comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 58 seconds ago
“A simple majority in the House of Commons can ban abortion this week if they so chose.”
Not true, for a raft of reasons, including, and possibly not limited to:
- Would have to pass the Lords and attain Royal Assent
- Would be illegal under ECHR legislation
- Would also be prevented by UK recognition of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects some abortion rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the ICCPR:
“we reiterate that there is no internationally recognized “right” to abortion or “right to die.” We remind the Committee that abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia are not mentioned in the ICCPR nor are they implicit anywhere in the treaty nor in the customary norms of international law. Abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia are grave violations of the right to life and are incompatible with article 6 of the Covenant. As such, paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Draft General Comment No. 36 on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are incompatible with the ICCPR and should be revised per the recommendations laid out in Section VI of this written submission.”
ECHR - look at ABC v Ireland - Irish law prohibiting abortion in all cases except risk to life of the mother does not violate Article 8 of the ECHR.
Any other false facts you want to believe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Irish law prohibiting abortion IN ALL CASES EXCEPT RISK TO LIFE OF THE MOTHER does not violate Article 8 of the ECHR.
Abortion is not, and cannot be, banned in Ireland.
UN Human Rights Committee Finds that Ireland’s Abortion Ban Violates the ICCPR
https://www.ejiltalk.org/un-human-rights-committee-finds-that-irelands-abortion-ban-violates-the-iccpr/
And when you write “From the ICCPR”, what you’ve quoted IS NOT from the ICCPR.
It’s a copy and paste from a commentary by an organisation called the ‘Population Research Institute’, a US pro-life campaign group, entitled:
COMMENT
on Draft General Comment No. 36 on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – the Right to Life
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
Would it though?
That’s an assumption. Not a fact.
If there was a vote called to vote on repealing the abortion act it requires a simple majority. That’s all and bang abortion is illegal again.
For a US state to now outlaw abortion it requires a simple majority vote in the state senate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mmm, I think you are being simplistic here Dwight. What you say may be true, in the same way a simple majority could make burglary legal, but it ain't going to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whether it would, it’s whether it could.
Women have a fragile right to abortion in which there is a mechanism to repeal.
What you are seeing in certain states of the US is that mechanism being utilized.
Just because it’s sunny today doesn’t mean it won’t rain tomorrow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'right' is always fragile in the view you are taking, every government can change legislation.
But.the US has made it more difficult for many women who want to have an abortion to get one, which is a bad thing in itself.
What's worse is that one woman will have the right while another five miles away doesn't. Despite them both living in the USA.
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 58 seconds ago
“A simple majority in the House of Commons can ban abortion this week if they so chose.”
Not true, for a raft of reasons, including, and possibly not limited to:
- Would have to pass the Lords and attain Royal Assent
- Would be illegal under ECHR legislation
- Would also be prevented by UK recognition of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects some abortion rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the ICCPR:
“we reiterate that there is no internationally recognized “right” to abortion or “right to die.” We remind the Committee that abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia are not mentioned in the ICCPR nor are they implicit anywhere in the treaty nor in the customary norms of international law. Abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia are grave violations of the right to life and are incompatible with article 6 of the Covenant. As such, paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Draft General Comment No. 36 on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are incompatible with the ICCPR and should be revised per the recommendations laid out in Section VI of this written submission.”
ECHR - look at ABC v Ireland - Irish law prohibiting abortion in all cases except risk to life of the mother does not violate Article 8 of the ECHR.
Any other false facts you want to believe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Irish law prohibiting abortion IN ALL CASES EXCEPT RISK TO LIFE OF THE MOTHER does not violate Article 8 of the ECHR.
Abortion is not, and cannot be, banned in Ireland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s just false. Fundamentally.
A woman needs a medical reason for the right to access abortion. The right to choose to terminate a healthy foetus is not protected by either of the bodies you cite.
The case you reference was essentially forcing a woman to give birth to a severely deformed child likely to die anyway. Most if not all of the US states that will outlaw or restrict abortion have similar exceptions built into their laws.
Don’t confuse medical emergency exceptions with the right to choose
You said, verbatim:
“A simple majority in the House of Commons can ban abortion this week if they so chose.”
Did you mean?:
“A simple majority in the House of Commons can ban elective abortion this week if they so chose.”
Would still need to pass through the Lords and Royal assent.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
Would it though?
That’s an assumption. Not a fact.
If there was a vote called to vote on repealing the abortion act it requires a simple majority. That’s all and bang abortion is illegal again.
For a US state to now outlaw abortion it requires a simple majority vote in the state senate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mmm, I think you are being simplistic here Dwight. What you say may be true, in the same way a simple majority could make burglary legal, but it ain't going to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whether it would, it’s whether it could.
Women have a fragile right to abortion in which there is a mechanism to repeal.
What you are seeing in certain states of the US is that mechanism being utilized.
Just because it’s sunny today doesn’t mean it won’t rain tomorrow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'right' is always fragile in the view you are taking, every government can change legislation.
But.the US has made it more difficult for many women who want to have an abortion to get one, which is a bad thing in itself.
What's worse is that one woman will have the right while another five miles away doesn't. Despite them both living in the USA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like in the UK.
Forgetting all the parts in the OP, which a woman in the UK must satisfy two seperate doctors opinion of, even within the UK different countries make it variably harder for women to access abortion.
In Northern Ireland as an example good luck getting an abortion after 10 weeks without having to travel to England.
In Scotland there isn’t a single health board that provides abortions up to the legal limit of 24 weeks. Most agree 15 weeks is the limit. So women once again are forced to travel for abortion.
So in the UK women have a law allowing them access to abortions, controlled by politicians, however there are persistent difficulties for some women within the UK to access it and some are forced to travel great distances to access care.
In the US women will have varying access to abortion and will have to travel to access care.
People in glass houses
People ‘in glass houses’ are perfectly entitled to campaign for women’s rights to be upheld and strengthened in the US, the UK and elsewhere in the world.
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
You said, verbatim:
“A simple majority in the House of Commons can ban abortion this week if they so chose.”
Did you mean?:
“A simple majority in the House of Commons can ban elective abortion this week if they so chose.”
Would still need to pass through the Lords and Royal assent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah would need to pass through lords and if it didn’t the commons can just invoke the parliaments act of lords try cause a fuss, Infact whenever they’ve voted not to approve a law it’s usually just to reword parts of it.
Royal assent? The queen has 3 options:
Approve
Delay
Deny
The only way she can legally deny to provide assent is on the advice of ministers. If a law is approved by ministers she can not then deny it on advice of the same ministers who voted to approve it.
1708 was the last time royal assent was not provided.
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
People ‘in glass houses’ are perfectly entitled to campaign for women’s rights to be upheld and strengthened in the US, the UK and elsewhere in the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why aren’t you spouting about Northern Ireland not even abiding by UK law on abortion?
Why aren’t you furious about Scotland not abiding by UK law on abortion?
Why the obsession with what goes on in a handful of US states???
I know all of that, but thanks.
Why does it bother you? You aren’t even American.
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
Would it though?
That’s an assumption. Not a fact.
If there was a vote called to vote on repealing the abortion act it requires a simple majority. That’s all and bang abortion is illegal again.
For a US state to now outlaw abortion it requires a simple majority vote in the state senate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mmm, I think you are being simplistic here Dwight. What you say may be true, in the same way a simple majority could make burglary legal, but it ain't going to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whether it would, it’s whether it could.
Women have a fragile right to abortion in which there is a mechanism to repeal.
What you are seeing in certain states of the US is that mechanism being utilized.
Just because it’s sunny today doesn’t mean it won’t rain tomorrow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'right' is always fragile in the view you are taking, every government can change legislation.
But.the US has made it more difficult for many women who want to have an abortion to get one, which is a bad thing in itself.
What's worse is that one woman will have the right while another five miles away doesn't. Despite them both living in the USA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like in the UK.
Forgetting all the parts in the OP, which a woman in the UK must satisfy two seperate doctors opinion of, even within the UK different countries make it variably harder for women to access abortion.
In Northern Ireland as an example good luck getting an abortion after 10 weeks without having to travel to England.
In Scotland there isn’t a single health board that provides abortions up to the legal limit of 24 weeks. Most agree 15 weeks is the limit. So women once again are forced to travel for abortion.
So in the UK women have a law allowing them access to abortions, controlled by politicians, however there are persistent difficulties for some women within the UK to access it and some are forced to travel great distances to access care.
In the US women will have varying access to abortion and will have to travel to access care.
People in glass houses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we have made a mish mash of it doesn't mean you should.
It has become harder for many women in the USA which is a retrograde step.
The first that the UK is better, equal or worse, matters not to the women in Texas who now can't have the abortion she wants.
I haven’t a clue what the laws are in all the other countries, and don't care.
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
People ‘in glass houses’ are perfectly entitled to campaign for women’s rights to be upheld and strengthened in the US, the UK and elsewhere in the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why aren’t you spouting about Northern Ireland not even abiding by UK law on abortion?
Why aren’t you furious about Scotland not abiding by UK law on abortion?
Why the obsession with what goes on in a handful of US states???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have done, as regards the first.
As has been pointed out by others on this thread previously, the US is still the most powerful nation in the West, and its sociocultural and sociopolitical influence runs incredibly wide and deep. And there are also 165 million women living there.
Are you going to tell us Dwight, after all this, that you think the repeal was a good thing. Ignore legal jargon, was it a good thing for American women?
this mike bloke is class
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygFrgqrJl_k
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona đđź đľđ¸ (U18082)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona đđź đľđ¸ (U18082)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona đđź đľđ¸ (U18082)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 17 minutes ago
Choosing to have a child when you know the father wants nothing to do with it, knowing you will be raising it alone, should not give you the right to then sue the father for money every month
======
There would be no pregnancy without the man though. Also, if the man wanted nothing to do with a baby then he should have thought about that before doing the act which is guaranteed to bring about a baby.
If I bang a woman I ensure contraception. If not then I should be ready and not act surprised and unready in case a baby comes out.
I think men should have a say but the ultimate decision rests with the woman and the rights of the unborn foetus. If the woman decides to keep it then too bad for you and you have to live with the consequences of your actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the woman doesn’t have to live with the consequences of her actions? You’re giving women an out and men either have to live through the trauma of having a potential life they helped create get aborted or suffer the financial burden of taking care of a child they don’t want.
The woman has the luxury of dodging consequences, pretty dangerous considering men are at danger of being exploited for their finances. Women poking holes in condoms or lying about being on contraception. On the other end of the spectrum men who want to take responsibility for the unborn child have to watch on in silent horror as potential life is eliminated.
The vast majority of abortions in the US are elective without any reasoning. women are using it as contraception. If you don’t find anything morally questionable about eliminating something as sacred as life for the sake of an oorgasm then you need to reflect on your own position on this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know these things Kung Fu?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m assuming you’re not talking about women poking holes in contraception or pretending they’re on the pill? If you don’t know these things happen, you’re living a very isolated life.
The part about elective abortions are a statistical fact from 2021. I posted the link and the numbers a couple of pages back if you want a read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The part where you say 60% without any reasoning and as a form of contraception. That's not in the link.
Awsome to see in people's head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The link goes through every considered reasoning for an abortion. Elective abortion is an abortion without reason being given. If no reason has been given then there is only likely motivator, contraception. Nothing to do with what’s going on in my head just the facts of the matter.
I can see you’re emotional about this subject, so try to only participate in discourse when you’re out of your feelings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope I have no emotion on the subject at all, can you see in my head. Also as an atheist I have no religious feelings.
My view is this.
As per the OPs article I agree with abortion on demand as per the rules laid out in that article.
I believe that as it is the woman's body involved her feelings take priority.
The sanctity of life as you term it does not begin at conception but a few weeks after.
I believe that if a woman is forced to have the baby she is unlikely to be a good mother. If it's given up for adoption it is likely she or he will have to be brought up by a mix of state care and fostering.
Finally I believe that no religion should have any say on what someone who is not of that faith should do.
The law in the UK is pitched right imo and the USA would do well to follow suit.
It is the woman's body, you have no say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conception
It says a lot about your moral characteristics that you think something which will grow into a human being isn’t sacred.
That’s the difference between me and you. You don’t mind eliminating eventual life frivolously. That is something find abhorrent. Women should have access to abortion procedures if it endangers their life, the babies life or rape. That I agree with.
Where I don’t agree with abortion is using it as a contraceptive tool because you were horny.
I also find it strange that you’re fighting for “equality” but you don’t take into consideration a man’s mental health in these scenarios. He either has to dedicate 18 years of his life financing the mother and the child or has to go through the trauma of having his eventual child aborted.
Men suffer most when it comes to suicide. With your rhetoric, it’s not a wonder why.
Using internet terminology, I’d say you fall into the category of simp.
I can hardly agree with a paragraph there.
Sacred means under God, who for me doesn't exist.
Frivolous is your word used to imply fun, frivolity, careless. So you used it in the belief that it strengthens your case.
To blame men's higher suicide rate on abortion is almost laughable.
It shouldn't be you to choose can have an abortion, but I see you don't include women with abusive partners, physical or mental health problems, girls who are frightened of their parents. That's the difference between you and me.
Incidentally is only human life sacred?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o0gAglNdZw
If men were the ones giving birth does anyone think this would be an issue? (no pun intended).
Off to bed, will check in tomorrow
We're aborting potentially millions of lives every time we choose not to have seex. Won't anyone think of those poor sperm?
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 7 minutes ago
We're aborting potentially millions of lives every time we choose not to have seex. Won't anyone think of those poor sperm?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust you
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 7 minutes ago
We're aborting potentially millions of lives every time we choose not to have seex. Won't anyone think of those poor sperm?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is true though. I'm fed up of people talking about the sanctity of life when it comes to a small amount of cells. I certainly don't want abortions everywhere all the time but I do want them to be an option for all women. Women shouldn't be made to feel guilty for making that choice.
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 7 minutes ago
We're aborting potentially millions of lives every time we choose not to have seex. Won't anyone think of those poor sperm?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course part of that was in jest too! Maybe with a nid to Monty Python in there.
Sign in if you want to comment
Abortion furore & trigger laws
Page 15 of 18
14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18
posted on 26/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 58 seconds ago
“A simple majority in the House of Commons can ban abortion this week if they so chose.”
Not true, for a raft of reasons, including, and possibly not limited to:
- Would have to pass the Lords and attain Royal Assent
- Would be illegal under ECHR legislation
- Would also be prevented by UK recognition of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects some abortion rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the ICCPR:
“we reiterate that there is no internationally recognized “right” to abortion or “right to die.” We remind the Committee that abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia are not mentioned in the ICCPR nor are they implicit anywhere in the treaty nor in the customary norms of international law. Abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia are grave violations of the right to life and are incompatible with article 6 of the Covenant. As such, paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Draft General Comment No. 36 on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are incompatible with the ICCPR and should be revised per the recommendations laid out in Section VI of this written submission.”
ECHR - look at ABC v Ireland - Irish law prohibiting abortion in all cases except risk to life of the mother does not violate Article 8 of the ECHR.
Any other false facts you want to believe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Irish law prohibiting abortion IN ALL CASES EXCEPT RISK TO LIFE OF THE MOTHER does not violate Article 8 of the ECHR.
Abortion is not, and cannot be, banned in Ireland.
posted on 26/6/22
UN Human Rights Committee Finds that Ireland’s Abortion Ban Violates the ICCPR
https://www.ejiltalk.org/un-human-rights-committee-finds-that-irelands-abortion-ban-violates-the-iccpr/
posted on 26/6/22
And when you write “From the ICCPR”, what you’ve quoted IS NOT from the ICCPR.
It’s a copy and paste from a commentary by an organisation called the ‘Population Research Institute’, a US pro-life campaign group, entitled:
COMMENT
on Draft General Comment No. 36 on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – the Right to Life
posted on 26/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
Would it though?
That’s an assumption. Not a fact.
If there was a vote called to vote on repealing the abortion act it requires a simple majority. That’s all and bang abortion is illegal again.
For a US state to now outlaw abortion it requires a simple majority vote in the state senate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mmm, I think you are being simplistic here Dwight. What you say may be true, in the same way a simple majority could make burglary legal, but it ain't going to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whether it would, it’s whether it could.
Women have a fragile right to abortion in which there is a mechanism to repeal.
What you are seeing in certain states of the US is that mechanism being utilized.
Just because it’s sunny today doesn’t mean it won’t rain tomorrow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'right' is always fragile in the view you are taking, every government can change legislation.
But.the US has made it more difficult for many women who want to have an abortion to get one, which is a bad thing in itself.
What's worse is that one woman will have the right while another five miles away doesn't. Despite them both living in the USA.
posted on 26/6/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 58 seconds ago
“A simple majority in the House of Commons can ban abortion this week if they so chose.”
Not true, for a raft of reasons, including, and possibly not limited to:
- Would have to pass the Lords and attain Royal Assent
- Would be illegal under ECHR legislation
- Would also be prevented by UK recognition of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects some abortion rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the ICCPR:
“we reiterate that there is no internationally recognized “right” to abortion or “right to die.” We remind the Committee that abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia are not mentioned in the ICCPR nor are they implicit anywhere in the treaty nor in the customary norms of international law. Abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia are grave violations of the right to life and are incompatible with article 6 of the Covenant. As such, paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Draft General Comment No. 36 on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are incompatible with the ICCPR and should be revised per the recommendations laid out in Section VI of this written submission.”
ECHR - look at ABC v Ireland - Irish law prohibiting abortion in all cases except risk to life of the mother does not violate Article 8 of the ECHR.
Any other false facts you want to believe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Irish law prohibiting abortion IN ALL CASES EXCEPT RISK TO LIFE OF THE MOTHER does not violate Article 8 of the ECHR.
Abortion is not, and cannot be, banned in Ireland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s just false. Fundamentally.
A woman needs a medical reason for the right to access abortion. The right to choose to terminate a healthy foetus is not protected by either of the bodies you cite.
The case you reference was essentially forcing a woman to give birth to a severely deformed child likely to die anyway. Most if not all of the US states that will outlaw or restrict abortion have similar exceptions built into their laws.
Don’t confuse medical emergency exceptions with the right to choose
posted on 26/6/22
You said, verbatim:
“A simple majority in the House of Commons can ban abortion this week if they so chose.”
Did you mean?:
“A simple majority in the House of Commons can ban elective abortion this week if they so chose.”
Would still need to pass through the Lords and Royal assent.
posted on 26/6/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
Would it though?
That’s an assumption. Not a fact.
If there was a vote called to vote on repealing the abortion act it requires a simple majority. That’s all and bang abortion is illegal again.
For a US state to now outlaw abortion it requires a simple majority vote in the state senate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mmm, I think you are being simplistic here Dwight. What you say may be true, in the same way a simple majority could make burglary legal, but it ain't going to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whether it would, it’s whether it could.
Women have a fragile right to abortion in which there is a mechanism to repeal.
What you are seeing in certain states of the US is that mechanism being utilized.
Just because it’s sunny today doesn’t mean it won’t rain tomorrow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'right' is always fragile in the view you are taking, every government can change legislation.
But.the US has made it more difficult for many women who want to have an abortion to get one, which is a bad thing in itself.
What's worse is that one woman will have the right while another five miles away doesn't. Despite them both living in the USA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like in the UK.
Forgetting all the parts in the OP, which a woman in the UK must satisfy two seperate doctors opinion of, even within the UK different countries make it variably harder for women to access abortion.
In Northern Ireland as an example good luck getting an abortion after 10 weeks without having to travel to England.
In Scotland there isn’t a single health board that provides abortions up to the legal limit of 24 weeks. Most agree 15 weeks is the limit. So women once again are forced to travel for abortion.
So in the UK women have a law allowing them access to abortions, controlled by politicians, however there are persistent difficulties for some women within the UK to access it and some are forced to travel great distances to access care.
In the US women will have varying access to abortion and will have to travel to access care.
People in glass houses
posted on 26/6/22
People ‘in glass houses’ are perfectly entitled to campaign for women’s rights to be upheld and strengthened in the US, the UK and elsewhere in the world.
posted on 26/6/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
You said, verbatim:
“A simple majority in the House of Commons can ban abortion this week if they so chose.”
Did you mean?:
“A simple majority in the House of Commons can ban elective abortion this week if they so chose.”
Would still need to pass through the Lords and Royal assent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah would need to pass through lords and if it didn’t the commons can just invoke the parliaments act of lords try cause a fuss, Infact whenever they’ve voted not to approve a law it’s usually just to reword parts of it.
Royal assent? The queen has 3 options:
Approve
Delay
Deny
The only way she can legally deny to provide assent is on the advice of ministers. If a law is approved by ministers she can not then deny it on advice of the same ministers who voted to approve it.
1708 was the last time royal assent was not provided.
posted on 26/6/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
People ‘in glass houses’ are perfectly entitled to campaign for women’s rights to be upheld and strengthened in the US, the UK and elsewhere in the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why aren’t you spouting about Northern Ireland not even abiding by UK law on abortion?
Why aren’t you furious about Scotland not abiding by UK law on abortion?
Why the obsession with what goes on in a handful of US states???
posted on 26/6/22
I know all of that, but thanks.
posted on 26/6/22
Why does it bother you? You aren’t even American.
posted on 26/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 minute ago
Would it though?
That’s an assumption. Not a fact.
If there was a vote called to vote on repealing the abortion act it requires a simple majority. That’s all and bang abortion is illegal again.
For a US state to now outlaw abortion it requires a simple majority vote in the state senate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mmm, I think you are being simplistic here Dwight. What you say may be true, in the same way a simple majority could make burglary legal, but it ain't going to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not whether it would, it’s whether it could.
Women have a fragile right to abortion in which there is a mechanism to repeal.
What you are seeing in certain states of the US is that mechanism being utilized.
Just because it’s sunny today doesn’t mean it won’t rain tomorrow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'right' is always fragile in the view you are taking, every government can change legislation.
But.the US has made it more difficult for many women who want to have an abortion to get one, which is a bad thing in itself.
What's worse is that one woman will have the right while another five miles away doesn't. Despite them both living in the USA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like in the UK.
Forgetting all the parts in the OP, which a woman in the UK must satisfy two seperate doctors opinion of, even within the UK different countries make it variably harder for women to access abortion.
In Northern Ireland as an example good luck getting an abortion after 10 weeks without having to travel to England.
In Scotland there isn’t a single health board that provides abortions up to the legal limit of 24 weeks. Most agree 15 weeks is the limit. So women once again are forced to travel for abortion.
So in the UK women have a law allowing them access to abortions, controlled by politicians, however there are persistent difficulties for some women within the UK to access it and some are forced to travel great distances to access care.
In the US women will have varying access to abortion and will have to travel to access care.
People in glass houses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we have made a mish mash of it doesn't mean you should.
It has become harder for many women in the USA which is a retrograde step.
The first that the UK is better, equal or worse, matters not to the women in Texas who now can't have the abortion she wants.
I haven’t a clue what the laws are in all the other countries, and don't care.
posted on 26/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
People ‘in glass houses’ are perfectly entitled to campaign for women’s rights to be upheld and strengthened in the US, the UK and elsewhere in the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why aren’t you spouting about Northern Ireland not even abiding by UK law on abortion?
Why aren’t you furious about Scotland not abiding by UK law on abortion?
Why the obsession with what goes on in a handful of US states???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have done, as regards the first.
As has been pointed out by others on this thread previously, the US is still the most powerful nation in the West, and its sociocultural and sociopolitical influence runs incredibly wide and deep. And there are also 165 million women living there.
posted on 26/6/22
Are you going to tell us Dwight, after all this, that you think the repeal was a good thing. Ignore legal jargon, was it a good thing for American women?
posted on 26/6/22
this mike bloke is class
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygFrgqrJl_k
posted on 26/6/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona đđź đľđ¸ (U18082)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona đđź đľđ¸ (U18082)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona đđź đľđ¸ (U18082)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 17 minutes ago
Choosing to have a child when you know the father wants nothing to do with it, knowing you will be raising it alone, should not give you the right to then sue the father for money every month
======
There would be no pregnancy without the man though. Also, if the man wanted nothing to do with a baby then he should have thought about that before doing the act which is guaranteed to bring about a baby.
If I bang a woman I ensure contraception. If not then I should be ready and not act surprised and unready in case a baby comes out.
I think men should have a say but the ultimate decision rests with the woman and the rights of the unborn foetus. If the woman decides to keep it then too bad for you and you have to live with the consequences of your actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the woman doesn’t have to live with the consequences of her actions? You’re giving women an out and men either have to live through the trauma of having a potential life they helped create get aborted or suffer the financial burden of taking care of a child they don’t want.
The woman has the luxury of dodging consequences, pretty dangerous considering men are at danger of being exploited for their finances. Women poking holes in condoms or lying about being on contraception. On the other end of the spectrum men who want to take responsibility for the unborn child have to watch on in silent horror as potential life is eliminated.
The vast majority of abortions in the US are elective without any reasoning. women are using it as contraception. If you don’t find anything morally questionable about eliminating something as sacred as life for the sake of an oorgasm then you need to reflect on your own position on this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know these things Kung Fu?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m assuming you’re not talking about women poking holes in contraception or pretending they’re on the pill? If you don’t know these things happen, you’re living a very isolated life.
The part about elective abortions are a statistical fact from 2021. I posted the link and the numbers a couple of pages back if you want a read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The part where you say 60% without any reasoning and as a form of contraception. That's not in the link.
Awsome to see in people's head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The link goes through every considered reasoning for an abortion. Elective abortion is an abortion without reason being given. If no reason has been given then there is only likely motivator, contraception. Nothing to do with what’s going on in my head just the facts of the matter.
I can see you’re emotional about this subject, so try to only participate in discourse when you’re out of your feelings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope I have no emotion on the subject at all, can you see in my head. Also as an atheist I have no religious feelings.
My view is this.
As per the OPs article I agree with abortion on demand as per the rules laid out in that article.
I believe that as it is the woman's body involved her feelings take priority.
The sanctity of life as you term it does not begin at conception but a few weeks after.
I believe that if a woman is forced to have the baby she is unlikely to be a good mother. If it's given up for adoption it is likely she or he will have to be brought up by a mix of state care and fostering.
Finally I believe that no religion should have any say on what someone who is not of that faith should do.
The law in the UK is pitched right imo and the USA would do well to follow suit.
It is the woman's body, you have no say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conception
It says a lot about your moral characteristics that you think something which will grow into a human being isn’t sacred.
That’s the difference between me and you. You don’t mind eliminating eventual life frivolously. That is something find abhorrent. Women should have access to abortion procedures if it endangers their life, the babies life or rape. That I agree with.
Where I don’t agree with abortion is using it as a contraceptive tool because you were horny.
I also find it strange that you’re fighting for “equality” but you don’t take into consideration a man’s mental health in these scenarios. He either has to dedicate 18 years of his life financing the mother and the child or has to go through the trauma of having his eventual child aborted.
Men suffer most when it comes to suicide. With your rhetoric, it’s not a wonder why.
Using internet terminology, I’d say you fall into the category of simp.
posted on 26/6/22
I can hardly agree with a paragraph there.
Sacred means under God, who for me doesn't exist.
Frivolous is your word used to imply fun, frivolity, careless. So you used it in the belief that it strengthens your case.
To blame men's higher suicide rate on abortion is almost laughable.
It shouldn't be you to choose can have an abortion, but I see you don't include women with abusive partners, physical or mental health problems, girls who are frightened of their parents. That's the difference between you and me.
Incidentally is only human life sacred?
posted on 26/6/22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o0gAglNdZw
posted on 26/6/22
If men were the ones giving birth does anyone think this would be an issue? (no pun intended).
posted on 26/6/22
Off to bed, will check in tomorrow
posted on 27/6/22
We're aborting potentially millions of lives every time we choose not to have seex. Won't anyone think of those poor sperm?
posted on 27/6/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 7 minutes ago
We're aborting potentially millions of lives every time we choose not to have seex. Won't anyone think of those poor sperm?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust you
posted on 27/6/22
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 7 minutes ago
We're aborting potentially millions of lives every time we choose not to have seex. Won't anyone think of those poor sperm?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is true though. I'm fed up of people talking about the sanctity of life when it comes to a small amount of cells. I certainly don't want abortions everywhere all the time but I do want them to be an option for all women. Women shouldn't be made to feel guilty for making that choice.
posted on 27/6/22
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 7 minutes ago
We're aborting potentially millions of lives every time we choose not to have seex. Won't anyone think of those poor sperm?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course part of that was in jest too! Maybe with a nid to Monty Python in there.
Page 15 of 18
14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18