Roe versus Wade

[anonguest]

1 hour ago, winkie said:

Have you overlooked that no woman can get pregnant without a man, so I would say to you that the man is the one that should be taking responsibility, by not creating kids they don't want......

I agree entirely. I never said otherwise. It takes two to tango.

 

1 hour ago, winkie said:

if a woman says they are on the pill don't believe them, if they say they can't get pregnant because this or that don't believe them........ don't want to impregnate an irresponsible woman who will go on to need an abortion.......if she can't get one, the father who gave it to her will have to help support the child he helped to make for the next 18 years.

I agree 100.0% here. I also don't know why you ended that last part with a 'winking' emoji - because it's a deadly serious issue.

I am in full agreement with those who say that, in far too many jurisdictions, the 'come back' and/or legal/financial obligations on men for children brought into this world are disproprtionately small compared with the burdens/responsibilities placed on women through childbirth.

Abolish abortion?  Then make sure as hell that men share the burden appropriately or lose the liberty completley (i.e prison or equivalent). Enforce that and I'll bet every penny in my pockets right now that you'll see the 'need' for abortion go through the floor.

[MARTINX9]

2 hours ago, anonguest said:

Probably, I would guess, no more or less than it is in, say, Germany.

But the U.S rate of abortion is 2.6x that of Germany.

Are U.S women so uneducated/uninformed compared with Germans that they 'have' to resort to abortion in such greater numbers - rather than rely on preventing/avoiding pregnancies in the first place?

So, I'd say the failure is more on the people rather than the contraception.

 

In most of Europe abortion is only permitted on demand for 12 weeks - although it is as high as 18 weeks in Sweden and 24 in the Netherlands. Thereafter it is only allowed generally if there is a risk to the life of the mother. In Malta of course and Andorra its banned entirely - and heavily restricted in Poland. In Italy while abortion is legal medical professionals can refuse to perform it - and over 70% of Italian medics refuse to perform them (they must sign up to a list declaring that) so its restricted via access.

GB doesn't technically legally have any abortion on demand  - two doctors must determine the physical or mental health of the mother is at risk or her life is at risk or the baby could be born with a disability. In practice they do - but the doctors decide that exercise of choice not the mothers. And then its up to 24 weeks.

So we don't actually have a woman's right to choose in GB legally - although in practice it operates that way.

Its very easy to ask the simple question do you think abortion should be legal - or not. But as we see in Europe - is that a legal right up to 12 weeks or 14 or 18 or 24 or just to protect the life of the mother. Does it also include the right to abort a baby with likely physical or mental abnormalities? And who decides - the women themselves - or doctors?

That is the matter which now passes to the 50 states - because as in Europe its complicated!

Most people may support abortion - but what does that mean in practice? America now follows Europe - the people voting and their elected representatives decide not judges.

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by MARTINX9

[A.steve]

1 hour ago, winkie said:

Have you overlooked that no woman can get pregnant without a man...

Doesn't that depend upon your definition of 'man'?  There are plenty of males, who are biologically capable of reproductive acts, who I'd find it difficult to describe as 'men'.

[anonguest]

20 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

In most of Europe abortion is only permitted on demand for 12 weeks - although it is as high as 18 weeks in Sweden and 24 in the Netherlands.

Sweden has de facto same abortion rate as the U.S

The Netherlands, also liberal and progressive, has HALF the abortion rate of the U.S.

I find it hard to believe that contraception availability and/or pricing vary as wildly as that between those various countries.

I stand by my assertion that abortion rates are influenced as much, if not more, by the attitude of the populace to it - rather than minor technical details such as price of contraceptive pills.

The ugly fact of the matter is that something that was once legalised to bring compassion to sad situations and avoid needless suffering, as a last resort, is far too often treated almost as a form of on demand no questions asked contraception.

Same with divorce. Take away reasons for it, allow no-fault divorce, and then people wonder why the divorce rate has rocketed in the West over past decades. Make divorce easy and watch young people jump into marriage far too quickly. But that's another story.

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by anonguest

[anonguest]

3 minutes ago, A.steve said:

Doesn't that depend upon your definition of 'man'?  There are plenty of males, who are biologically capable of reproductive acts, who I'd find it difficult to describe as 'men'.

Indeed. There are plenty of males, who are biologically capable of reproductive acts, who themselves don't regard themselves as men!

[winkie]

1 hour ago, A.steve said:

Doesn't that depend upon your definition of 'man'?  There are plenty of males, who are biologically capable of reproductive acts, who I'd find it difficult to describe as 'men'.

A man is a man who is capable of fertilising a woman's egg.....even if in a test tube or donating manually and use of a syringe......how they want to be described is up to them.

[winkie]

1 hour ago, anonguest said:

I agree entirely. I never said otherwise. It takes two to tango.

 

I agree 100.0% here. I also don't know why you ended that last part with a 'winking' emoji - because it's a deadly serious issue.

I am in full agreement with those who say that, in far too many jurisdictions, the 'come back' and/or legal/financial obligations on men for children brought into this world are disproprtionately small compared with the burdens/responsibilities placed on women through childbirth.

Abolish abortion?  Then make sure as hell that men share the burden appropriately or lose the liberty completley (i.e prison or equivalent). Enforce that and I'll bet every penny in my pockets right now that you'll see the 'need' for abortion go through the floor.

There are some cases when a man will not have to support the child, when they donate sperm to a sperm bank for childless people or when there is adoption etc.

I don't think abortion should be abolished it is necessary in some cases, I just think people should take procreation more seriously.

[A.steve]

8 minutes ago, winkie said:

A man is a man who is capable of fertilising a woman's egg.....even if in a test tube or donating manually and use of a syringe......how they want to be described is up to them.

That's very liberal of you to allow them to chose their own nouns...  A dangerous game - there's no telling what some whimsical promoters of chaos might choose.

It is technically possible for someone to become a father after they have died.  I think, linguistically speaking, a corpse is distinct from a man.  As for the physical act of fertilising, you are aware, I'm sure, it's technically possible for that act to be performed by a woman... ergo, you don't necessarily need a man in order to fertilise a woman's egg.  A boy may also be biologically capable... but that doesn't necessarily make him a man.

Where we use words, they convey rich meanings... I think the quirks arising from diverse perspectives when interpreting words often generates insight. 🙂

Edited June 26, 2022 by A.steve

[anonguest]

15 minutes ago, winkie said:

There are some cases when a man will not have to support the child, when they donate sperm to a sperm bank for childless people or when there is adoption etc.

I alluded to as such too. There will be some very small number of cases that will/should be excepted.

15 minutes ago, winkie said:

I don't think abortion should be abolished it is necessary in some cases, I just think people should take procreation more seriously.

Neither do, so far as I am aware, any of the so-called anti-abortion states in the U.S.

They still permit it for extenuating circumstances, such as threat to health of the mother or serious issue with the unborn child. In that respect they're more flexible and reasonable than some other true total anti-abortion jurisdictions where it is prohibited altogether.

But I'm ready to be corrected on that.

Edited June 26, 2022 by anonguest

[winkie]

14 minutes ago, A.steve said:

That's very liberal of you to allow them to chose their own nouns...  A dangerous game - there's no telling what some whimsical promoters of chaos might choose.

It is technically possible for someone to become a father after they have died.  I think, linguistically speaking, a corpse is distinct from a man.  As for the physical act of fertilising, you are aware, I'm sure, it's technically possible for that act to be performed by a woman... ergo, you don't necessarily need a man in order to fertilise a woman's egg.  A boy may also be biologically capable... but that doesn't necessarily make him a man.

Where we use words, they convey rich meanings... I think the quirks arising from diverse perspectives when interpreting words often generates insight. 🙂

To be honest I don't have a problem with what people want to be called or how they want to be identified as, all I know is a man is unable to have a child and a woman cannot create a child without the assistance of a male.....like I said dead ( sperm previously frozen)  or alive it is a male that can only provide the sperm to create another human being with a woman's egg, males don't make eggs and females don't make sperm.......a male can be a man or boy then if splitting hairs.

[Mancunian284]

4 hours ago, anonguest said:

Probably, I would guess, no more or less than it is in, say, Germany.

But the U.S rate of abortion is 2.6x that of Germany.

Are U.S women so uneducated/uninformed compared with Germans that they 'have' to resort to abortion in such greater numbers - rather than rely on preventing/avoiding pregnancies in the first place?

So, I'd say the failure is more on the people rather than the contraception.

 

You’re wrong.  They don’t have national healthcare in the US, so contraception is not always available or free.  Especially in the Jesus - belt.  They don’t even get sex education in schools in some states. 

[anonguest]

14 minutes ago, Mancunian284 said:

You’re wrong.  They don’t have national healthcare in the US, so contraception is not always available or free.  Especially in the Jesus - belt.  They don’t even get sex education in schools in some states. 

I never alluded to contraception being free. But I find it hard to believe that, in U.S states that are nominally anti-abortion, that it's simply not available at almost any pharmacy? OR truly unaffordable. And, in any such event, there will surely be plenty of organisations, even if in other states, that will provide help.

But if you can back up your claim that I am broadly wrong, with evidence/reading links, I welcome that to update my general knowledge base.

EDIT UPDATE  I stand partly corrected. A quick Google does indeed support some of your assertion.  For example:

https://powertodecide.org/what-we-do/access/birth-control-access

BUT, this minority of women cannot account for the high abortion rate in the U.S overall - compared with other countries.

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by anonguest

[A.steve]

10 minutes ago, winkie said:

a male can be a man or boy then if splitting hairs.

Splitting hairs - maybe... or seeking accuracy to get a sensible perspective.  The word 'man' conveys a lot of baggage... it is not enough just to be male - unless you're using the word in the sense of 'mankind' - where a women and children are also men.  The key adjective in the primary definition is 'adult' - which forces one to ask if it is reasonable to insinuate that someone who fails to take responsibility for their choices can, in fact, qualify.  As an adjective, adult suggests "having attained full size and strength; grown up; mature: an adult person, animal, or plant;  of, relating to, or befitting adults".  Someone who recklessly procreates (male or female) and fails to take responsibility for same fails to meet that definition - in my opinion.

[winkie]

8 minutes ago, A.steve said:

Splitting hairs - maybe... or seeking accuracy to get a sensible perspective.  The word 'man' conveys a lot of baggage... it is not enough just to be male - unless you're using the word in the sense of 'mankind' - where a women and children are also men.  The key adjective in the primary definition is 'adult' - which forces one to ask if it is reasonable to insinuate that someone who fails to take responsibility for their choices can, in fact, qualify.  As an adjective, adult suggests "having attained full size and strength; grown up; mature: an adult person, animal, or plant;  of, relating to, or befitting adults".  Someone who recklessly procreates (male or female) and fails to take responsibility for same fails to meet that definition - in my opinion.

What is this an English lesson.....only two human sexes, male and female.........some in the animal kingdom can be both or change from being one to another.

[A.steve]

Just now, winkie said:

What is this an English lesson.....only two human sexes, male and female.........some in the animal kingdom can be both or change from being one to another.

More relevantly, those in the animal kingdom are not judged by human society on the basis of ethical assessments of the choices they make.

 

[MARTINX9]

Amazing the lack of understanding from some quarters about what this judgement means in practice.

Rachel Johnson has just done an hour long phone in on LBC headlining how women in New York will have less rights to have an abortion there than a man will have to buy a gun.

New Orleans very possibly but not New York which has a Democrat run legislature and Governor and had legal abortion rights before Roe vs Wade.

[anonguest]

1 hour ago, MARTINX9 said:

Amazing the lack of understanding from some quarters about what this judgement means in practice.

Rachel Johnson has just done an hour long phone in on LBC headlining how women in New York will have less rights to have an abortion there than a man will have to buy a gun.

New Orleans very possibly but not New York which has a Democrat run legislature and Governor and had legal abortion rights before Roe vs Wade.

Note the deliberately emotive use of the word 'man' to instill the notion/sense of women as being disadvantaged vs men.

She could of course simply, and just as accurately said "women in New York will have less rights to have an abortion there than a woman will have to buy a gun".  But of course that doesn't render quite the same effect does it.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

On 24/06/2022 at 18:46, BaldED said:

Who'd shag an American anyway all cross-eyed idiots.

 

I am joking obviously...Well about the shagging bit.

 

Not an issue now:  Sex Strike 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10954353/Women-threaten-SEX-STRIKE-protest-SCOTUS-overturning-Roe-v-Wade.html

 

An idea from Greek literature (Lysistrata)

https://edubirdie.com/examples/modern-sex-strikes-and-ancient-greece-play-lysistrata/

[anonguest]

3 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

 

Not an issue now:  Sex Strike 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10954353/Women-threaten-SEX-STRIKE-protest-SCOTUS-overturning-Roe-v-Wade.html

 

An idea from Greek literature (Lysistrata)

https://edubirdie.com/examples/modern-sex-strikes-and-ancient-greece-play-lysistrata/

Well, if they keep it going long enough, that will largely solve their unwanted pregnancies problem.  Then maybe, when they look at the resulting stats, they might actually make the connection between shagging and getting pregnant.  😉

That aside, I do share some of the sentiments of the poster above re: comments about "Who'd shag an American anyway...".

George Carlin famously said:

""Have you noticed that most of the women who are against abortion are women you wouldn't want to **** in the first place?"

I actually find it to be the other way around.

Maybe it's me but it seems that there's a certain 'something' about a large proportion of Leftist U.S women, more so than UK/EU women sharing same political beliefs, that gives them a rather repulsive personality - that I can sympathise with that chaps sentiment.  Trying to find the words. Arrogant, rude, loud, condescending, patronising......

Edited June 27, 2022 by anonguest

[warpig]

On 24/06/2022 at 15:23, anonguest said:

The fact is that abortion has been legalised in the U.S, for the last several decades, only by way of what amounts to 'legal technicalities' - rather than being derived from enacted legislation through the democratically elected representatives.

This action merely throws the ball of this problem back where it really belongs - to the legislature.

The reason the Left are getting so heated about this is probably because, deep down, they 'know' that they possibly cannot carry the argument for abortion through the legislative process - to get proper statutes enacted. At least at the Federal level.

They would selfishly rather see Democracy in America abolished just so that they can get this one right to continue to exist.

That sums it up perfectly.

[scottbeard]

On 26/06/2022 at 23:44, anonguest said:

Note the deliberately emotive use of the word 'man' to instill the notion/sense of women as being disadvantaged vs men.

She could of course simply, and just as accurately said "women in New York will have less rights to have an abortion there than a woman will have to buy a gun".  But of course that doesn't render quite the same effect does it.

I mean she could, yes, in that example.

But since only women can get pregnant and therefore need an abortion, by denying them the right to do so they are manifestly disadvantaged vs men.

If the US had instead ruled to ban treatment of testicular cancer, I'm pretty sure the argument "this doesn't disadvantage men because women can't get treatment now either" would be equally feeble.

[anonguest]

4 hours ago, scottbeard said:

I mean she could, yes, in that example.

But since only women can get pregnant and therefore need an abortion, by denying them the right to do so they are manifestly disadvantaged vs men.

Really?!  That's not what we're all being told these days. Men can be pregnant too dontcha know. 

Wot?! You mean you don't believe that?  You bigot!

Report to your local indoctrination centre for re-education first thing tomorrow morning!  (Alternatively you may opt to undertake to solely read The Guardian everyday for the next 3 years).

4 hours ago, scottbeard said:

If the US had instead ruled to ban treatment of testicular cancer, I'm pretty sure the argument "this doesn't disadvantage men because women can't get treatment now either" would be equally feeble.

Again, why oh why do people make such fallacious arguments - with such poorly chosen and completely incomparable counter examples?  You can do better than this.  😉

Testicular cancer is an illness/disease.  Pregnancy is not.

Testicular cancer is not really avoidable through lifestyle (i.e. it's not self inflicted).  Pregnancy mostly is.

Banning treatment of an illness would amount to a restriction on the right to life (which is part of the U.S constitution and is explicitly recognised - unlike abortion).  Banning abortion does not, ordinarily, restrict a woman's right to life (And in those rare cases where a woman's life is endangered then abortion is permitted)

Edited July 1, 2022 by anonguest

[scottbeard]

10 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Again, why oh why do people make such fallacious arguments - with such poorly chosen and completely incomparable counter examples?  You can do better than this.  😉

I shouldn't really have to.

Most normal people would I have thought understood why this judgment is inherently much worse news for women than men.

To be honest, if you don't get it you are probably just beyond help so I'll leave it there.

[anonguest]

16 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

I shouldn't really have to.

Indeed. You could have addressed the issue I was addressing.  The woke and deliberately provocative nature of the language used by the journalist.

16 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Most normal people would I have thought understood why this judgment is inherently much worse news for women than men.

To be honest, if you don't get it you are probably just beyond help so I'll leave it there.

And I agree too.

My issue , which you replied to, was not about the issue of abortion itself - it was about the nature of the journalism and choice of quotes used (e.g. men having more right to buy a gun than women have to an abortion, etc.) - which were deliberately 'divisive' and perpetuate the subliminal messaging by woke feminist brigade with nonsense about such legal decisions being anti-women and driven by men, and trying to turn the debate to a 'men vs women' issue which it is not.

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by anonguest