rich men who put profit over people. They recently proposed increasing how many children could be looked after by each person in nurseries too despite how unsafe that would be. " I agree in general increasing numbers would be unsafe. In this instance though England is talking about brining numbers in lone with what is already allowed in Scotland? Does Scotland have worse safety record than England for nursery accidents? Maybe it would be better to reduce numbers further. Parents i’m sure have planned their finances well and could cope with a 25% hike ok fees? I mean they get all sorts of handouts don’t they. What’s a little bit more? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Humanity is going backwards. Women's bodies are under the control of old white men. The schools bill over here is quite frightening too. Children's education is being taken over by rich men who put profit over people. They recently proposed increasing how many children could be looked after by each person in nurseries too despite how unsafe that would be. A young child died in a nursery not to far away from here, just this week. Two women have been questioned and the nursery temporarily closed etc. I wouldn't leave my children in a nursery that changed the ratios. Trouble is, if the Govt did change the rules, they'd change the funding to match and so nurseries would struggle to function. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-issue-update-investigation-death-23976446" I saw that story. I hate to think what might have happened. Imagine being the parent receiving that phone call. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Humanity is going backwards. Women's bodies are under the control of old white men. The schools bill over here is quite frightening too. Children's education is being taken over by rich men who put profit over people. They recently proposed increasing how many children could be looked after by each person in nurseries too despite how unsafe that would be. A young child died in a nursery not to far away from here, just this week. Two women have been questioned and the nursery temporarily closed etc. I wouldn't leave my children in a nursery that changed the ratios. Trouble is, if the Govt did change the rules, they'd change the funding to match and so nurseries would struggle to function. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-issue-update-investigation-death-23976446" There was fuck all funding when ours were in nursery. Had to pay it all ourselves. So if the Govt change the formula, then parents can either pull their kids out and look after them themselves or stump up the extra if they don’t like the state paid/ contributed for arrangement - surely? Why does everyone expect it all on a plate. Having kids is very expensive - yet people expect other to pay for it? Why not plan properly and make own arrangements? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Humanity is going backwards. Women's bodies are under the control of old white men. The schools bill over here is quite frightening too. Children's education is being taken over by rich men who put profit over people. They recently proposed increasing how many children could be looked after by each person in nurseries too despite how unsafe that would be. A young child died in a nursery not to far away from here, just this week. Two women have been questioned and the nursery temporarily closed etc. I wouldn't leave my children in a nursery that changed the ratios. Trouble is, if the Govt did change the rules, they'd change the funding to match and so nurseries would struggle to function. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-issue-update-investigation-death-23976446 There was fuck all funding when ours were in nursery. Had to pay it all ourselves. So if the Govt change the formula, then parents can either pull their kids out and look after them themselves or stump up the extra if they don’t like the state paid/ contributed for arrangement - surely? Why does everyone expect it all on a plate. Having kids is very expensive - yet people expect other to pay for it? Why not plan properly and make own arrangements? " It's not quite that simple. Because of the rises in the cost of living and the cost of housing, it's impossible to do this on one income. So both parents need to work. And it's difficult to know how expensive kids are before you have them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined You've suggested two things. That before the foetus is four months, either parent can waive responsibility. Why is that? Two people make a baby, two people have responsibility. Why do either of them get to duck out? The second thing you suggest is that either parent could opt for a termination. Does that mean a man could tell a woman she had to abort their baby? Do you think that's reasonable? I would say that I don't think a woman in a relationship should abort a baby without discussing it with her partner. That's morally wrong. " I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Humanity is going backwards. Women's bodies are under the control of old white men. The schools bill over here is quite frightening too. Children's education is being taken over by rich men who put profit over people. They recently proposed increasing how many children could be looked after by each person in nurseries too despite how unsafe that would be. A young child died in a nursery not to far away from here, just this week. Two women have been questioned and the nursery temporarily closed etc. I wouldn't leave my children in a nursery that changed the ratios. Trouble is, if the Govt did change the rules, they'd change the funding to match and so nurseries would struggle to function. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-issue-update-investigation-death-23976446 There was fuck all funding when ours were in nursery. Had to pay it all ourselves. So if the Govt change the formula, then parents can either pull their kids out and look after them themselves or stump up the extra if they don’t like the state paid/ contributed for arrangement - surely? Why does everyone expect it all on a plate. Having kids is very expensive - yet people expect other to pay for it? Why not plan properly and make own arrangements? It's not quite that simple. Because of the rises in the cost of living and the cost of housing, it's impossible to do this on one income. So both parents need to work. And it's difficult to know how expensive kids are before you have them. " Disagree. The challenge may be more difficult as the inflation level is higher. But the principle of forward planning remains the same. How is it difficult to calculate the typical costs of a child? There is ample historical data, the milestones for most are similar. They all eat, grow, need care and education paid for, few treats and the extra costs for holidays. It always amazes me that people Complain at the cost as if it was some sort of mystery! There are literally millions of data points. The ‘not that simple’ usually equates to ‘didn't think things through now want someone else to pick up the tab’. Very pro choice. But also pro self reliance and responsibility too. How many of those getting subsidised childcare have sky, a shiny new car on HP, a new iPhone and some fake LV handbags? Yea expect someone else to pay enough money so that the staff who look after their kids can have a living wage? Anyone who draws down from the state for childcare should end up paying it back via extra taxes like they do for paying uni fees. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Humanity is going backwards. Women's bodies are under the control of old white men. The schools bill over here is quite frightening too. Children's education is being taken over by rich men who put profit over people. They recently proposed increasing how many children could be looked after by each person in nurseries too despite how unsafe that would be. A young child died in a nursery not to far away from here, just this week. Two women have been questioned and the nursery temporarily closed etc. I wouldn't leave my children in a nursery that changed the ratios. Trouble is, if the Govt did change the rules, they'd change the funding to match and so nurseries would struggle to function. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-issue-update-investigation-death-23976446 There was fuck all funding when ours were in nursery. Had to pay it all ourselves. So if the Govt change the formula, then parents can either pull their kids out and look after them themselves or stump up the extra if they don’t like the state paid/ contributed for arrangement - surely? Why does everyone expect it all on a plate. Having kids is very expensive - yet people expect other to pay for it? Why not plan properly and make own arrangements? It's not quite that simple. Because of the rises in the cost of living and the cost of housing, it's impossible to do this on one income. So both parents need to work. And it's difficult to know how expensive kids are before you have them. Disagree. The challenge may be more difficult as the inflation level is higher. But the principle of forward planning remains the same. How is it difficult to calculate the typical costs of a child? There is ample historical data, the milestones for most are similar. They all eat, grow, need care and education paid for, few treats and the extra costs for holidays. It always amazes me that people Complain at the cost as if it was some sort of mystery! There are literally millions of data points. The ‘not that simple’ usually equates to ‘didn't think things through now want someone else to pick up the tab’. Very pro choice. But also pro self reliance and responsibility too. How many of those getting subsidised childcare have sky, a shiny new car on HP, a new iPhone and some fake LV handbags? Yea expect someone else to pay enough money so that the staff who look after their kids can have a living wage? Anyone who draws down from the state for childcare should end up paying it back via extra taxes like they do for paying uni fees. " And yet my generation is criticised for not having children because we're apparently ruining this country by creating an aging population. Apparently we're all self centred and immature for not having children. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined You've suggested two things. That before the foetus is four months, either parent can waive responsibility. Why is that? Two people make a baby, two people have responsibility. Why do either of them get to duck out? The second thing you suggest is that either parent could opt for a termination. Does that mean a man could tell a woman she had to abort their baby? Do you think that's reasonable? I would say that I don't think a woman in a relationship should abort a baby without discussing it with her partner. That's morally wrong. I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it." If you don't want a baby, have the snip or don't have sex. He should be forced into paying for it if he had sex with a woman and the result is a child. Why should a woman have to go through the trauma of an abortion or have a child and take all of the financial responsibility just because the man can say no, I don't want a baby? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined You've suggested two things. That before the foetus is four months, either parent can waive responsibility. Why is that? Two people make a baby, two people have responsibility. Why do either of them get to duck out? The second thing you suggest is that either parent could opt for a termination. Does that mean a man could tell a woman she had to abort their baby? Do you think that's reasonable? I would say that I don't think a woman in a relationship should abort a baby without discussing it with her partner. That's morally wrong. I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it." I think this will take more discussion than we have space left. I can see your side of it. But I can also see a lot of possible abuse of that kind of setup. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined You've suggested two things. That before the foetus is four months, either parent can waive responsibility. Why is that? Two people make a baby, two people have responsibility. Why do either of them get to duck out? The second thing you suggest is that either parent could opt for a termination. Does that mean a man could tell a woman she had to abort their baby? Do you think that's reasonable? I would say that I don't think a woman in a relationship should abort a baby without discussing it with her partner. That's morally wrong. I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. If you don't want a baby, have the snip or don't have sex. He should be forced into paying for it if he had sex with a woman and the result is a child. Why should a woman have to go through the trauma of an abortion or have a child and take all of the financial responsibility just because the man can say no, I don't want a baby? " Why doesn’t she just not have sex? She took the risk of having sex with a man and the result is a child? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Humanity is going backwards. Women's bodies are under the control of old white men. The schools bill over here is quite frightening too. Children's education is being taken over by rich men who put profit over people. They recently proposed increasing how many children could be looked after by each person in nurseries too despite how unsafe that would be. A young child died in a nursery not to far away from here, just this week. Two women have been questioned and the nursery temporarily closed etc. I wouldn't leave my children in a nursery that changed the ratios. Trouble is, if the Govt did change the rules, they'd change the funding to match and so nurseries would struggle to function. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-issue-update-investigation-death-23976446 There was fuck all funding when ours were in nursery. Had to pay it all ourselves. So if the Govt change the formula, then parents can either pull their kids out and look after them themselves or stump up the extra if they don’t like the state paid/ contributed for arrangement - surely? Why does everyone expect it all on a plate. Having kids is very expensive - yet people expect other to pay for it? Why not plan properly and make own arrangements? It's not quite that simple. Because of the rises in the cost of living and the cost of housing, it's impossible to do this on one income. So both parents need to work. And it's difficult to know how expensive kids are before you have them. Disagree. The challenge may be more difficult as the inflation level is higher. But the principle of forward planning remains the same. How is it difficult to calculate the typical costs of a child? There is ample historical data, the milestones for most are similar. They all eat, grow, need care and education paid for, few treats and the extra costs for holidays. It always amazes me that people Complain at the cost as if it was some sort of mystery! There are literally millions of data points. The ‘not that simple’ usually equates to ‘didn't think things through now want someone else to pick up the tab’. Very pro choice. But also pro self reliance and responsibility too. How many of those getting subsidised childcare have sky, a shiny new car on HP, a new iPhone and some fake LV handbags? Yea expect someone else to pay enough money so that the staff who look after their kids can have a living wage? Anyone who draws down from the state for childcare should end up paying it back via extra taxes like they do for paying uni fees. And yet my generation is criticised for not having children because we're apparently ruining this country by creating an aging population. Apparently we're all self centred and immature for not having children." Not aware of that trope. Those that can so, those that don’t want to - that’s a fair choice surely. There are nearly 8 billion the planet already. So it is not exactly like the human species is on the verge of extinction! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined You've suggested two things. That before the foetus is four months, either parent can waive responsibility. Why is that? Two people make a baby, two people have responsibility. Why do either of them get to duck out? The second thing you suggest is that either parent could opt for a termination. Does that mean a man could tell a woman she had to abort their baby? Do you think that's reasonable? I would say that I don't think a woman in a relationship should abort a baby without discussing it with her partner. That's morally wrong. I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. I think this will take more discussion than we have space left. I can see your side of it. But I can also see a lot of possible abuse of that kind of setup. " I agree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined You've suggested two things. That before the foetus is four months, either parent can waive responsibility. Why is that? Two people make a baby, two people have responsibility. Why do either of them get to duck out? The second thing you suggest is that either parent could opt for a termination. Does that mean a man could tell a woman she had to abort their baby? Do you think that's reasonable? I would say that I don't think a woman in a relationship should abort a baby without discussing it with her partner. That's morally wrong. I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. If you don't want a baby, have the snip or don't have sex. He should be forced into paying for it if he had sex with a woman and the result is a child. Why should a woman have to go through the trauma of an abortion or have a child and take all of the financial responsibility just because the man can say no, I don't want a baby? Why doesn’t she just not have sex? She took the risk of having sex with a man and the result is a child?" This last comment must be the most idiotic in the history if Fab…… A man encouraging women not to have sex with men on a swingers/casual sex website! Let that sink folks. Women should not have sex unless they want a baby! (Facepalm). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Humanity is going backwards. Women's bodies are under the control of old white men. The schools bill over here is quite frightening too. Children's education is being taken over by rich men who put profit over people. They recently proposed increasing how many children could be looked after by each person in nurseries too despite how unsafe that would be. A young child died in a nursery not to far away from here, just this week. Two women have been questioned and the nursery temporarily closed etc. I wouldn't leave my children in a nursery that changed the ratios. Trouble is, if the Govt did change the rules, they'd change the funding to match and so nurseries would struggle to function. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-issue-update-investigation-death-23976446 There was fuck all funding when ours were in nursery. Had to pay it all ourselves. So if the Govt change the formula, then parents can either pull their kids out and look after them themselves or stump up the extra if they don’t like the state paid/ contributed for arrangement - surely? Why does everyone expect it all on a plate. Having kids is very expensive - yet people expect other to pay for it? Why not plan properly and make own arrangements? " I'm not sure you understand how nursery funding works. Perhaps take a look at what funding is available, and when, and for how long, and get back to us on that. Clue: there's no funding for a large portion of time and then when there is a bit of funding, it's meagre and needs significant top up from parents. We paid nearly £900 a month in nursery fees for our daughter | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you don't want a baby, have the snip or don't have sex. He should be forced into paying for it if he had sex with a woman and the result is a child. Why should a woman have to go through the trauma of an abortion or have a child and take all of the financial responsibility just because the man can say no, I don't want a baby? Why doesn’t she just not have sex? She took the risk of having sex with a man and the result is a child? This last comment must be the most idiotic in the history if Fab…… A man encouraging women not to have sex with men on a swingers/casual sex website! Let that sink folks. Women should not have sex unless they want a baby! (Facepalm). " Isn’t that exactly what the comment before said? Men should not have sex unless they want a baby? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined You've suggested two things. That before the foetus is four months, either parent can waive responsibility. Why is that? Two people make a baby, two people have responsibility. Why do either of them get to duck out? The second thing you suggest is that either parent could opt for a termination. Does that mean a man could tell a woman she had to abort their baby? Do you think that's reasonable? I would say that I don't think a woman in a relationship should abort a baby without discussing it with her partner. That's morally wrong. I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. If you don't want a baby, have the snip or don't have sex. He should be forced into paying for it if he had sex with a woman and the result is a child. Why should a woman have to go through the trauma of an abortion or have a child and take all of the financial responsibility just because the man can say no, I don't want a baby? Why doesn’t she just not have sex? She took the risk of having sex with a man and the result is a child?" To be fair, that is exactly what we are told in this argument. In the situation you're describing though, the woman is prepared to have a baby, it is the man who is not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined You've suggested two things. That before the foetus is four months, either parent can waive responsibility. Why is that? Two people make a baby, two people have responsibility. Why do either of them get to duck out? The second thing you suggest is that either parent could opt for a termination. Does that mean a man could tell a woman she had to abort their baby? Do you think that's reasonable? I would say that I don't think a woman in a relationship should abort a baby without discussing it with her partner. That's morally wrong. I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. If you don't want a baby, have the snip or don't have sex. He should be forced into paying for it if he had sex with a woman and the result is a child. Why should a woman have to go through the trauma of an abortion or have a child and take all of the financial responsibility just because the man can say no, I don't want a baby? Why doesn’t she just not have sex? She took the risk of having sex with a man and the result is a child?" Exactly my point. The responsibility is always on us to use contraception, have an abortion or bring up a baby with no support. Your saying that if I want to have sex, only I should take that responsibility because I'm a woman? As a man, you should be able to have sex but take no responsibility at all? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it." Do you realise most abortions occur well before the embryo or foetus is viable outside the uterus? There's no way a father could take responsibility after abortion. Once detached from the placenta, an embryo will cease to be viable and a foetus would only be viable before about 36-37 weeks gestation with significant (and very expensive) medical support. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Humanity is going backwards. Women's bodies are under the control of old white men. The schools bill over here is quite frightening too. Children's education is being taken over by rich men who put profit over people. They recently proposed increasing how many children could be looked after by each person in nurseries too despite how unsafe that would be. A young child died in a nursery not to far away from here, just this week. Two women have been questioned and the nursery temporarily closed etc. I wouldn't leave my children in a nursery that changed the ratios. Trouble is, if the Govt did change the rules, they'd change the funding to match and so nurseries would struggle to function. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-issue-update-investigation-death-23976446 There was fuck all funding when ours were in nursery. Had to pay it all ourselves. So if the Govt change the formula, then parents can either pull their kids out and look after them themselves or stump up the extra if they don’t like the state paid/ contributed for arrangement - surely? Why does everyone expect it all on a plate. Having kids is very expensive - yet people expect other to pay for it? Why not plan properly and make own arrangements? I'm not sure you understand how nursery funding works. Perhaps take a look at what funding is available, and when, and for how long, and get back to us on that. Clue: there's no funding for a large portion of time and then when there is a bit of funding, it's meagre and needs significant top up from parents. We paid nearly £900 a month in nursery fees for our daughter "I do understand. It is very expensive. Have two of my own. Cost £750 a month EACH .but that was nearly 20 years ago. That was a LOT of money back then! I don’t think there was any funding available then except a few quid of childcare vouchers. But that did not amount to much. (Mr) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined You've suggested two things. That before the foetus is four months, either parent can waive responsibility. Why is that? Two people make a baby, two people have responsibility. Why do either of them get to duck out? The second thing you suggest is that either parent could opt for a termination. Does that mean a man could tell a woman she had to abort their baby? Do you think that's reasonable? I would say that I don't think a woman in a relationship should abort a baby without discussing it with her partner. That's morally wrong. I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. If you don't want a baby, have the snip or don't have sex. He should be forced into paying for it if he had sex with a woman and the result is a child. Why should a woman have to go through the trauma of an abortion or have a child and take all of the financial responsibility just because the man can say no, I don't want a baby? Why doesn’t she just not have sex? She took the risk of having sex with a man and the result is a child? Exactly my point. The responsibility is always on us to use contraception, have an abortion or bring up a baby with no support. Your saying that if I want to have sex, only I should take that responsibility because I'm a woman? As a man, you should be able to have sex but take no responsibility at all? " You're* I'm so cross, I'm making typos. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. I think this will take more discussion than we have space left. I can see your side of it. But I can also see a lot of possible abuse of that kind of setup. " Agreed, it’s not an easy thing to settle and it would take a lot of work to stop any abuse. Women hold all the power in birth. They can choose whether to birth or abort with no word from the father, and on top of that they expect it to be paid for if they choose birth. If your adult enough to abort a baby, and your adult enough to choose keep when the father doesn’t want it, you should be adult enough to take financial responsibility for it. And there’s a 4 month cut off so there’s plenty of time to make the decision | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. Do you realise most abortions occur well before the embryo or foetus is viable outside the uterus? There's no way a father could take responsibility after abortion. Once detached from the placenta, an embryo will cease to be viable and a foetus would only be viable before about 36-37 weeks gestation with significant (and very expensive) medical support. " when technology allows | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Humanity is going backwards. Women's bodies are under the control of old white men. The schools bill over here is quite frightening too. Children's education is being taken over by rich men who put profit over people. They recently proposed increasing how many children could be looked after by each person in nurseries too despite how unsafe that would be. A young child died in a nursery not to far away from here, just this week. Two women have been questioned and the nursery temporarily closed etc. I wouldn't leave my children in a nursery that changed the ratios. Trouble is, if the Govt did change the rules, they'd change the funding to match and so nurseries would struggle to function. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-issue-update-investigation-death-23976446 There was fuck all funding when ours were in nursery. Had to pay it all ourselves. So if the Govt change the formula, then parents can either pull their kids out and look after them themselves or stump up the extra if they don’t like the state paid/ contributed for arrangement - surely? Why does everyone expect it all on a plate. Having kids is very expensive - yet people expect other to pay for it? Why not plan properly and make own arrangements? I'm not sure you understand how nursery funding works. Perhaps take a look at what funding is available, and when, and for how long, and get back to us on that. Clue: there's no funding for a large portion of time and then when there is a bit of funding, it's meagre and needs significant top up from parents. We paid nearly £900 a month in nursery fees for our daughter
I do understand. It is very expensive. Have two of my own. Cost £750 a month EACH .but that was nearly 20 years ago. That was a LOT of money back then! I don’t think there was any funding available then except a few quid of childcare vouchers. But that did not amount to much.
(Mr)"Before age 2 (parents on low income) or 3 (not means tested), there's no funding. How many parents in today's world can afford for one to take 3 years off work? How would our economy support that? We'd be royally screwed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined You've suggested two things. That before the foetus is four months, either parent can waive responsibility. Why is that? Two people make a baby, two people have responsibility. Why do either of them get to duck out? The second thing you suggest is that either parent could opt for a termination. Does that mean a man could tell a woman she had to abort their baby? Do you think that's reasonable? I would say that I don't think a woman in a relationship should abort a baby without discussing it with her partner. That's morally wrong. I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. If you don't want a baby, have the snip or don't have sex. He should be forced into paying for it if he had sex with a woman and the result is a child. Why should a woman have to go through the trauma of an abortion or have a child and take all of the financial responsibility just because the man can say no, I don't want a baby? Why doesn’t she just not have sex? She took the risk of having sex with a man and the result is a child?" Why doesn't he not have sex? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined You've suggested two things. That before the foetus is four months, either parent can waive responsibility. Why is that? Two people make a baby, two people have responsibility. Why do either of them get to duck out? The second thing you suggest is that either parent could opt for a termination. Does that mean a man could tell a woman she had to abort their baby? Do you think that's reasonable? I would say that I don't think a woman in a relationship should abort a baby without discussing it with her partner. That's morally wrong. I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it." You make rational points as ever, but I can't agree. If you're a bloke and you're fucking without condoms you have waived your right to choose what happens when you get someone pregnant. You've basically, albeit in a primal subconscious way, saying I'm going to impregnate you now. That comes with responsibility. You can't waive financial obligations. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. Do you realise most abortions occur well before the embryo or foetus is viable outside the uterus? There's no way a father could take responsibility after abortion. Once detached from the placenta, an embryo will cease to be viable and a foetus would only be viable before about 36-37 weeks gestation with significant (and very expensive) medical support. when technology allows "Which is likely to be next to never for an embryo because it's simply impossible to replicate the specific environment of the uterus and complex blood supply etc. Pretty much the second an embryo is detached, it ceases to be viable. The ridiculous idea in the US that an ectopic pregnancy could be reimplanted elsewhere is just that, ridiculous. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined You've suggested two things. That before the foetus is four months, either parent can waive responsibility. Why is that? Two people make a baby, two people have responsibility. Why do either of them get to duck out? The second thing you suggest is that either parent could opt for a termination. Does that mean a man could tell a woman she had to abort their baby? Do you think that's reasonable? I would say that I don't think a woman in a relationship should abort a baby without discussing it with her partner. That's morally wrong. I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. You make rational points as ever, but I can't agree. If you're a bloke and you're fucking without condoms you have waived your right to choose what happens when you get someone pregnant. You've basically, albeit in a primal subconscious way, saying I'm going to impregnate you now. That comes with responsibility. You can't waive financial obligations." The condom broke. Now what? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. Do you realise most abortions occur well before the embryo or foetus is viable outside the uterus? There's no way a father could take responsibility after abortion. Once detached from the placenta, an embryo will cease to be viable and a foetus would only be viable before about 36-37 weeks gestation with significant (and very expensive) medical support. when technology allows
Which is likely to be next to never for an embryo because it's simply impossible to replicate the specific environment of the uterus and complex blood supply etc. Pretty much the second an embryo is detached, it ceases to be viable.
The ridiculous idea in the US that an ectopic pregnancy could be reimplanted elsewhere is just that, ridiculous. "They said we’ve never get to the moon, but your bring over pedantic My point was just that both parents should have choices. And one day, in the future, I’d like a guy to be able to say “actually, I want a kid, don’t abort it” One day | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined You've suggested two things. That before the foetus is four months, either parent can waive responsibility. Why is that? Two people make a baby, two people have responsibility. Why do either of them get to duck out? The second thing you suggest is that either parent could opt for a termination. Does that mean a man could tell a woman she had to abort their baby? Do you think that's reasonable? I would say that I don't think a woman in a relationship should abort a baby without discussing it with her partner. That's morally wrong. I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. You make rational points as ever, but I can't agree. If you're a bloke and you're fucking without condoms you have waived your right to choose what happens when you get someone pregnant. You've basically, albeit in a primal subconscious way, saying I'm going to impregnate you now. That comes with responsibility. You can't waive financial obligations. The condom broke. Now what? " Accidents happen, deal with it differently. This is a totally different scenario to the one I described and you know it.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plus it’s a really poor comparison because it completely ignores the part where a potential baby is killed I guess it depends how far you take "potential baby". Is a fertilised egg a potential baby? In which case using an IUD as emergency contraception is up for debate. Is sperm a potential baby? Are we going to get back to the days of it being immoral to "waste seed"? I think we can stop at sperm because sperm left alone isn’t going to ever be a life But that’s the whole debate isn’t it, when does life start. Is 3 months the start? Or can we abort at 8 months? Then it gets even more complicated because a baby takes 2 people. Does the father have no say? So only the women decides if your baby lives or dies? And if she chooses live, the guy is gonna be financially responsible in some way, even if he didn’t want it. I don’t think it’s as black and white as people want to make out. I see a lot of arguments that would make you think women become pregnant all by themselves and the baby inside doesn’t even exist unless they choose so. I also see other arguments that suggest even a women that’s gotten pregnant from SA should be forced to keep it. Which is crazy. I just don’t like how simplified people want to make it. One said saying “no abortions” and the other saying “my body my choice”, both mindlessly sheeping an over simplified argument. Very rarely do I see a well thought out conversation that considers both sides and all parties And I still lean heavily towards the “evacuate your womb when you please” side. A fertilised egg left alone is never going to become a life. Currently the limit is set at when the foetus has potential to survive outside the mother's body. I think that's a pretty fair limit and goes back to the previous point of when something can become a life on its own. That is here though and many places have far lower limits. Unfortunately the only way for a father to have a say when he disagrees with the wishes of the woman is either to force a woman to either go through a full pregnancy and birth against her wishes or go through an abortion against her wishes, both of which are barbaric and traumatising. If there was a way to give the men the baby they want without the use of the mother's body, I think many women would absolutely be open to that discussion but we don't currently have a way that is possible. As for men paying for babies they don't want, making abortion illegal would only vastly increase the incidences of that. It removes men's choice too as even if both parties agree that abortion would be the best option, that choice isn't available. I’d say we’re probably very similar in our views then. I’d like to see a 4 month cut off period for abortion (unless extreme circumstances), and within that 4 months I think either parent should be able to legally waive financial responsibility. And I’d also like to see, one day when technology allows, either parent being able to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It’s a shame religion and politics in the US are so intertwined You've suggested two things. That before the foetus is four months, either parent can waive responsibility. Why is that? Two people make a baby, two people have responsibility. Why do either of them get to duck out? The second thing you suggest is that either parent could opt for a termination. Does that mean a man could tell a woman she had to abort their baby? Do you think that's reasonable? I would say that I don't think a woman in a relationship should abort a baby without discussing it with her partner. That's morally wrong. I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. You make rational points as ever, but I can't agree. If you're a bloke and you're fucking without condoms you have waived your right to choose what happens when you get someone pregnant. You've basically, albeit in a primal subconscious way, saying I'm going to impregnate you now. That comes with responsibility. You can't waive financial obligations. The condom broke. Now what? Accidents happen, deal with it differently. This is a totally different scenario to the one I described and you know it. "I know, I’m just making the point Accidents happen, mistakes happen Yet the outcome is entirely on the woman’s hands and I’m gonna be financially responsible for her decision That doesn’t sit well with me. That a broken condom could come with 18 years of child support I’m not ready for | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can guarantee if we were talking about a man's body, no way on earth would a woman have any say in it. Don't want to pay for a child you don't want? Don't have unprotected sex, it's not hard is it. " Then there's the guys who sneakily take their condoms off half way through... they're my favourites they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can guarantee if we were talking about a man's body, no way on earth would a woman have any say in it. Don't want to pay for a child you don't want? Don't have unprotected sex, it's not hard is it. " Hopefully it was hard for at least 3 strokes. Of imagine her disappointment! (I’ll get my coat) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can guarantee if we were talking about a man's body, no way on earth would a woman have any say in it. Don't want to pay for a child you don't want? Don't have unprotected sex, it's not hard is it. " Yup. Women: if you don't want to deal with the physical changes of pregnancy (including health risks which can be up to fatal), don't have sex. Apparently fine. Men: if you don't want to pay for a child who needs to be brought up, don't have sex. Outrageous. Apparently. Yeah right pull the other one  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’ll try to rephrase it I think women should have the option to keep or abort the baby If they pick abort, I’d like the man to be able to keep the baby (when technology allows that) If they pick keep, I’d like the man to be able to waive any financial responsibility to the child. Because if he can’t have a say in the baby’s birth or not, why should his financial rights be taken away? If he makes it clear before the 4 month mark he doesn’t want that baby, he shouldn’t be forced into paying for it. Do you realise most abortions occur well before the embryo or foetus is viable outside the uterus? There's no way a father could take responsibility after abortion. Once detached from the placenta, an embryo will cease to be viable and a foetus would only be viable before about 36-37 weeks gestation with significant (and very expensive) medical support. when technology allows
Which is likely to be next to never for an embryo because it's simply impossible to replicate the specific environment of the uterus and complex blood supply etc. Pretty much the second an embryo is detached, it ceases to be viable.
The ridiculous idea in the US that an ectopic pregnancy could be reimplanted elsewhere is just that, ridiculous.
They said we’ve never get to the moon, but your bring over pedantic
My point was just that both parents should have choices. And one day, in the future, I’d like a guy to be able to say “actually, I want a kid, don’t abort it”
One day "That's fine. Let him be pregnant, let him give birth, let him have full responsibility for the child. I'd give it a 100 years we'd be fucking extinct. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
