Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

South Dakota Passes Anti Abortion Bill

1246789

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    what i am arguinug is that whatever you choose to call it, while it is inside of a woman's uterus, entirely dependent on her and only her for its survival, it does not and should not have rights that precede those of the woman in question

    How about equal rights then?

    As it's another human, like. You know, the right not to be murdered because you are coming along at an inconvenient moment in a relationship or career?
    you can use all the emtoive language you want about murdering innocent babies, it makes no difference to me, because what i believe in is every person's right to make decisions about their own body, free from the moralising and coercion of others.

    I don't think you're going to find me using emotive language very often. Emtoive language even less. Although I am very fond of the emtoive people, they make such good chutney. My position on this is pretty obvious really. once the tiny human can live on it's own, then it's a person, until it can it's part of the bigger human. Luckily, this is why all sensible debate is around when this moment is.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with scarlett.

    Its a woman's right to choose. She takes the priority. Her body, her choice.

    Even the religious christian zealots can't argue against (even though they do) as the bible states that life and conscious etc is when you draw breath for the first time after birth.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    Even the religious christian zealots can't argue against (even though they do) as the bible states that life and conscious etc is when you draw breath for the first time after birth.
    Cue quote from the bible contradicting that point.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    indeed.

    the religious types are keen to twist things for their own advantage.

    trouble is, I can't remember where the quote I know about comes from, and I can't be arsed searching through the whole book for it lol.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    My position on this is pretty obvious really. once the tiny human can live on it's own, then it's a person, until it can it's part of the bigger human. Luckily, this is why all sensible debate is around when this moment is.

    By 'live' do we mean breath, eat, shit, think? Some people are suggesting that a 22week/24/28 whatever week old feotus can 'live' but it wouldn't without a whole shed load of medical intervention so I don't really think it's valid.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    By 'live' do we mean breath, eat, shit, think? Some people are suggesting that a 22week/24/28 whatever week old feotus can 'live' but it wouldn't without a whole shed load of medical intervention so I don't really think it's valid.

    So children up to the age of about 5 aren't alive? they need almost constant care and attention too, don't they?

    How about old folks on their way out? They ain't living if they are dependant on others, are they?

    Are there really that many humans who can get by without some kind of help from other humans?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    It's a bit like saying children aren't human because they aren't adults, or that puppies aren't dogs or something. Very odd. Of course, dehumanising those you are going to injure is nothing new.
    Well, yes. For instance, in a war zone, innocent people maimed by gun fire are referred to as "civilian casualties". It's typical to attempt to make something sound alright by calling it an "abortion". What a robotic, unhuman term that is.
    Walkindude wrote:
    Even the religious christian zealots can't argue against (even though they do) as the bible states that life and conscious etc is when you draw breath for the first time after birth.
    The Bible contradicts itself repeatedly on issues of life and death.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its not like banning abortions will stop them anyway, it may well reduce the number, but it will massively increase the level of harm to the women.

    I'd much rather 10,000 legal and well regulated early abortions than one at home woman at her wits end with a coat hanger.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    Even the religious christian zealots can't argue against (even though they do) as the bible states that life and conscious etc is when you draw breath for the first time after birth.

    I'm not going to quote something saying otherwise, even though I can, but I want you to quote the book chapter and verse where it says that. If you were quoting a news source, everyone else would expect nothing less. I've never read anything to suggest what you've claimed the bible says, so I would like you to show me where.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    Its not like banning abortions will stop them anyway, it may well reduce the number, but it will massively increase the level of harm to the women. I'd much rather 10,000 legal and well regulated early abortions than one at home woman at her wits end with a coat hanger.
    Much as I hate to say it, I agree with that one. Illegal abortion would be lucrative on the black market and downright dangerous.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    what did I tell you?? lol.

    Look, I read a the bible before and been taught about it by experts and covered many aspects of religion in my education so I do know what I am talking about.

    Unfortantely recreational reading of the bible isn't my thing, except for Revelations thats one hell of a book, and unlike the zealots I don't memorize chapter and verse. I am not going to look through the whole thing to find the one quote.

    So belive me or don't. I don't mind. I just made a point. Say I havent backed it if you will, fine. I just honestly can't be bothered to search through the book to find it.

    It doesn't change my opinion on abortion anyway. Also has has been said up there, there are conbtradictions in th ebible anyway and even more on the beliefs of the followers, plus its all open to interpretation anyway.

    I agree also with what is said up there about illegal abortions would be lucrative an down right dnagerous. To suggests banning all abortions is just ridiculous.

    I totall agree with abortions.

    I do not think tey should be undertaken lightly or used as contracpetion however. One woman I saw speaking on the subject said her friend had at leats 12 abortions as she nevcer uses any contraception and uses abortions like contrapception. I don't agree with that and that woman should be ahsmed and have some serious words with herself, however I wouldn't take away the right for her to have an abortion.

    Abortion is legally and morally right in my opinion and its time to end the ridculous scare tactics and campagins o he so called "pro-lifers". Maybe they should get a life themselves.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    I read the bible before and... blah blah blah... recreational reading of the bible isn't my thing... blah blah blah... and unlike the zealots I don't memorize chapter and verse. I am not going to look through the whole thing to find the one quote.
    So, you're making it up then? Not one shred of evidence to back up your claims.
    I do not think tey should be undertaken lightly or used as contracpetion however. One woman I saw speaking on the subject said her friend had at leats 12 abortions as she nevcer uses any contraception and uses abortions like contrapception.
    A rare case? Maybe, I don't know. Abortion definitely should not be used as a form of contraception. It should be a last resort. Perhaps there could be limits on the number of abortions a woman can have in her lifetime, though that would possibly raise more difficulties.
    Abortion is legally and morally right in my opinion and its time to end the ridculous scare tactics and campagins o he so called "pro-lifers". Maybe they should get a life themselves.
    Show some respect for those of the opposite view, please. You wouldn't like it if your view was being trashed relentlessly, don't dish out what you can't take.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Perhaps there could be limits on the number of abortions a woman can have in her lifetime, though that would possibly raise more difficulties.

    That is so utterly ridiculous I can't form a coherent response.

    :eek2:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    That is so utterly ridiculous I can't form a coherent response. :eek2:
    Alright, you suggest something, then.
    This does my head in. When I make suggestions, you rubbish them, yet never propose an alternative. Rubbishing ideas just for the hell of it. It's pissing me off. Now, what do you propose? Ideally, you'll give us a straight answer. But I'm not holding my breath.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Zalbor wrote:
    How someone so self-righteous can be so discriminating does my head in. You judge a whole lot of people based only on the ones who are stupid. You're being just as fair as a (hypothetical?) person who says that anyone who supports abortions is a feminazi who thinks having children is degrating to women.


    :confused::confused:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    As far as I'm concerned, it's a baby the second it's conceived. Not a scientific view, maybe, but I don't care.

    To paraphrase Chris Morris for a moment - "That is fact. There is no real evidence for it, but it's fact." :D
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If a woman is having repeated abortions (whether as a form of contraception or not - irrelevant) then it would be far more prudent to educate this woman, or to try and understand why it's happening. Telling her "right, that's it for you, no more abortions" is not solving the problem...it would be yet another hypothetical instance of a woman being driven into the back alley, black market abortion. Never a good result.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    To paraphrase Chris Morris for a moment - "That is fact. There is no real evidence for it, but it's fact." :D
    Any changes in the law would need to consider the scientific information about abortion. So far, I've talked about this mostly from a personal point of view.

    Now, any chance of anyone actually giving some straight answers in this thread? Or am I wasting my time?
    briggi wrote:
    If a woman is having repeated abortions (whether as a form of contraception or not - irrelevant) then it would be far more prudent to educate this woman, or to try and understand why it's happening. Telling her "right, that's it for you, no more abortions" is not solving the problem...it would be yet another hypothetical instance of a woman being driven into the back alley, black market abortion. Never a good result.
    As I said, it was merely a suggestion, I'm just trying to consider all possible routes here. Unlike some of you, who have closed your minds to any debate about this a long time ago.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Alright, you suggest something, then.
    This does my head in. When I make suggestions, you inevitably rubbish them,

    Thats 'cos they're shit suggestions. Get over it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Any changes in the law would need to consider the scientific information about abortion. So far, I've talked about this mostly from a personal point of view.

    Now, any chance of anyone actually giving some straight answers in this thread? Or am I wasting my time? As I said, it was merely a suggestion, I'm just trying to consider all possible routes here. Unlike some of you, who have closed your minds to any debate about this a long time ago.

    So you have a personal pov, you don't care if it has any basis in fact but you're gonna use it to force your views on everyone else.

    Nice.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    So you have a personal pov, you don't care if it has any basis in fact but you're gonna use it to force your views on everyone else.

    Nice.
    Come on Blagsta, break the habit of a lifetime, and answer a straight question. Come on, even you can do this... :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Come on Blagsta, break the habit of a lifetime, and answer a straight question. Come on, even you can do this... :p

    You asked a question? Where? :confused:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    So, you're making it up then? Not one shred of evidence to back up your claims.
    A rare case? Maybe, I don't know. Abortion definitely should not be used as a form of contraception. It should be a last resort. Perhaps there could be limits on the number of abortions a woman can have in her lifetime, though that would possibly raise more difficulties.
    Show some respect for those of the opposite view, please. You wouldn't like it if your view was being trashed relentlessly, don't dish out what you can't take.


    what are you on? drugs???

    did I say I made it up?? Becasue I can't be bothered to look up a big ol book with hundreds of verses in?

    just coz I don't agree with what the woman did, doesn't mean you should limit a womans right to have an abortion.

    Have you been on this site at all ever?? my views are constantly trashed on here. I do take it alot actually.

    The pro lifer view is a befuddeld mess. The movement is a disgrace., the disgraceful tactis they use ar edeplorable and I detest it.

    They should put down there placards and get on with their onw lives. A womans body is her own business.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Most of the time, you can only tell how many previous abortions a woman has had if they have told you. We don't tell the woman's GPs for instance, if they don't want us to, and women don't even have to give abortion providers their real names. So if there limits were to be placed, and a person had had repeat abortions, there's nothing to stop them from lying or travelling abroad etc.

    Blagsta: Zalbor took issue with the fact that I referred to the pro-foetus side as anti-choice. Given the tactics they employ to scare/shame/guilt women out of aborting, not to mention their attitudes to women who die of illegal abortion, it's a nice way of saying it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Alright, you suggest something, then.
    This does my head in. When I make suggestions, you inevitably rubbish them, yet never propose an alternative. Rubbishing ideas just for the hell of it. It's pissing me off. Now, what do you propose? Ideally, you'll give us a straight answer. But I'm not holding my breath.


    I did give you a straight answer. My proposal to reduce the amount of women facing abortions would be education, support, advice and understanding. Even if these things worked to an extent, I'd propose taking away the choice to abort if it was the woman's choice.

    Don't say that I'm not giving your straight answers, or that I or others aren't proposing alternatives. Not that we really have to do either, to be honest. I think it was a ridiculous thing to suggest.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    You asked a question? Where? :confused:
    Alright Blagsta... (and indeed anyone else who's reading this) I'm going to set out some questions;

    (1) Do you believe that abortion laws in the UK are the right ones?
    (2) Would you support a reduction in the 24-week time limit that currently exists?
    (3) At what point do you believe personally that a foetus becomes a baby?

    Just to see where everyone roughly stands on this.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Alright Blagsta... (and indeed anyone else who's reading this) I'm going to set out some questions;

    (1) Do you believe that abortion laws in the UK are the right ones?
    (2) Would you support a reduction in the 24-week time limit that currently exists?
    (3) At what point do you believe personally that a foetus becomes a baby?

    Just to see where everyone roughly stands on this.

    (1) Yes, although it should be made easier to get an abortion
    (2) No
    (3) I don't know

    Happy now?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    (1) Yes
    (2) No
    (3) I don't know

    Happy now?
    At least I've got some idea where you stand now, that's a start.
Sign In or Register to comment.