Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
There really is.
Carrying a baby to full term is a life altering event for women, assuming they don't die in the process.
Making that mandatory is absolutely chilling.
Abortion on demand is absolutely chilling in my view
What about rape?
A tiny minority of cases but even then no reason why some babies could not be adopted not terminated
So you are happy for women to be subject to 9 months of living with something inside them reminding them every minute or every day about the rape.
Yes you have absolutely zero heart and are really one of the worst human beings I've had the misfortune of ever encountering.
Do I care what left wing liberals like you think of me as a conservative? Absolutely not.
Indeed the fact you loathe me on this is encouraging as it shows quite clearly the political enemy is angry it is not getting its own way all the time on the issue and some progress is being made again in a more conservative direction
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
@Cyclefree is, I think, referring to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
I am pro life, if women don't want babies they can have adoptions not just abort them on demand.
Sadly I was correct, then.
He's not indifferent. He actively hates women. He's got his eyes wide open. He thinks women who become pregnant should no longer have rights over their own bodies, and that they are simply a means of build another person. Forcing a real person to do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another person is called slavery. To demand someone to do it for the benefit of a possible future person is literally worse than slavery.
Rubbish, there are plenty of pro life women and plenty of ultra liberal, pro choice abortion on demand men like you.
If pregnancy to term is slavery then abortion on demand is murder if you want to be that hardline on language
I said it's worse than slavery. As for murder, fine. Every unfertilised ovulation, every male orgasm that doesn't result in pregnancy, that's also murder. You've probably killed billions. Now that we're all mass murderers, the least we can do is not enslave the living.
Sarah Phelps @PhelpsieSarah I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat. https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371
All the streets near me are (rightly) 20 mph limits. I have lost count of how many times I have been beeped for driving at the speed limit. The really car twatty thing to do de jour is to beep as you pass as the guy doing the limit turns off.
And I write this as one who has just done a speeding course for speeding on the motorway.
I had a hire car the other day which you could tell to detect the speed limit and limit itself to it. Probably been standard for decades except in Isuzu pickups. Bloody magic - I used a very long time ago to drive at silly 3 figure speeds but all the tickets I have ever had have been pure inattention, 36 in a 30 limit kinda thing.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
@Cyclefree is, I think, referring to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
I am pro life, if women don't want babies they can have adoptions not just abort them on demand.
Sadly I was correct, then.
He's not indifferent. He actively hates women. He's got his eyes wide open. He thinks women who become pregnant should no longer have rights over their own bodies, and that they are simply a means of build another person. Forcing a real person to do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another person is called slavery. To demand someone to do it for the benefit of a possible future person is literally worse than slavery.
The contrast is between a seat where the useless nonentity Party should be challengers and where the LDs are challengers. The former will be a safe Tory hold the latter maybe close
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
@Cyclefree is, I think, referring to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
I am pro life, if women don't want babies they can have adoptions not just abort them on demand.
Sadly I was correct, then.
He's not indifferent. He actively hates women. He's got his eyes wide open. He thinks women who become pregnant should no longer have rights over their own bodies, and that they are simply a means of build another person. Forcing a real person to do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another person is called slavery. To demand someone to do it for the benefit of a possible future person is literally worse than slavery.
Rubbish, there are plenty of pro life women and plenty of ultra liberal, pro choice abortion on demand men like you.
If pregnancy to term is slavery then abortion on demand is murder if you want to be that hardline on language
I said it's worse than slavery. As for murder, fine. Every unfertilised ovulation, every male orgasm that doesn't result in pregnancy, that's also murder. You've probably killed billions. Now that we're all mass murderers, the least we an do is not enslave the living.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
There really is.
Carrying a baby to full term is a life altering event for women, assuming they don't die in the process.
Making that mandatory is absolutely chilling.
Abortion on demand is absolutely chilling in my view
What about rape?
A tiny minority of cases but even then no reason why some babies could not be adopted not terminated
So you are happy for women to be subject to 9 months of living with something inside them reminding them every minute or every day about the rape.
Yes you have absolutely zero heart and are really one of the worst human beings I've had the misfortune of ever encountering.
Do I care what left wing liberals like you think of me as a conservative? Absolutely not.
Indeed the fact you loathe me on this is encouraging as it shows quite clearly the political enemy is angry it is not getting its own way all the time on the issue
I've heard compassionate and deeply held arguments both to allow abortion and in favour of life, but never anything close to that. It's a disgrace. Fwiw I think the abortion laws could perhaps do with dropping the week limit (Unless a serious medical issue shows up late on); but points about 'making the political enemy angry' are appalling.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
@Cyclefree is, I think, referring to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
I am pro life, if women don't want babies they can have adoptions not just abort them on demand.
Sadly I was correct, then.
He's not indifferent. He actively hates women. He's got his eyes wide open. He thinks women who become pregnant should no longer have rights over their own bodies, and that they are simply a means of build another person. Forcing a real person to do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another person is called slavery. To demand someone to do it for the benefit of a possible future person is literally worse than slavery.
Rubbish, there are plenty of pro life women and plenty of ultra liberal, pro choice abortion on demand men like you.
If pregnancy to term is slavery then abortion on demand is murder if you want to be that hardline on language
I said it's worse than slavery. As for murder, fine. Every unfertilised ovulation, every male orgasm that doesn't result in pregnancy, that's also murder. You've probably killed billions. Now that we're all mass murderers, the least we can do is not enslave the living.
A male sperm that does not fertilise an egg is obviously not murder or even leading to the very first stages of a foetus.
Being pregnant having chosen to have sexual intercourse and having a baby is also not slavery, especially if you choose not to have it and adopt it rather than terminate it, in either case you are still free to live your life after without motherhood.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
There really is.
Carrying a baby to full term is a life altering event for women, assuming they don't die in the process.
Making that mandatory is absolutely chilling.
Abortion on demand is absolutely chilling in my view
What about rape?
A tiny minority of cases but even then no reason why some babies could not be adopted not terminated
So you are happy for women to be subject to 9 months of living with something inside them reminding them every minute or every day about the rape.
Yes you have absolutely zero heart and are really one of the worst human beings I've had the misfortune of ever encountering.
Do I care what left wing liberals like you think of me as a conservative? Absolutely not.
Indeed the fact you loathe me on this is encouraging as it shows quite clearly the political enemy is angry it is not getting its own way all the time on the issue
Actually it's not anger it's pity at how sheltered your life has clearly been.
I just don't think you've lived long enough to know that live isn't black and white, it's a million different shades of grey.
We seem to be going down the U.S. route here of abortion becoming a toxic, culture-polarising issue.
Thankfully we're not!
We just have one crazy individual caught in 1750s politics who doesn't realise that the Conservative position on abortion is that its a matter of conscience.
His views are despite his protestations to the contrary very, very unConservative.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
There really is.
Carrying a baby to full term is a life altering event for women, assuming they don't die in the process.
Making that mandatory is absolutely chilling.
Abortion on demand is absolutely chilling in my view
What about rape?
A tiny minority of cases but even then no reason why some babies could not be adopted not terminated
So you are happy for women to be subject to 9 months of living with something inside them reminding them every minute or every day about the rape.
Yes you have absolutely zero heart and are really one of the worst human beings I've had the misfortune of ever encountering.
Do I care what left wing liberals like you think of me as a conservative? Absolutely not.
Indeed the fact you loathe me on this is encouraging as it shows quite clearly the political enemy is angry it is not getting its own way all the time on the issue
I've heard compassionate and deeply held arguments both to allow abortion and in favour of life, but never anything close to that. It's a disgrace. Fwiw I think the abortion laws could perhaps do with dropping the week limit (Unless a serious medical issue shows up late on); but points about 'making the political enemy angry' are appalling.
He called me one of the worst human beings he had ever encountered, I make no apology for replying equally vociferously.
If left liberals want a culture war, conservatives must be ready to respond
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
@Cyclefree is, I think, referring to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
I am pro life, if women don't want babies they can have adoptions not just abort them on demand.
Sadly I was correct, then.
He's not indifferent. He actively hates women. He's got his eyes wide open. He thinks women who become pregnant should no longer have rights over their own bodies, and that they are simply a means of build another person. Forcing a real person to do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another person is called slavery. To demand someone to do it for the benefit of a possible future person is literally worse than slavery.
Rubbish, there are plenty of pro life women and plenty of ultra liberal, pro choice abortion on demand men like you.
If pregnancy to term is slavery then abortion on demand is murder if you want to be that hardline on language
I said it's worse than slavery. As for murder, fine. Every unfertilised ovulation, every male orgasm that doesn't result in pregnancy, that's also murder. You've probably killed billions. Now that we're all mass murderers, the least we can do is not enslave the living.
A male sperm that does not fertilise an egg is obviously not murder or even leading to the very first stages of a foetus.
Being pregnant having chosen to have sexual intercourse and having a baby is also not slavery, especially if you choose not to have it and adopt it rather than terminate it, in either case you are still free to live your life after without motherhood.
There. Right there. Even you caught a glimpse of it, for a moment.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
@Cyclefree is, I think, referring to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
I am pro life, if women don't want babies they can have adoptions not just abort them on demand.
Sadly I was correct, then.
He's not indifferent. He actively hates women. He's got his eyes wide open. He thinks women who become pregnant should no longer have rights over their own bodies, and that they are simply a means of build another person. Forcing a real person to do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another person is called slavery. To demand someone to do it for the benefit of a possible future person is literally worse than slavery.
Rubbish, there are plenty of pro life women and plenty of ultra liberal, pro choice abortion on demand men like you.
If pregnancy to term is slavery then abortion on demand is murder if you want to be that hardline on language
I said it's worse than slavery. As for murder, fine. Every unfertilised ovulation, every male orgasm that doesn't result in pregnancy, that's also murder. You've probably killed billions. Now that we're all mass murderers, the least we can do is not enslave the living.
A male sperm that does not fertilise an egg is obviously not murder or even leading to the very first stages of a foetus.
Being pregnant having chosen to have sexual intercourse and having a baby is also not slavery, especially if you choose not to have it and adopt it rather than terminate it, in either case you are still free to live your life after without motherhood.
So you support rapists being allowed to father babies ad libitum at no cost to themselves, and at the mother's expense initially and that of society (unless of course you have cut the social supports to make more money for wealthy pensioners in Epping and their heirs).
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
Oh come on HYUFD - Having a baby and giving it up should not have a great impact on their (mothers) lives and careers must be one of the most heartless things I have ever read. Amy Barrett must have a heart of stone.
Funny how diehard abortion on demand liberals think allowing abortion on demand is fine but allowing babies to be born rather than terminated at any stage and just adopted is somehow more heartless.
I don't know whether you are referring to me there or liberals in general, but if me that is not what I said and never would say (putting words into my mouth). In fact I have never mentioned my views on abortion at all. I am simply referring to the comment by the judge which is just earth shatteringly shocking. Just appalling. Words can't express how her views lack any compassion.
If you actually want my view I am in fact conflicted. It is impossible to reconcile the rights of the mother, the baby and the father in these matters. It is also impossible to determine the point where a bunch of cells is life. Anyone in this situation has an impossible dilemma and I haven't a clue what the right and wrongs are and I feel very sad for those in that predicament. Although completely unsatisfactory, I am drawn to the conclusion that the least worse option is that it is up to the potential mother to decide with proper counseling and that a sensible time limit is set which is practical but for which the baby's development is as limited as possible. However I am still very unhappy with that conclusion.
Sarah Phelps @PhelpsieSarah I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat. https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371
All the streets near me are (rightly) 20 mph limits. I have lost count of how many times I have been beeped for driving at the speed limit. The really car twatty thing to do de jour is to beep as you pass as the guy doing the limit turns off.
And I write this as one who has just done a speeding course for speeding on the motorway.
I actually got rammed by a guy in a sports car showing off to his female companion when I'd been cautious for 15 seconds or so about entering the roundabout by Marble Arch with cars whizzing round. They beeped, then immediately after rammed me, then backed off slightly and zoomed past me, both shouting and making derisive gestures. It's years ago, but it made me slightly nervous about being cautious with cars behind me, and that's not worn off, which is a bad thing since it really makes sense to be as careful as you think appropriate.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
Oh come on HYUFD - Having a baby and giving it up should not have a great impact on their (mothers) lives and careers must be one of the most heartless things I have ever read. Amy Barrett must have a heart of stone.
Funny how diehard abortion on demand liberals think allowing abortion on demand is fine but allowing babies to be born rather than terminated at any stage and just adopted is somehow more heartless.
Babies are "allowed" to be born rather than terminated and just adopted if anyone wants to do that. Plenty of people do that every single year, so that solution already exist.
I think what you mean is compelling people against their wishes to bring a baby into this world.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
There really is.
Carrying a baby to full term is a life altering event for women, assuming they don't die in the process.
Making that mandatory is absolutely chilling.
Abortion on demand is absolutely chilling in my view
What about rape?
A tiny minority of cases but even then no reason why some babies could not be adopted not terminated
So you are happy for women to be subject to 9 months of living with something inside them reminding them every minute or every day about the rape.
Yes you have absolutely zero heart and are really one of the worst human beings I've had the misfortune of ever encountering.
Do I care what left wing liberals like you think of me as a conservative? Absolutely not.
Indeed the fact you loathe me on this is encouraging as it shows quite clearly the political enemy is angry it is not getting its own way all the time on the issue
I've heard compassionate and deeply held arguments both to allow abortion and in favour of life, but never anything close to that. It's a disgrace. Fwiw I think the abortion laws could perhaps do with dropping the week limit (Unless a serious medical issue shows up late on); but points about 'making the political enemy angry' are appalling.
He called me one of the worst human beings he had ever encountered I make no apology for replying equally vociferously.
If left liberals want a culture war, conservatives must be ready to respond
Yep and I will stand by that - anyone who thinks they have any right for their believes to override the needs (note needs not believes) of others should ideally be forced to suffer the exact thing they believes would force upon others.
Being male (and not particularly bright as demonstrated by his willingness to believe incredibly stupid and utterly refuted conspiracy theories), HYUFD hasn't the first, tiniest, inkling of what he wishes to subject some (very unlucky) women to.
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?
So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.
This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.
Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
Sarah Phelps @PhelpsieSarah I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat. https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371
I would seriously recommend a check-up course of some kind for drivers every 10 years. It is worth it, just for your own safety.
Retest every 10 years. Safer roads, jobs created.
Broken window fallacy.
I think every 10 years after 60 years old, plus 20 years after first license, makes sense given new infrastructure like bike lanes.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
Oh come on HYUFD - Having a baby and giving it up should not have a great impact on their (mothers) lives and careers must be one of the most heartless things I have ever read. Amy Barrett must have a heart of stone.
Funny how diehard abortion on demand liberals think allowing abortion on demand is fine but allowing babies to be born rather than terminated at any stage and just adopted is somehow more heartless.
Babies are "allowed" to be born rather than terminated and just adopted if anyone wants to do that. Plenty of people do that every single year, so that solution already exist.
I think what you mean is compelling people against their wishes to bring a baby into this world.
Not even that he wishes to compel women who have been raped (and end up pregnant) to be forced to bring a baby into this world.
We seem to be going down the U.S. route here of abortion becoming a toxic, culture-polarising issue.
Thankfully we're not!
We just have one crazy individual caught in 1750s politics who doesn't realise that the Conservative position on abortion is that its a matter of conscience.
His views are despite his protestations to the contrary very, very unConservative.
No, they are generally conservative, just socially conservative as well as economically conservative.
You are economically conservative but socially liberal ie not a full conservative.
In the US, especially in the South and Midwest, conservatism in its purest form is much more common than in the UK where there are more social liberals like you in the Conservative Party because you oppose Labour Party economics.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
@Cyclefree is, I think, referring to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
I am pro life, if women don't want babies they can have adoptions not just abort them on demand.
Sadly I was correct, then.
He's not indifferent. He actively hates women. He's got his eyes wide open. He thinks women who become pregnant should no longer have rights over their own bodies, and that they are simply a means of build another person. Forcing a real person to do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another person is called slavery. To demand someone to do it for the benefit of a possible future person is literally worse than slavery.
Rubbish, there are plenty of pro life women and plenty of ultra liberal, pro choice abortion on demand men like you.
If pregnancy to term is slavery then abortion on demand is murder if you want to be that hardline on language
I said it's worse than slavery. As for murder, fine. Every unfertilised ovulation, every male orgasm that doesn't result in pregnancy, that's also murder. You've probably killed billions. Now that we're all mass murderers, the least we can do is not enslave the living.
A male sperm that does not fertilise an egg is obviously not murder or even leading to the very first stages of a foetus.
Being pregnant having chosen to have sexual intercourse and having a baby is also not slavery, especially if you choose not to have it and adopt it rather than terminate it, in either case you are still free to live your life after without motherhood.
So you support rapists being allowed to father babies ad libitum at no cost to themselves, and at the mother's expense initially and that of society (unless of course you have cut the social supports to make more money for wealthy pensioners in Epping and their heirs).
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
There really is.
Carrying a baby to full term is a life altering event for women, assuming they don't die in the process.
Making that mandatory is absolutely chilling.
Abortion on demand is absolutely chilling in my view
What about rape?
A tiny minority of cases but even then no reason why some babies could not be adopted not terminated
So you are happy for women to be subject to 9 months of living with something inside them reminding them every minute or every day about the rape.
Yes you have absolutely zero heart and are really one of the worst human beings I've had the misfortune of ever encountering.
Do I care what left wing liberals like you think of me as a conservative? Absolutely not.
Indeed the fact you loathe me on this is encouraging as it shows quite clearly the political enemy is angry it is not getting its own way all the time on the issue
I've heard compassionate and deeply held arguments both to allow abortion and in favour of life, but never anything close to that. It's a disgrace. Fwiw I think the abortion laws could perhaps do with dropping the week limit (Unless a serious medical issue shows up late on); but points about 'making the political enemy angry' are appalling.
He called me one of the worst human beings he had ever encountered I make no apology for replying equally vociferously.
If left liberals want a culture war, conservatives must be ready to respond
Yep and I will stand by that - anyone who thinks they have any right for their believes to override the needs (note needs not believes) of others should ideally be forced to suffer the exact thing they believes would force upon others.
Being male (and not particularly bright as demonstrated by his willingness to believe incredibly stupid and utterly refuted conspiracy theories), HYUFD hasn't the first, tiniest, inkling of what he wishes to subject some (very unlucky) women to.
On that basis then you could have been aborted before birth rather than posting on here
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
@Cyclefree is, I think, referring to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
I am pro life, if women don't want babies they can have adoptions not just abort them on demand.
Sadly I was correct, then.
He's not indifferent. He actively hates women. He's got his eyes wide open. He thinks women who become pregnant should no longer have rights over their own bodies, and that they are simply a means of build another person. Forcing a real person to do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another person is called slavery. To demand someone to do it for the benefit of a possible future person is literally worse than slavery.
Rubbish, there are plenty of pro life women and plenty of ultra liberal, pro choice abortion on demand men like you.
If pregnancy to term is slavery then abortion on demand is murder if you want to be that hardline on language
I said it's worse than slavery. As for murder, fine. Every unfertilised ovulation, every male orgasm that doesn't result in pregnancy, that's also murder. You've probably killed billions. Now that we're all mass murderers, the least we can do is not enslave the living.
A male sperm that does not fertilise an egg is obviously not murder or even leading to the very first stages of a foetus.
Being pregnant having chosen to have sexual intercourse and having a baby is also not slavery, especially if you choose not to have it and adopt it rather than terminate it, in either case you are still free to live your life after without motherhood.
Some forms of contraception destroy fertilised eggs rather than provide a barrier. Also eggs are fertilised and used in research in labs before being destroyed. Are these babies and if not where do you draw the line?
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
There really is.
Carrying a baby to full term is a life altering event for women, assuming they don't die in the process.
Making that mandatory is absolutely chilling.
Abortion on demand is absolutely chilling in my view
What about rape?
A tiny minority of cases but even then no reason why some babies could not be adopted not terminated
So you are happy for women to be subject to 9 months of living with something inside them reminding them every minute or every day about the rape.
Yes you have absolutely zero heart and are really one of the worst human beings I've had the misfortune of ever encountering.
Do I care what left wing liberals like you think of me as a conservative? Absolutely not.
Indeed the fact you loathe me on this is encouraging as it shows quite clearly the political enemy is angry it is not getting its own way all the time on the issue
I've heard compassionate and deeply held arguments both to allow abortion and in favour of life, but never anything close to that. It's a disgrace. Fwiw I think the abortion laws could perhaps do with dropping the week limit (Unless a serious medical issue shows up late on); but points about 'making the political enemy angry' are appalling.
He called me one of the worst human beings he had ever encountered I make no apology for replying equally vociferously.
If left liberals want a culture war, conservatives must be ready to respond
Yep and I will stand by that - anyone who thinks they have any right for their believes to override the needs (note needs not believes) of others should ideally be forced to suffer the exact thing they believes would force upon others.
Being male (and not particularly bright as demonstrated by his willingness to believe incredibly stupid and utterly refuted conspiracy theories), HYUFD hasn't the first, tiniest, inkling of what he wishes to subject some (very unlucky) women to.
On that basis then you could have been aborted before birth rather than posting on here
So all in all, then, it's becoming a day of harmony for all.
Interesting to see the publishers of the MailOnline have again lost in court, losing their appeal against the Duchess of Sussex.
Funny how many people who seem to hate her vociferously were adamant it would go the other way.
Albeit in the course of the case she had to apologise for having forgotten how information was given to authors writing a book about her and Prince Harry.
We seem to be going down the U.S. route here of abortion becoming a toxic, culture-polarising issue.
Thankfully we're not!
We just have one crazy individual caught in 1750s politics who doesn't realise that the Conservative position on abortion is that its a matter of conscience.
His views are despite his protestations to the contrary very, very unConservative.
No, they are generally conservative, just socially conservative as well as economically conservative.
You are economically conservative but socially liberal ie not a full conservative.
In the US, especially in the South and Midwest, conservatism in its purest form is much more common than in the UK where there are more social liberals like you in the Conservative Party because you oppose Labour Party economics.
In the US you would be a Democrat not in the GOP
Well I'd have voted for Reagan and the GOP when it was sane, but now I'd 100% be a Democrat.
This country isn't the USA though and the Conservative position is quite rightly that abortion is a matter of conscience. That is not your opinion, you are against the Conservative policy.
We seem to be going down the U.S. route here of abortion becoming a toxic, culture-polarising issue.
Thankfully we're not!
We just have one crazy individual caught in 1750s politics who doesn't realise that the Conservative position on abortion is that its a matter of conscience.
His views are despite his protestations to the contrary very, very unConservative.
No, they are generally conservative, just socially conservative as well as economically conservative.
You are economically conservative but socially liberal ie not a full conservative.
In the US, especially in the South and Midwest, conservatism in its purest form is much more common than in the UK where there are more social liberals like you in the Conservative Party because you oppose Labour Party economics.
In the US you would be a Democrat not in the GOP
You are NOT social conservative in any modern or European definition of the word - or in fact anywhere were women have equal rights to men (see for instance the US where the States you seem to love still treat women as second class citizens).
Socially Facist would be a way more appropriate word.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
Oh come on HYUFD - Having a baby and giving it up should not have a great impact on their (mothers) lives and careers must be one of the most heartless things I have ever read. Amy Barrett must have a heart of stone.
Funny how diehard abortion on demand liberals think allowing abortion on demand is fine but allowing babies to be born rather than terminated at any stage and just adopted is somehow more heartless.
Sarah Phelps @PhelpsieSarah I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat. https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371
I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.
In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
Philosophical question for those who wish to deny women the right to control their own bodies because "they can just put the baby up for abortion".
Lets say a young woman who loves to go out drinking (or a woman who is an alcoholic) gets pregnant by mistake and doesn't want to change their life so wants to have an abortion but its denied because of your desire to force her to remain pregnant.
Should that woman who doesn't even want to have a baby be allowed to continue binge drinking throughout her entire pregnancy, resulting in a deformed baby with foetal alcohol syndrome being put up for adoption? Considering that woman would have aborted the foetus should they have had the choice, and YOU are making their choice for them in denying that option, are they doing anything morally wrong binge drinking while pregnant?
Philosophical question for those who wish to deny women the right to control their own bodies because "they can just put the baby up for abortion".
Lets say a young woman who loves to go out drinking (or a woman who is an alcoholic) gets pregnant by mistake and doesn't want to change their life so wants to have an abortion but its denied because of your desire to force her to remain pregnant.
Should that woman who doesn't even want to have a baby be allowed to continue binge drinking throughout her entire pregnancy, resulting in a deformed baby with foetal alcohol syndrome being put up for adoption? Considering that woman would have aborted the foetus should they have had the choice, and YOU are making their choice for them in denying that option, are they doing anything morally wrong binge drinking while pregnant?
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
There really is.
Carrying a baby to full term is a life altering event for women, assuming they don't die in the process.
Making that mandatory is absolutely chilling.
Abortion on demand is absolutely chilling in my view
What about rape?
A tiny minority of cases but even then no reason why some babies could not be adopted not terminated
So you are happy for women to be subject to 9 months of living with something inside them reminding them every minute or every day about the rape.
Yes you have absolutely zero heart and are really one of the worst human beings I've had the misfortune of ever encountering.
Do I care what left wing liberals like you think of me as a conservative? Absolutely not.
Indeed the fact you loathe me on this is encouraging as it shows quite clearly the political enemy is angry it is not getting its own way all the time on the issue
I've heard compassionate and deeply held arguments both to allow abortion and in favour of life, but never anything close to that. It's a disgrace. Fwiw I think the abortion laws could perhaps do with dropping the week limit (Unless a serious medical issue shows up late on); but points about 'making the political enemy angry' are appalling.
He called me one of the worst human beings he had ever encountered, I make no apology for replying equally vociferously.
If left liberals want a culture war, conservatives must be ready to respond
So why do you enthusiastically cheerlead for a Prime Minister whose mistress had at least one abortion, if not several, at Boris Johnson's urging?
Philosophical question for those who wish to deny women the right to control their own bodies because "they can just put the baby up for abortion".
Lets say a young woman who loves to go out drinking (or a woman who is an alcoholic) gets pregnant by mistake and doesn't want to change their life so wants to have an abortion but its denied because of your desire to force her to remain pregnant.
Should that woman who doesn't even want to have a baby be allowed to continue binge drinking throughout her entire pregnancy, resulting in a deformed baby with foetal alcohol syndrome being put up for adoption? Considering that woman would have aborted the foetus should they have had the choice, and YOU are making their choice for them in denying that option, are they doing anything morally wrong binge drinking while pregnant?
Sarah Phelps @PhelpsieSarah I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat. https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371
I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.
In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
There really is.
Carrying a baby to full term is a life altering event for women, assuming they don't die in the process.
Making that mandatory is absolutely chilling.
Abortion on demand is absolutely chilling in my view
What about rape?
A tiny minority of cases but even then no reason why some babies could not be adopted not terminated
So you are happy for women to be subject to 9 months of living with something inside them reminding them every minute or every day about the rape.
Yes you have absolutely zero heart and are really one of the worst human beings I've had the misfortune of ever encountering.
Do I care what left wing liberals like you think of me as a conservative? Absolutely not.
Indeed the fact you loathe me on this is encouraging as it shows quite clearly the political enemy is angry it is not getting its own way all the time on the issue
I've heard compassionate and deeply held arguments both to allow abortion and in favour of life, but never anything close to that. It's a disgrace. Fwiw I think the abortion laws could perhaps do with dropping the week limit (Unless a serious medical issue shows up late on); but points about 'making the political enemy angry' are appalling.
He called me one of the worst human beings he had ever encountered, I make no apology for replying equally vociferously.
If left liberals want a culture war, conservatives must be ready to respond
So why do you enthusiastically cheerlead for a Prime Minister whose mistress had at least one abortion, if not several, at Boris Johnson's urging?
I disagree with Boris on abortion, I voted for him to beat Corbyn and deliver Brexit only.
Had I only been voting on abortion I would have voted for Hunt, as Hunt has made clear he wants to reduce the abortion time limit
@amolrajan 1/ In reference to very reasonable questions about some foolish commentary from a former life, I want to say I deeply regret it. I wrote things that were rude and immature and I look back on them now with real embarrassment, and ask myself what I was thinking, frankly… (cont’d) 2/ … I would like to say sorry for any offence they caused then or now. I’m completely committed to impartiality and hope our recent programmes can be judged on their merits
During his Independent period. Princes Charles is 'scientifically illiterate'; Prince Philip is a 'racist buffoon', Kate and William are 'total frauds'.
That kind of stuff. Par for the course for the Indy
IMO he's improved in the last 3 or 4 years, and should have effectively killed the story, as the ABC did a few weeks ago.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
There really is.
Carrying a baby to full term is a life altering event for women, assuming they don't die in the process.
Making that mandatory is absolutely chilling.
Abortion on demand is absolutely chilling in my view
What about rape?
A tiny minority of cases but even then no reason why some babies could not be adopted not terminated
So you are happy for women to be subject to 9 months of living with something inside them reminding them every minute or every day about the rape.
Yes you have absolutely zero heart and are really one of the worst human beings I've had the misfortune of ever encountering.
Do I care what left wing liberals like you think of me as a conservative? Absolutely not.
Indeed the fact you loathe me on this is encouraging as it shows quite clearly the political enemy is angry it is not getting its own way all the time on the issue
I've heard compassionate and deeply held arguments both to allow abortion and in favour of life, but never anything close to that. It's a disgrace. Fwiw I think the abortion laws could perhaps do with dropping the week limit (Unless a serious medical issue shows up late on); but points about 'making the political enemy angry' are appalling.
He called me one of the worst human beings he had ever encountered, I make no apology for replying equally vociferously.
If left liberals want a culture war, conservatives must be ready to respond
So why do you enthusiastically cheerlead for a Prime Minister whose mistress had at least one abortion, if not several, at Boris Johnson's urging?
I disagree with Boris on abortion, I voted for him to beat Corbyn and deliver Brexit only.
Had I only been voting on abortion I would have voted for Hunt, as Hunt has made clear he wants to reduce the abortion time limit
So you consider abortion not as bad as Corbyn as PM or Remaining.
What a curious fellow you are.
I feel real pity for Tories like JohnO and Aaron Bell who must read your posts and wonder about defecting.
Philosophical question for those who wish to deny women the right to control their own bodies because "they can just put the baby up for abortion".
Lets say a young woman who loves to go out drinking (or a woman who is an alcoholic) gets pregnant by mistake and doesn't want to change their life so wants to have an abortion but its denied because of your desire to force her to remain pregnant.
Should that woman who doesn't even want to have a baby be allowed to continue binge drinking throughout her entire pregnancy, resulting in a deformed baby with foetal alcohol syndrome being put up for adoption? Considering that woman would have aborted the foetus should they have had the choice, and YOU are making their choice for them in denying that option, are they doing anything morally wrong binge drinking while pregnant?
Yes anyone who binge drinks while pregnant endangers the child and is morally wrong
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
@Cyclefree is, I think, referring to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Something which you also appear to be indifferent to ?
I am pro life, if women don't want babies they can have adoptions not just abort them on demand.
Sadly I was correct, then.
He's not indifferent. He actively hates women. He's got his eyes wide open. He thinks women who become pregnant should no longer have rights over their own bodies, and that they are simply a means of build another person. Forcing a real person to do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another person is called slavery. To demand someone to do it for the benefit of a possible future person is literally worse than slavery.
Rubbish, there are plenty of pro life women and plenty of ultra liberal, pro choice abortion on demand men like you.
If pregnancy to term is slavery then abortion on demand is murder if you want to be that hardline on language
We seem to be going down the U.S. route here of abortion becoming a toxic, culture-polarising issue.
Thankfully we're not!
We just have one crazy individual caught in 1750s politics who doesn't realise that the Conservative position on abortion is that its a matter of conscience.
His views are despite his protestations to the contrary very, very unConservative.
Around 70% of Conservative voters support the right to abortion.. He is in tune with neither party nor electorate.
Sarah Phelps @PhelpsieSarah I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat. https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371
I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.
In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
I drove through Hampton recently and I was so lucky that I was behind a local who knew it was a 20 limit. There are cameras both ways and they catch loads of people. Curiously, Google Street View is messed up just at bit where the cameras are:
For me, the issue is that driving is routine. We do it without incident for the vast majority of time.
Those 20 limits are an utter disgrace, in my opinion.
'My' 20 zone comes in the middle of 60>40>30>40>20>30 in the space of about a mile. Just no consistency, and basically its set up to catch people. There is no school there, just a couple of junctions.
Philosophical question for those who wish to deny women the right to control their own bodies because "they can just put the baby up for abortion".
Lets say a young woman who loves to go out drinking (or a woman who is an alcoholic) gets pregnant by mistake and doesn't want to change their life so wants to have an abortion but its denied because of your desire to force her to remain pregnant.
Should that woman who doesn't even want to have a baby be allowed to continue binge drinking throughout her entire pregnancy, resulting in a deformed baby with foetal alcohol syndrome being put up for adoption? Considering that woman would have aborted the foetus should they have had the choice, and YOU are making their choice for them in denying that option, are they doing anything morally wrong binge drinking while pregnant?
Yes anyone who binge drinks while pregnant endangers the child and is morally wrong
You do realise many women don't realise they are pregnant until weeks after the event?
We seem to be going down the U.S. route here of abortion becoming a toxic, culture-polarising issue.
Thankfully we're not!
We just have one crazy individual caught in 1750s politics who doesn't realise that the Conservative position on abortion is that its a matter of conscience.
His views are despite his protestations to the contrary very, very unConservative.
No, they are generally conservative, just socially conservative as well as economically conservative.
You are economically conservative but socially liberal ie not a full conservative.
In the US, especially in the South and Midwest, conservatism in its purest form is much more common than in the UK where there are more social liberals like you in the Conservative Party because you oppose Labour Party economics.
In the US you would be a Democrat not in the GOP
You are NOT social conservative in any modern or European definition of the word - or in fact anywhere were women have equal rights to men (see for instance the US where the States you seem to love still treat women as second class citizens).
Socially Facist would be a way more appropriate word.
Poland is European and abortion is still illegal there. In Texas abortion is now illegal beyond 6 weeks.
In fact I would be a relative moderate conservative there as my main focus is on reducing the time limit to around 20 weeks or less not banning it outright here
We seem to be going down the U.S. route here of abortion becoming a toxic, culture-polarising issue.
Thankfully we're not!
We just have one crazy individual caught in 1750s politics who doesn't realise that the Conservative position on abortion is that its a matter of conscience.
His views are despite his protestations to the contrary very, very unConservative.
Around 70% of Conservative voters support the right to abortion.. He is in tune with neither party nor electorate.
Not least because he supports the right of rapists to be fathers.
I thought the Tory Party was against even fathers who were not rapists but abandoned their partners and children to shack up with other women?
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Utterly appalling in its indifference to the effect on the woman, the impact on the child, and in how entirely unsurprising it is from her.
It really is. To remove reasonable access to abortion is just wrong wrong wrong.
Conceptually. It fundamentally downgrades the status of women. In the eyes of the law they now have less autonomy than men. They are lesser beings.
Practically. Here you have a change in the law which will make life worse for large numbers of people with virtually no benefit to anyone.
One can have the debate about "when does a foetus become a baby?" till the cows come home but there's no justification for writing the 'pro life' position on this into law. If that's how you feel, don't have an abortion yourself, consider it a sin, take a dim view of those who disagree and of those who do have abortions, but do NOT impose your view on society at large.
We seem to be going down the U.S. route here of abortion becoming a toxic, culture-polarising issue.
Thankfully we're not!
We just have one crazy individual caught in 1750s politics who doesn't realise that the Conservative position on abortion is that its a matter of conscience.
His views are despite his protestations to the contrary very, very unConservative.
Around 70% of Conservative voters support the right to abortion.. He is in tune with neither party nor electorate.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
There really is.
Carrying a baby to full term is a life altering event for women, assuming they don't die in the process.
Making that mandatory is absolutely chilling.
Abortion on demand is absolutely chilling in my view
What about rape?
A tiny minority of cases but even then no reason why some babies could not be adopted not terminated
So you are happy for women to be subject to 9 months of living with something inside them reminding them every minute or every day about the rape.
Yes you have absolutely zero heart and are really one of the worst human beings I've had the misfortune of ever encountering.
Do I care what left wing liberals like you think of me as a conservative? Absolutely not.
Indeed the fact you loathe me on this is encouraging as it shows quite clearly the political enemy is angry it is not getting its own way all the time on the issue
I've heard compassionate and deeply held arguments both to allow abortion and in favour of life, but never anything close to that. It's a disgrace. Fwiw I think the abortion laws could perhaps do with dropping the week limit (Unless a serious medical issue shows up late on); but points about 'making the political enemy angry' are appalling.
He called me one of the worst human beings he had ever encountered, I make no apology for replying equally vociferously.
If left liberals want a culture war, conservatives must be ready to respond
So why do you enthusiastically cheerlead for a Prime Minister whose mistress had at least one abortion, if not several, at Boris Johnson's urging?
I disagree with Boris on abortion, I voted for him to beat Corbyn and deliver Brexit only.
Had I only been voting on abortion I would have voted for Hunt, as Hunt has made clear he wants to reduce the abortion time limit
So you consider abortion not as bad as Corbyn as PM or Remaining.
What a curious fellow you are.
I feel real pity for Tories like JohnO and Aaron Bell who must read your posts and wonder about defecting.
Welll if they are Conservatives in Name Only and wish to join the Liberal Democrats like you now Corbyn is gone as Labour leader then that is up to them.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
What is chilling is the claim that pregnancy, childbirth and adoption have no or little impact on a woman's life. It simply is not true.
And, FWIW, my position on abortion is not what you will in your black and white way assume. It is morally troubling and not something I would choose for myself. But in the end a foetus in the womb is not a person - certainly not in the early stages when it is incapable of life outside the womb - and if the choice is between the rights of a living breathing woman and an unborn child then I choose the former. I wish this choice were not needed.
But those who are often the most aggressively anti-abortion are also aggressively anti-sex education, anti-contraception and quite shy about talking about the obligations on men to take responsibility for the children they father. They also seem most unconcerned about the crimes of rape and incest as well as being very unwilling to help single women who have babies or to find proper high quality care for bad lies who are abandoned. Odd that. One might even be forced to draw the conclusion that what really animates them is the prospect of punishing women for having the temerity to want to have sex without consequences, a privilege enjoyed by men for centuries.
Outlawing safe abortions will not stop them. All it will mean is that there will be unsafe abortions which will, as happened in the past, lead to the deaths of women. The pro-lifers seem to have very little concern for these deaths.
Sarah Phelps @PhelpsieSarah I was a bit of a dick about doing the speed awareness course but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. Shocked by how much I drive like a stressy careless twat. Thinking about doing an advanced course or something like that so I’m not a car-twat. https://twitter.com/PhelpsieSarah/status/1466324421027770371
I did one earlier this year after being done for 27 mph in a 20 mph zone. Some interesting points, but I'm still bitter about the location.
In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
They may not reverse Roe v Wade outright, Roberts' comments suggest as Chief Justice he will be more likely to uphold states rights to restrict the time limit for abortions though while keeping Roe.
There are at least 3 Justices however who would ban abortion and another 2 who might return the decision wholesale to the states. In that case you might see Roe v Wade replaced with a return of abortion to the states, so you get near on demand abortion in Massachussetts or California but a near outright ban on abortion in Mississippi and Texas
Not following this as closely as I should as I am travelling in the UK. What is their likely position on the more egregious parts of the Texas law - the vigilante-ism in its implementation?
Some commentators think that even the hard anti-abortion types on the court will go with the argument that the "vigilante" laws stuff is an end run around constitutional law and hence an attack on the power of the Court itself. Which they will push back against.
A couple of them have already made remarks pointing out that a gun-ban could be engineered the same way. Which people take as a coded message....
Amy Coney Barrett has - reportedly - said this -
If true, chilling in its indifference.
Nothing chilling about adoption being an alternative to aborting babies
What is chilling is the claim that pregnancy, childbirth and adoption have no or little impact on a woman's life. It simply is not true.
And, FWIW, my position on abortion is not what you will in your black and white way assume. It is morally troubling and not something I would choose for myself. But in the end a foetus in the womb is not a person - certainly not in the early stages when it is incapable of life outside the womb - and if the choice is between the rights of a living breathing woman and an unborn child then I choose the former. I wish this choice were not needed.
But those who are often the most aggressively anti-abortion are also aggressively anti-sex education, anti-contraception and quite shy about talking about the obligations on men to take responsibility for the children they father. They also seem most unconcerned about the crimes of rape and incest as well as being very unwilling to help single women who have babies or to find proper high quality care for bad lies who are abandoned. Odd that. One might even be forced to draw the conclusion that what really animates them is the prospect of punishing women for having the temerity to want to have sex without consequences, a privilege enjoyed by men for centuries.
Outlawing safe abortions will not stop them. All it will mean is that there will be unsafe abortions which will, as happened in the past, lead to the deaths of women. The pro-lifers seem to have very little concern for these deaths.
A bit late to this thread as I was out (running, naturally...), but I'd just like to say that whilst we have our differences on some topics, I agree with the above.
Abortions are sad. Abortions are regrettable. In an ideal world, they would not be necessary. But we don't live in an ideal world, and there's another side to the balance: the harm done to women who have to have unwanted children because abortions would not be available.
It all depends on how you see the various factors on that balance. And for me, it weighs heavily on the side of allowing abortions.
Then we get into the equally (more?) fraught debate about when they should be allowed ...
Philosophical question for those who wish to deny women the right to control their own bodies because "they can just put the baby up for abortion".
Lets say a young woman who loves to go out drinking (or a woman who is an alcoholic) gets pregnant by mistake and doesn't want to change their life so wants to have an abortion but its denied because of your desire to force her to remain pregnant.
Should that woman who doesn't even want to have a baby be allowed to continue binge drinking throughout her entire pregnancy, resulting in a deformed baby with foetal alcohol syndrome being put up for adoption? Considering that woman would have aborted the foetus should they have had the choice, and YOU are making their choice for them in denying that option, are they doing anything morally wrong binge drinking while pregnant?
Yes anyone who binge drinks while pregnant endangers the child and is morally wrong
But they don't want to be pregnant, they want to have an abortion. You are the one who wishes to deny them that choice.
So now you don't want to just force them to not have an abortion, you want to force them not to drink too?
If they're not going to stop drinking, should they be arrested and compelled not to drink, be allowed an abortion, or be allowed to drink and give a foetal alcohol syndrome baby 'up for adoption' under your rules?
Comments
Indeed the fact you loathe me on this is encouraging as it shows quite clearly the political enemy is angry it is not getting its own way all the time on the issue and some progress is being made again in a more conservative direction
As for murder, fine. Every unfertilised ovulation, every male orgasm that doesn't result in pregnancy, that's also murder. You've probably killed billions. Now that we're all mass murderers, the least we can do is not enslave the living.
The contrast is between a seat where the useless nonentity Party should be challengers and where the LDs are challengers. The former will be a safe Tory hold the latter maybe close
Fwiw I think the abortion laws could perhaps do with dropping the week limit (Unless a serious medical issue shows up late on); but points about 'making the political enemy angry' are appalling.
Being pregnant having chosen to have sexual intercourse and having a baby is also not slavery, especially if you choose not to have it and adopt it rather than terminate it, in either case you are still free to live your life after without motherhood.
I just don't think you've lived long enough to know that live isn't black and white, it's a million different shades of grey.
We just have one crazy individual caught in 1750s politics who doesn't realise that the Conservative position on abortion is that its a matter of conscience.
His views are despite his protestations to the contrary very, very unConservative.
If left liberals want a culture war, conservatives must be ready to respond
If you actually want my view I am in fact conflicted. It is impossible to reconcile the rights of the mother, the baby and the father in these matters. It is also impossible to determine the point where a bunch of cells is life. Anyone in this situation has an impossible dilemma and I haven't a clue what the right and wrongs are and I feel very sad for those in that predicament. Although completely unsatisfactory, I am drawn to the conclusion that the least worse option is that it is up to the potential mother to decide with proper counseling and that a sensible time limit is set which is practical but for which the baby's development is as limited as possible. However I am still very unhappy with that conclusion.
I think what you mean is compelling people against their wishes to bring a baby into this world.
Being male (and not particularly bright as demonstrated by his willingness to believe incredibly stupid and utterly refuted conspiracy theories), HYUFD hasn't the first, tiniest, inkling of what he wishes to subject some (very unlucky) women to.
So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.
This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.
Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
I think every 10 years after 60 years old, plus 20 years after first license, makes sense given new infrastructure like bike lanes.
((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
This is genuinely incredible. How is this man still allowed to be a Labour MP.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1466330014832635908
You are economically conservative but socially liberal ie not a full conservative.
In the US, especially in the South and Midwest, conservatism in its purest form is much more common than in the UK where there are more social liberals like you in the Conservative Party because you oppose Labour Party economics.
In the US you would be a Democrat not in the GOP
Funny how many people who seem to hate her vociferously were adamant it would go the other way.
Labour MP Angela Rayner reveals unconscious gender bias means she is often ‘ignored’ at work
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10263069/Labour-MP-Angela-Rayner-reveals-unconscious-gender-bias.html
@pop_hill
Replying to @DailyMailUK
Don’t think it’s gender related, nor is it unconscious.
Drawing the line is the dilemma we all have.
If you don’t get this, you are either a religious zealot, or just haven’t met many/any women.
HYUFD needs to leave his Epping madrassa occasionally.
This country isn't the USA though and the Conservative position is quite rightly that abortion is a matter of conscience. That is not your opinion, you are against the Conservative policy.
Socially Facist would be a way more appropriate word.
In some ways driving is to easy - so people find they can all too easily drift off in their attention.
Lets say a young woman who loves to go out drinking (or a woman who is an alcoholic) gets pregnant by mistake and doesn't want to change their life so wants to have an abortion but its denied because of your desire to force her to remain pregnant.
Should that woman who doesn't even want to have a baby be allowed to continue binge drinking throughout her entire pregnancy, resulting in a deformed baby with foetal alcohol syndrome being put up for adoption? Considering that woman would have aborted the foetus should they have had the choice, and YOU are making their choice for them in denying that option, are they doing anything morally wrong binge drinking while pregnant?
Glad you understood the point though.
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3983295,-1.4445376,3a,75y,19.58h,82.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seB0PMWYcXw_SW1KSxEpYaA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Straight, wide, no houses; no schools. I maintain it should be a 40.
Had I only been voting on abortion I would have voted for Hunt, as Hunt has made clear he wants to reduce the abortion time limit
That kind of stuff. Par for the course for the Indy
IMO he's improved in the last 3 or 4 years, and should have effectively killed the story, as the ABC did a few weeks ago.
What a curious fellow you are.
I feel real pity for Tories like JohnO and Aaron Bell who must read your posts and wonder about defecting.
In fact I would be a relative moderate conservative there as my main focus is on reducing the time limit to around 20 weeks or less not banning it outright here
I thought the Tory Party was against even fathers who were not rapists but abandoned their partners and children to shack up with other women?
Conceptually. It fundamentally downgrades the status of women. In the eyes of the law they now have less autonomy than men. They are lesser beings.
Practically. Here you have a change in the law which will make life worse for large numbers of people with virtually no benefit to anyone.
One can have the debate about "when does a foetus become a baby?" till the cows come home but there's no justification for writing the 'pro life' position on this into law. If that's how you feel, don't have an abortion yourself, consider it a sin, take a dim view of those who disagree and of those who do have abortions, but do NOT impose your view on society at large.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Poll-reveals-Texans-views-on-abortion-law-that-16566587.php
Even in the UK most Tory voters would back reducing the time limit below 24 weeks even if they would not ban abortion
Though I don't believe either are
And, FWIW, my position on abortion is not what you will in your black and white way assume. It is morally troubling and not something I would choose for myself. But in the end a foetus in the womb is not a person - certainly not in the early stages when it is incapable of life outside the womb - and if the choice is between the rights of a living breathing woman and an unborn child then I choose the former. I wish this choice were not needed.
But those who are often the most aggressively anti-abortion are also aggressively anti-sex education, anti-contraception and quite shy about talking about the obligations on men to take responsibility for the children they father. They also seem most unconcerned about the crimes of rape and incest as well as being very unwilling to help single women who have babies or to find proper high quality care for bad lies who are abandoned. Odd that. One might even be forced to draw the conclusion that what really animates them is the prospect of punishing women for having the temerity to want to have sex without consequences, a privilege enjoyed by men for centuries.
Outlawing safe abortions will not stop them. All it will mean is that there will be unsafe abortions which will, as happened in the past, lead to the deaths of women. The pro-lifers seem to have very little concern for these deaths.
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indias-serum-institute-delivers-first-novavax-shot-through-covax-2021-12-01/
This stretch of road is a 40. You could argue the difference is that it's wide enough to have right-turn lanes for the junctions.
Abortions are sad. Abortions are regrettable. In an ideal world, they would not be necessary. But we don't live in an ideal world, and there's another side to the balance: the harm done to women who have to have unwanted children because abortions would not be available.
It all depends on how you see the various factors on that balance. And for me, it weighs heavily on the side of allowing abortions.
Then we get into the equally (more?) fraught debate about when they should be allowed ...
So now you don't want to just force them to not have an abortion, you want to force them not to drink too?
If they're not going to stop drinking, should they be arrested and compelled not to drink, be allowed an abortion, or be allowed to drink and give a foetal alcohol syndrome baby 'up for adoption' under your rules?