US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Always interesting to see who picks which side in a debate.

On this, only Dax777, Bigga and Gonzo Nobodyo have defended this law change.

I‘m sure there will by good people on both sides, but I haven’t worked out who they are yet.
Click to expand...

You misrepresent my position.

I've simply asked whether the new ruling would evoke more personal responsibility. Already there have been clownish replies of condoms and vasectomy, which I have already factored into my open argument.

The fact is if a woman "trusts" a man that tells her he's had a vasectomy, is it not on her to protect herself, just in case? She controls who enters her personal space as fact. People want to side step that very fact.

Alternatively, the way forward is make sure all men have vasectomies with official certified papers to show he's been 'done'.

That would be an interesting exploration.
 
Bigga said:
Not sure you understand what the word 'context' means and, therefore, I'm not so sure if you'd understand the wording 'greater context'.

By breaking down every sentence, you fail to realise women control sex, not men, as the full rule of consent which means a woman cannot get pregnant from other than another immaculate conception or accessing sperm without permission and he would STILL be deemed responsible and forced to pay for that child.

Making your isolation of sentences rather redundant for reducing context.
Click to expand...
You probably need to speak to a heterosexual woman that you don’t consider to be an idiot to get some real understanding of the issue. Judging by your misogynistic attitude to your ex from the Covid thread I doubt you’ll find one.
 
I see the West Clown can't understand the morality issue involved.

By doing so, insults a (hetro) female poster on here who thinks it's possibly a morality issue as well as my daughter in the LGBTQ community.

Clearly you're a dick who can't bear to think outside of his safe space.
 
Daz_Blue said:
Some states are banning abortion even for rape and incest, telling a woman that she must give birth to a rapists child, you can look into the baby's eyes and remember that magical night ........ this is a backward country
Click to expand...
Seriously suprised an insistance that the puritan bonnet and ankle length clothing be compulsary hasn't been mandated by some of these states.

Place is a joke
 
I suppose that abortion is a quintessentially moral issue. I wanted to divorce morality from my point of view - but I find that it's impossible.

My position then is this: I favor a woman's right to abortion, up to a point. Aborting a child ready to be born is abhorrent. That's murder, obviously so, and almost everyone would agree with this. But when initially conceived, a fetus is a single-celled organism - incapable of thought, opinion, or of feeling pain. It's just a cell. Aborting a single-celled organism isn't amoral or unethical from my viewpoint.

If one takes the position that single-celled fetuses must not be aborted on grounds that these are potential humans, then what about unfertilized eggs? Isn't it similarly amoral to abort (via menstruation) unfertilized eggs?

And what if abnormalities are detected in the fetus? The fetus is going to be severely crippled, or diseased. Is it right to force women to bear such fetuses to conception- given that the resulting child is going to suffer every second it's alive - and the mother will suffer too - emotionally and financially.

What about fetuses conceived due to rape or incest. Shouldn't a woman be able to choose whether or not to bring such a potential human into being?

And the majority case - what about unexpected pregnancies? Contraception fails or is not used - and a woman finds that she is pregnant, unprepared to rear him or her. Shouldn't a woman have the right not to have this child if it's only a potential and is early on enough in development?

So when, in the course of pregnancy, should the right to abort be illegal?

For me, I'm not sure at all. Obviously aborting a child nearly ready to be born is wrong - so too it is wrong to forbid abortion of single-celled fetuses.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
I suppose that abortion is a quintessentially moral issue. I wanted to divorce morality from my point of view - but I find that it's impossible.

My position then is this: I favor a woman's right to abortion, up to a point. Aborting a child ready to be born is abhorrent. That's murder, obviously so, and almost everyone would agree with this. But when initially conceived, a fetus is a single-celled organism - incapable of thought, opinion, or of feeling pain. It's just a cell. Aborting a single-celled organism isn't amoral or unethical from my viewpoint.

If one takes the position that single-celled fetuses must not be aborted on grounds that these are potential humans, then what about unfertilized eggs? Isn't it similarly amoral to abort (via menstruation) unfertilized eggs?

And what if abnormalities are detected in the fetus? The fetus is going to be severely crippled, or diseased. Is it right to force women to bear such fetuses to conception- given that the resulting child is going to suffer every second it's alive - and the mother will suffer too - emotionally and financially.

What about fetuses conceived due to rape or incest. Shouldn't a woman be able to choose whether or not to bring such a potential human into being?

And the majority case - what about unexpected pregnancies? Contraception fails or is not used - and a woman finds that she is pregnant, unprepared to rear him or her. Shouldn't a woman have the right not to have this child if it's only a potential and is early on enough in development?

So when, in the course of pregnancy, should the right to abort be illegal?

For me, I'm not sure at all. Obviously aborting a child nearly ready to be born is wrong - so too it is wrong to forbid abortion of single-celled fetuses.
Click to expand...
What exactly was wrong with your law before it was overturned?
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
I suppose that abortion is a quintessentially moral issue. I wanted to divorce morality from my point of view - but I find that it's impossible.

My position then is this: I favor a woman's right to abortion, up to a point. Aborting a child ready to be born is abhorrent. That's murder, obviously so, and almost everyone would agree with this. But when initially conceived, a fetus is a single-celled organism - incapable of thought, opinion, or of feeling pain. It's just a cell. Aborting a single-celled organism isn't amoral or unethical from my viewpoint.

If one takes the position that single-celled fetuses must not be aborted on grounds that these are potential humans, then what about unfertilized eggs? Isn't it similarly amoral to abort (via menstruation) unfertilized eggs?

And what if abnormalities are detected in the fetus? The fetus is going to be severely crippled, or diseased. Is it right to force women to bear such fetuses to conception- given that the resulting child is going to suffer every second it's alive - and the mother will suffer too - emotionally and financially.

What about fetuses conceived due to rape or incest. Shouldn't a woman be able to choose whether or not to bring such a potential human into being?

And the majority case - what about unexpected pregnancies? Contraception fails or is not used - and a woman finds that she is pregnant, unprepared to rear him or her. Shouldn't a woman have the right not to have this child if it's only a potential and is early on enough in development?

So when, in the course of pregnancy, should the right to abort be illegal?

For me, I'm not sure at all. Obviously aborting a child nearly ready to be born is wrong - so too it is wrong to forbid abortion of single-celled fetuses.
Click to expand...
No such thing as a single celled fetus.
 
Last edited:
Alan Harper's Tash said:
What exactly was wrong with your law before it was overturned?
Click to expand...
Nothing for me, at all. I'm not at all sure why you think I support the overturn of RvW.

The points I wished to express above are twofold:
1) that absolute overturn of a woman's right to abortion is wrong, and;
2) it's not at all clear where the demarcation between legal abortion and the taking of human life occurs. My first take on this is when a fetus is first able to feel pain - but upon consideration, I'm not convinced that this is the proper demarcation. I defer to scientific experts to weigh in on this part of the issue (not fucking fake Fox "News").
 
I dont believe in abortion for me , i saw one in my gynae rotation as a student back in the late seventies , old school method , i was scarred by it and spent my child bearing years dodging getting pregnant by every means possible , it can be done but a sex life should be fun and spontanious , shouldnt it ?

However , i believe in a womans right to choose , i would support a mate having one even though i wouldnt , it is too complicated to discuss on a football forum with men i find so that is me done , america should be ashamed of themselves

Babies are viable at 22 weeks so the whole thing needs a rethink , ihave never agreed with the up to twenty four weeks abortions we have here , unless in rape, incest or risk to womens life obvs

I nursed a women who miscarried at twenty weeks , saddest thing i have ever seen
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Nothing for me, at all. I'm not at all sure why you think I support the overturn of RvW.

The points I wished to express above are twofold:
1) that absolute overturn of a woman's right to abortion is wrong, and;
2) it's not at all clear where the demarcation between legal abortion and the taking of human life occurs. My first take on this is when a fetus is first able to feel pain - but upon consideration, I'm not convinced that this is the proper demarcation. I defer to scientific experts to weigh in on this part of the issue (not fucking fake Fox "News").
Click to expand...
This is the natural place that most people will find themselves in.

Women should have the choice up until the point at which scientists define as the point that human life begins.
 
Bigga said:
I see the West Clown can't understand the morality issue involved.

By doing so, insults a (hetro) female poster on here who thinks it's possibly a morality issue as well as my daughter in the LGBTQ community.

Clearly you're a dick who can't bear to think outside of his safe space.
Click to expand...

You had a vasectomy during the period of your last relationship didn't you?
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
I suppose that abortion is a quintessentially moral issue. I wanted to divorce morality from my point of view - but I find that it's impossible.

My position then is this: I favor a woman's right to abortion, up to a point. Aborting a child ready to be born is abhorrent. That's murder, obviously so, and almost everyone would agree with this. But when initially conceived, a fetus is a single-celled organism - incapable of thought, opinion, or of feeling pain. It's just a cell. Aborting a single-celled organism isn't amoral or unethical from my viewpoint.

If one takes the position that single-celled fetuses must not be aborted on grounds that these are potential humans, then what about unfertilized eggs? Isn't it similarly amoral to abort (via menstruation) unfertilized eggs?

And what if abnormalities are detected in the fetus? The fetus is going to be severely crippled, or diseased. Is it right to force women to bear such fetuses to conception- given that the resulting child is going to suffer every second it's alive - and the mother will suffer too - emotionally and financially.

What about fetuses conceived due to rape or incest. Shouldn't a woman be able to choose whether or not to bring such a potential human into being?

And the majority case - what about unexpected pregnancies? Contraception fails or is not used - and a woman finds that she is pregnant, unprepared to rear him or her. Shouldn't a woman have the right not to have this child if it's only a potential and is early on enough in development?

So when, in the course of pregnancy, should the right to abort be illegal?

For me, I'm not sure at all. Obviously aborting a child nearly ready to be born is wrong - so too it is wrong to forbid abortion of single-celled fetuses.
Click to expand...
The question is who decides? An unelected court plucking a right to abortion out of thin air or the people's representatives who are accountable to their voters and can be removed if the majority disagree? The supreme court didn't ban abortion, it returned the decision to where it should always have been, within the democratic process. The American federal system allows for people with different views on this emotive subject to set different laws according to the political persuasion of the state they live in and this seems like the fairest way to resolve this to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top