advertisement


Roe vs Wade overturned

You're not getting anywhere debating
I must say that comments like this and "it's just a bunch of cells" which others have posted truly sicken me.

Abortions in this country are legal up to the 24th week of pregnancy so could you please look at a photo of a fetus or premature child around this age before posting such stupid comments.

A good friend of mine recently had to have an abortion at 23 weeks as the baby was going to be born with less than half a brain and most of its skull missing. It would not have been able to survive outside the womb.
This child was called Saul and both the parents have been severely mentally effected by what happened.
I can assure you that Saul was not a blob of jelly...

A very sad story but nothing to do with women's rights over their own bodies.
 
So you are happy for 9 year olds to be "educated" badly by friends and gossip, but don't think they should receive sensible and beneficial education?
Obviously not. You know very well that that is not what I said or implied. It is however blindingly obvious to all of us that children are aware of a great many things (cars, aeroplanes, spacecraft, computers) before they understand them. It is a natural process for children to take time to learn this stuff. When I was 9, not only did I have a flawed understanding of sex, I also had a flawed understanding of aeroplanes, plants and spacecraft. Is that the failing of educators? No. It is normal and natural for children to have a sketchy understanding of sex, it's not a problem because at 9 they are a long way off experiencing it. They don't understand the Bernouilli Effect or photosynthesis either, but that's OK. It would be a bloody strange 9 year old who understood any of this stuff. But that's OK, because 9 year olds don't design passenger aircraft or have sex.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
No, I just genuinely don't understand WTF you are talking about. Who here or in mainstream UK education is blocking sex ed in children?
 
I think it's fair to say there's not a lot of support for Ragaman's POV on here, but I was commenting on the diversion into the world of the Freemasons, which was something of a distraction, even given pfm's normal propensity for thread drift!
 
Indeed. Can we please drift back to topic. I’m surprised no one commented on AOC’s suggestion federal land in red states should be used to provide abortion/medical services (I linked to a Twitter post with footage of her saying it at a rally somewhere way back upthread). An interesting idea and maybe a way around this absurd Christian fundamentalist Supreme Court ruling.
 
My guess is the downside of using federal land as a safe haven for abortions is that it would have to happen either via an act of Congress or Presidential Order. I don't see the former happening (getting 60 votes in the Senate), and the latter can be overturned by the next president.
 
ragarman was making outrageous posts, claiming to having knowledge of abortion, adoption and adoptees, fyi.

I guess he has crawled back under a rock from whence he came.
Although, to be fair, I know a lot of fine, well-meaning people who also feel that abortion is wrong. I can completely understand why this should be so, and I confess that I am also not without qualms. However, in the early stages, I personally view it as just another form of birth control. In principle, it's really no different from the action of the Pill, which prevents a fertilised egg from sticking to the wall of an ovary (will this now also be outlawed in the red states?). I think Bill Clinton was spot-on when he said that abortion should be "safe, legal - and rare".

The problem is that this is not a moral issue at all, but a political one. It started out as an attempt by the Republicans to bring aboard more Catholics (traditionally Democratic voters). The Protestant churches (including the wonderfully-misnamed "evangelicals") had given the issue no thought whatsoever. The person who claims to have kicked it all off was Franky (now Frank) Schaeffer, son of Francis Schaeffer, founder of the l'Abri Fellowship in Huémoz in the Valaisian Alps. In his book Crazy for God, he says that his father was never so keen on the idea, and the father was repelled by the likes of "evangelical" big guns Pat Robertson and James Dobson, who jumped on the newly-discovered hobby horse and rode it furiously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cav
Obviously not. You know very well that that is not what I said or implied. It is however blindingly obvious to all of us that children are aware of a great many things (cars, aeroplanes, spacecraft, computers) before they understand them. It is a natural process for children to take time to learn this stuff. When I was 9, not only did I have a flawed understanding of sex, I also had a flawed understanding of aeroplanes, plants and spacecraft. Is that the failing of educators? No. It is normal and natural for children to have a sketchy understanding of sex, it's not a problem because at 9 they are a long way off experiencing it. They don't understand the Bernouilli Effect or photosynthesis either, but that's OK. It would be a bloody strange 9 year old who understood any of this stuff. But that's OK, because 9 year olds don't design passenger aircraft or have sex.

That's a huge false equivalence. No child at 9 will have the opportunity to fly an aeroplane, but are you telling me that NO child of that age is exposed to sex? It's a horrifying thought but preteen pregnancy does happen.
 
I just genuinely don't understand WTF you are talking about. Who here or in mainstream UK education is blocking sex ed in children?

You mentioned a few extremists, so I equated that to the supreme court that very much appears to have voted this into existence against popular and sensible opinion.
 
There's something else, too. I'm not aware of much evidence that animals have sex for fun - all those Attenborough series fail to depict a whole lot of enjoyment and intimacy, despite miles of footage of copulation. So how come we humans get such a kick out of it? Presumably, those who argue from a religious perspective would assert that this is God's gift and proves, yet again, that They have put us in a special category among the beasts of the Earth. So if it is God's gift, then isn't treating it as only for procreation an affront to the giver?

Bonobos
 
Are there any women on this forum who care to comment?

Never mind the "who care to comment" bit. Are there any women on this forum? Very, very few, I'd have thought. Overwhelmingly middle-aged and elderly men (hi-fi is a dying hobby these days). Who should probably stick to discussing cables rather than abortion...
 
I said:
some stuff about animals not having sex for fun
Ignore the chimps, look at the Bonobos, our other 'closest relative':

Yes, I thought Bonobos and possibly chimps might be an exception to the general rule, but it does kinda reinforce the point that we're almost unique in that respect, aside from our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. And the evangelicals are going to have to explain why their God might have given us this pleasure, if they're arguing we should forego it, because same God.
 
I must say that comments like this and "it's just a bunch of cells" which others have posted truly sicken me.

Abortions in this country are legal up to the 24th week of pregnancy so could you please look at a photo of a fetus or premature child around this age before posting such stupid comments.

A good friend of mine recently had to have an abortion at 23 weeks as the baby was going to be born with less than half a brain and most of its skull missing. It would not have been able to survive outside the womb.
This child was called Saul and both the parents have been severely mentally effected by what happened.
I can assure you that Saul was not a blob of jelly...

But abortion for purposes of contraception is seldom if ever done at this late stage. Abortions of fetuses with no possible viability and/or for the health of the mother are outside the purview of Roe v. Wade.

There are some extremists, though, who will insist it be carried to term, you know, in case God decides to intervene and provide the other half of its brain in the ensuing 17 weeks...
 
That's a huge false equivalence. No child at 9 will have the opportunity to fly an aeroplane, but are you telling me that NO child of that age is exposed to sex? It's a horrifying thought but preteen pregnancy does happen.
No child should be exposed to sex at 9, for the simple reason that it is illegal. It is rape, as a 9 year old cannot consent. This is nothing to do with education and everything to do with criminal behaviour.

No false equivalence at all either.
 
You mentioned a few extremists, so I equated that to the supreme court that very much appears to have voted this into existence against popular and sensible opinion.
Nobody in the UK then. The supreme court, presumably in the USA, has banned sex ed at a national level, state level, or has allowed indivdual schools to remove it? I don't know the extent of the ban that you imply.
 
All the sex education in the world comes to naught when men continue to pressure women into having sex without using condoms. Was quite taken aback when my 25 year old step daughter told us that in her circle, almost all the men they came across didn't want to use them. You're not talking teenagers here. Having lived through the period when Aids was rife in Edinburgh and known people who died this seemed mad to me. When drink and other things are involved the whole issue of consent gets complicated.
I don't think any women is "comfortable" in choosing to have a termination, it is a complicated and emotional decision, and in some cases carrying a child to term would be the worst possible scenarion for mother and child.
Completely pro - choice here.
 


advertisement


Back
Top