The phoney high road, you gotta love it!
Abortion
- Thread starter Pagh Wraith
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Thank you for your productive addition to the discussion.
Appreciate it.
Someone’s never heard of the reversal in American political parties. He most certainly would be a Democrat these days when considering the two major parties.
I appreciate the appreciation, when it matches the level of phoney intellectualism. Others make valid arguments and you go to the extreme of suggesting abortions to 35 weeks. People offer logical issues with the ‘pro-life’ (read pro-birth) position and you raise your hand with the tried and test, “I could argue this all day but we’d just be going round in circles”.
The fact of the matter is that if men had to carry a foetus then abortions would be available for free in every chemist, every walk-in clinic in the western world!
As others have said it is the woman’s burden, at least until a foetus can feasibly sustain life by itself and it should therefore be entirely her choice as to what happens with it!
As lawmakers have already began touting, this will bring in a wave of cruel laws with the sole function of pushing women under the thumb (under his eye if you prefer that).
Woman could have any reason for not wanting to carry to term, and it’s valid! Contraception might not have worked, the man might have ‘de-gloved’, she might have been assaulted, raped, the victim of incest, had a one night stand, was drunk, or, like many, actually cannot afford immediate ‘morning after’ treatments (another wonderful system of control to keep poor people popping out kids).
So yes forgive me for treating your phoney high road Act with the pathetic disdain it deserves. Pro-life as it currently is is an oxymoron; where is the free antenatal treatment, free birthing facilities, affordable childcare support. Any one of your mob comes out with this horse shit about ‘I’m standing up for the foetus’ is a god damned liar.
Last edited:
There has been certain shifts in a aspects of each political party and I'm well aware of the party change narrative of the 60s but it doesn't really add up.
Also if you somehow transported Lincoln to the current time he would be considered far right, anyone from that era would.
Thank you for your productive addition to the discussion.
Appreciate it.
Relegion shouldn't have anything to do with it, in fact if you are anti-abortion because of relegiin then you are also against freedom of relegion.
Are you religious by any chance?
No not really, don't really practice anything but I do think I believe in God but that's the extent of it.
Are you religious by any chance?
Again I'm not denying there has been shifts bu a lot of the narrative falls apart under scrutiny, tell me this would for be considered a republican today? No , would Coolidge be considered a dem i doubt it.
There are cyclical shifts and realignments I'm not denying that but the way that narrative is used seems a bit dishonest to me.
Hey don't gang up on me like that, I'm already fighting a one man ear over here as it stands.
This is my last post on this topic.
For the next 5 minutes.
For the next 5 minutes.
Because what you are fighting for doesn't make sense, why do you care about other people's fetuses?Hey don't gang up on me like that, I'm already fighting a one man ear over here as it stands.
Yeah I'm too stubborn for my own good, I give you that.
The part switch is not a perfect circle in a circle, more like an oval in a circle. Lincoln would peg out as a conservative democrat to me.
Just looking at voting patterns, especially in the South, & it is evident that the parties have indeed switched.
Religion has almost everything to do with the pro-choice movement in the states. Denying that is like stating the Middle East issues aren’t borne out of religion.
I don't disagree, I said it shouldn't, not it isn't.
Thank you for your productive addition to the discussion.Hey don't gang up on me like that, I'm already fighting a one man ear over here as it stands.
Appreciate it.
Totally skipped right over ‘shouldn’t,’ my bad!
Thank you for proving my point, phoney intellectual with nothing more than a tissue-thin argument that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Have a good night sir, I hope to god you don’t manage to convince anyone to drink the snake oil you’re offering.
I could raise you Midwest, like my ancestral state of Kansas were it always has been kinda republican and has stayed that way, like most other frontier states, also there have been some ancestoral republican counties in the south and they to for the most part have remained the same like fannin County in Georgia.
I get what you mean, and again not denying that there has been shifts and you could also make the case for Lincoln being progressive in how he saw the role if government (even though he was considered to be of the moderate faction of the party)but to suggest he would be anything like your average progressive soc dem would be massively dishonest.
But that's another subject not pertinent to this discussion.
(One more thing, the coalitions have not differed that much either for example while state of New York was moderately republican in the olden times the city itself was still a Democrat stronghold, its just that the numbers Democrat take in the cities have become to large to over come , look it up the city cost grant the state of New York in 1868 for example , the great civil war hero!)
Last edited:
I, as a man, feel utterly out of my depth when discussion abortion rights and also feel that it really isn't my place to dictate any view either way. I also feel quite strongly that religion and politics shouldn't mix and this tends to be a moral/religious led debate.
Fair enough. Appreciate the tête-à-tête even if it was a slight derailment.
Kansas was quite the stronghold for socialism before WW1.
Yeah there was a whole populist movement over here, has an interesting history.
We were one of the first states to give the woman the right to vote as well I think ,and well being at the forefront of civil war and all , anyway I'm getting a bit off rails but it's been a rather noble state I think.
War and politics are a male thing? Really? These uppity women will want the vote next.
I'm pro-choice on all things until it infringes on someone else's rights to an unreasonable degree.
The thing is that to be "pro-life" is an inherently religious viewpoint that are (or a proxy for) totally (legally) irrelevant arguments about ensoulment. The semantic arguments about when conception occurs are really only relevant to pro life arguments against abortion as scientifically we know exactly what is going on. So this should be totally and utterly irrelevant in a secular society. If you are religious and object to abortion don't have one (or more likely end up going to a nearby country where it is is legal to get one when it becomes your own actual problem - hello Ireland).
A far better discussion is about personhood as it removes the religious/supernatural aspect. Unless you are religious and think that when the sperm and egg form is the beginning of life/personhood the debate usually revolves around development stages (woolly), viability (now almost useless due to modern medicine), brain function (again useless as even born babies aren't mentally developed enough to really be people on this basis) or birth (with obvious ethical issues attached). Logically birth is the point where a foetus/baby becomes a separate actual person but I doubt anyone would argue for abortion until 9 months minus 1 day. In practice we assume that a foetus gradually becomes a person during the 9 months of development. We then rather arbitrarily choose a point where the foetus is theoretically sufficiently a person as to be assigned rights equal to that of the woman who is gestating it. After that point abortion is prohibited. This is just a compromise with little firm basis that women accept as it is better than the alternatives of no abortion in our paternalistic societies. Until we can get a better set of criteria it is probably the best we can hope for. However, pro-life fanatics aren't even happy with this as to them it is a religious crusade.
The statistics are almost exclusively from a hugely religious country like the US. Firstly stats are irrelevant to the argument as most of the same people believe in things like angels. That is no rational way to make law. Secondly it doesn't matter if women in the US are only slightly more pro-choice for the same reason. Women can hold sexist views especially when driven by their religion. No more unlikely that a former black panther turned preacher now being for Black Lives Matters but anti-gay and anti-LGBTI
There are? That never made any sense to me. Life (from the point in time determined by your particular religious viewpoint) is surely sacred or it isn't no matter what? If not why do you get to choose what is a good justification for a woman to get an abortion? Unless rape, incest or something else seems deeply muddle minded.
The one that makes the least sense is "to save the woman's life" thus acknowledging that a human woman has more rights that any foetus she may be carrying.
The only justification required for an abortion should be "because I don't want my pregnancy to continue". End of story. Religion should never ever inform law. It should only ever even be mentioned in law as another category that is is illegal to discriminate against someone on.
Last edited:
If your aunt had balls you’d probably refuse to call her by the right pronouns
Feels like a good time to revisit this…
What if I choose to remove my womb and not carry any children? Which man can tell me I can't do that? I'm choosing to remove my option to reproduce and it can be as drastic as that or have an abortion. I don't think anyone should decide what anyone does with their bodies but that person. That fetus is part of my body. It's not a part of your body or anyone else's. The bottom line is it's MY body. I have my personal views on abortion but every woman should have the right to choose what they want to do with anything that directly affects THEIR life and THEIR body.
We’ll said. For the vast majority of anti choice proponents this is about control, not life. Never has been.
Well said.
Republicans are pro life when it comes to abortions and anti life when it comes to gun control?
And healthcare
And the environment
And basic human rights
And police brutality
And education
And ending poverty
Etc.
the dems aren’t much better in most of these but the glee with which the GOP dehumanizes people is on a whole different level.
Sounds like the Conservative Party in the UK.
Stuck in the middle ages, pandering to people who were probably born in the middle ages.
Well said. Imagine the outrage if the law could force you to get an abortion? Every part of the religious right would be screaming about women's freedom.
If you object to abortion then don't have one but don't inflict your views on others.
America really is slipping further and further backwards. Sadly it appears to just be fracturing more and more quickly in recent times.
Lincoln was at least a progressive for his time. No Republican today can claim to be the same and very few Democrats can claim to be the same either.
Back on topic, why do you care so much about human frog spawn? Cells without a brain, emotion or any feeling of pleasure or pain. There isn't even a heart beat until about 6 weeks, the brain develops far later
And what about quality of life? Most of these unwanted children will be born into poverty with mothers who can't cope with little means to give there child a reasonable chance in life.
I'm not sure this is fair. For some perhaps. But there is a more reasonable discussion to be had about when the feutus can suffer pain or be capable of brain function. Taking away myths about a feutus that can't have either of those functions is important to winning an argument.
Fair enough, but my statement was targeted at the leaders, especially political, of the anti choice movement, not necessarily at everyone who is against abortion.
Who thinks that a foetus can't feel pain at some point or doesn't have a developing brain? Although you are probably talking about how these things develop in terms of an attempt to judge when abortions should be allowed.
Funnily enough the two things are directly connected as pain is in the brain. First you need pain receptors in the skin which develop from 7.5 to 15 weeks, then the neurons in the spinal column need to develop at about 19 weeks, then then need to extend to the part of the brain that can feel pain which takes until weeks 23/24 and finally for a foetus to feel pain the brain needs to be sufficiently developed as to be "awake" which occurs at about 30 weeks. Even then it is doubtful it is developed sufficiently so as to feel pain how an adult, or even a newborn, does.
Last edited:
