While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
The concept of pain is a tricky one, and I think the religiously motivated tend to make unjustified assumptions about how early a foetus is capable of pain. The external evidence about nerve growth and stimulus response tells one story, but similar stimulus-response experiments can lead people to surprising (and wrong) conclusions about insects and plants feeling "pain". The difficulty we have to overcome is the tendency to anthropomorphise physical responses and assume our internal experience is a good model. It usually isn't. Human conscious experience is not the same as that which would be "experienced" by a fly, a fig, or a foetus. We know that foetuses are endogenously sedated, and anybody here who has experienced "pain" under sedation will know it's a curious experience and certainly not, in my experience at least, deserving of the label "suffering".
Part of the problem for the religiously minded is this idea of the soul as a model for humanity is because of the sense that a soul is seen as rather like an on-off, a binary. It's either there or it isn't. But such a mental model is very poor map for conscious experience. Foetuses aren't conscious, not in the way people are. And if you have a -- something -- that isn't and has never been conscious, trying to lump it into the same category as a walking talking person is really quite problematic. Ultimately the being-with-a-soul argument pervades this debate even to the extent that people who do not believe in souls end up thinking in unscientific ways about it. A person doesn't suddenly go from not existing to existing in a moment. It happens gradually and one of the biggest inflection points in that curve-of-becoming is at birth.
And as almost all scientists agree human life, consciousness as well as ability to feel pain starts from 24 weeks.
Be assured we will fight you secular liberals with such gross disrespect for human life you would abort up to birth every step of the way.
Subcortical responses to stimuli are not enough to demonstrate suffering.
A foetus isn't conscious. By 28 weeks it has the physical structure that could give rise to consiousness, but that doesn't mean it is. It simply isn't conscious.
They aren't enough to demonstrate suffering for your ideological, ultra liberal agenda.
For you wish to advocate baby murder so there can be abortion on demand until birth
"baby murder" is an emotive attack, but worse than that, it begs the question. You want to call a foetus a baby because it answers the question about whether it's wrong to terminate it.
Since it's always impossible to get agreement on when something should be called a "baby", let me ask you this instead: when does a foetus stop being a foetus?
No it is precisely what you advocate. Baby murder. Certainly by the time of the 27th week the foetus has already got most of the characteristics and size of a baby ready for birth
So at 27 weeks it's still a foetus?
No it has most of the characteristics of a baby and abortion at that point is murder
Except it’s not.
Except it is
Show me that statute.
Fetal personhood does not exist in English law; just your mind.
It does effectively by the 24 week rule, after which abortion becomes murder
No, it doesn’t. Not does it exist in your favoured guide to morality - see for example Exodus 21:22-25
Yes it does.
Taking life for life in Exodus if a pregnant woman is injured if anything only reinforces the point
Doctrinaire and ignorant. Not an unusual combination.
The biblical law draws a clear distinction between the life of a mother, or any other person - 'a life for a life' - and that of a foetus, which may be compensated by a cash payment.
Nope, only mentions her giving birth prematurely after being hit with no serious injury requiring a cash payment. Not a word in the actual biblical text there about cash payment for death of the foetus
Plus as King David tells God at Psalm 139:16 'Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; All its parts were written in your book Regarding the days when they were formed, Before any of them existed.'
"embryo" is, of course, a useful translation if you want to support your point (and it's weak support anyway, who cares what some book says?)
But what if it's not the best translation? After all, it wasn't written in English. So who has chosen "embryo"... and why?
The NIV reads: My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
So.. unformed body? Frame? (And by the way, what of these days being written beforehand... does that mean even a murder is preordained by God?)
The Hebrew, גָּלְמִ֤י, comes from גולם, meaing "golem" (yes, really!) meaning -an inchoate object, an amorphous mass -a dummy, a form -(mythology, Jewish folklore) a golem, a clay automaton -(entomology) a pupa -(colloquial) a fool, a clod, an oaf, an awkward person
Not very convincing any more, is it? But here's the final nail: your eyes saw my unformed body... all the days ordained for me... before one of them came to be That... that reads an awful lot to me like this "unformed body" or "embryo" is... before his numbered days. Doesn't sound like your God is counting the embryo stage.
'Unformed body' ie a human life created by God, David was of course anointed King by God, the reference to days being days on earth ultimately ending in that role, his human body already having been formed well before. Murder has nothing to do with it, that is down to human will, as free will has been present since Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge.
Oh it is very convincing and in the everlasting and eternal fight against ideological secular liberals like you we remain steadfast in upholding the word of God
But you aren't upholding the word of God. You're upholding a politically useful translation. You choose the word "embryo" because you think it helps your politics, then you externalise that choice and pretend it was delivered unto you by the Divine. It's abject. Even your source implies the opposite of what you want it to say.
And THIS is your evidence? Why has your God armed you with such flimsy, ambiguous, hole-infested nonsense? Why has he reduced you to poring over the equivalent Haifa subsamples, trying to excavate strands of coherence from a clogged mass of words? Don't you feel let down? Don't you feel the sting of shame at being sent out to the crease with your bat already broken?
No, I am just reinforced in my strength to fight you even harder in the eternal battle for the risen Christ given you will always refute him no matter what the evidence
I hate to repeat myself with this, but the media are potentially missing quite a lot here. Not only has the current US Inspector-General issued no denial of describing David Grusch's extraordinary claims as "credible and urgent", and also taking evidence from him and others for two years, but the person who has agreed to be Grusch's lawyer is the *previous Inspector-General*.
"David Grusch's testimony, guided by his seasoned lawyer, could serve as a pivotal turning point. At the forefront of this effort is Charles McCullough III, a figure with an esteemed background in federal law enforcement and intelligence.
McCullough, appointed as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) by then-President Barack Obama, served from 2011 to 2017. His tenure was marked by handling high-stakes issues demanding utmost discretion and integrity. What sets McCullough apart is his significant experience with the FBI. This experience has equipped him with the unique ability to navigate the complex maze of government secrecy, making him an ideal advocate in the pursuit of UFO transparency. 11:10 PM · Jun 13, 2023
Fox Mulder, lead of the X Files, used to live in Alexandria. I wonder if Leon paid a visit.
I guess I should be darkly entertained, but I’m finding the Revenge of the Borisians just bloody boring.
What a pathetic bunch they are, like shrill hyperactive spoilt children who have been overfed Haribo.
We can talk through hair trends instead? hair trend is shorter length in 2023, I’ve been growing mine to try something different not amazingly different, it’s still a lob. I’m calling it Angled Long Lob Balayage. I don’t think hair should ever be on trend, don’t it look horrid when everyone had the same hair, like on film and vid footage of sixties and eighties? There is a certain amount of science, numerous face types different styles compliment some more than others, outside of that, to go with trend or not, do your own thing and try to stand out should be your own articles of faith.
A lob is slightly longer than a bob. bob’s length stops somewhere between the tips of the ears and well above the shoulders. A simple long bob’s length goes to just above or just below the shoulders. Balayage is highlighting technique where dye is swept artistically onto the hair using a brush to create totally natural-looking colour tones.
This is what I’m using as template.
All the Labour front bench are going shorter and for bangs, Rachel has effectively remodelled based on Bridgette, maybe I think because Starmer was using Bridgette more in publicity and seen with her more. The reason for those horrendous fringes is one of two answers, without them they are looking at their face in the mirror and don’t like what they see, they think they look better with bangs, or they leave hair style decision making to their stylist who is giving them the 2023 trend. I think manufactured and structured bangs look hideous though, and should never be on trend. 🤦♀️
Is "bangs" another Americanism we have to suffer, structured or not? Most top lady politicos have shorter hair, possibly so it does not blow around so much when they address outdoor meetings or get into helicopters, or maybe they just prefer it that way.
Almost certainly more important to the fate of the govt than Mad Nad
A brief thread on gilts. Apologies, it's an arcane subject. But the market in government debt, much more than the Bank of England, determines the interest rate homeowners and businesses pay. Today, the yield on 2 year money rose by 26 basis points. 1/6
Carlson may be right that Trump's finest record is keeping America out of Neocon Middle East wars but I doubt that is what keeps his supporters up at night or motivates Trump's legal problems.
Carlson may be right that Trump's finest record is keeping America out of Neocon Middle East wars but I doubt that is what keeps his supporters up at night or motivates Trump's legal problems.
Principles is an interesting word for Carlson. Here is what he privately texted about Trump.
“We are very very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can’t wait.
“I hate him passionately, I blew up at Peter Navarro today in frustration. I actually like Peter. But I can’t handle much more of this.”
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
The concept of pain is a tricky one, and I think the religiously motivated tend to make unjustified assumptions about how early a foetus is capable of pain. The external evidence about nerve growth and stimulus response tells one story, but similar stimulus-response experiments can lead people to surprising (and wrong) conclusions about insects and plants feeling "pain". The difficulty we have to overcome is the tendency to anthropomorphise physical responses and assume our internal experience is a good model. It usually isn't. Human conscious experience is not the same as that which would be "experienced" by a fly, a fig, or a foetus. We know that foetuses are endogenously sedated, and anybody here who has experienced "pain" under sedation will know it's a curious experience and certainly not, in my experience at least, deserving of the label "suffering".
Part of the problem for the religiously minded is this idea of the soul as a model for humanity is because of the sense that a soul is seen as rather like an on-off, a binary. It's either there or it isn't. But such a mental model is very poor map for conscious experience. Foetuses aren't conscious, not in the way people are. And if you have a -- something -- that isn't and has never been conscious, trying to lump it into the same category as a walking talking person is really quite problematic. Ultimately the being-with-a-soul argument pervades this debate even to the extent that people who do not believe in souls end up thinking in unscientific ways about it. A person doesn't suddenly go from not existing to existing in a moment. It happens gradually and one of the biggest inflection points in that curve-of-becoming is at birth.
And as almost all scientists agree human life, consciousness as well as ability to feel pain starts from 24 weeks.
Be assured we will fight you secular liberals with such gross disrespect for human life you would abort up to birth every step of the way.
Subcortical responses to stimuli are not enough to demonstrate suffering.
A foetus isn't conscious. By 28 weeks it has the physical structure that could give rise to consiousness, but that doesn't mean it is. It simply isn't conscious.
They aren't enough to demonstrate suffering for your ideological, ultra liberal agenda.
For you wish to advocate baby murder so there can be abortion on demand until birth
"baby murder" is an emotive attack, but worse than that, it begs the question. You want to call a foetus a baby because it answers the question about whether it's wrong to terminate it.
Since it's always impossible to get agreement on when something should be called a "baby", let me ask you this instead: when does a foetus stop being a foetus?
No it is precisely what you advocate. Baby murder. Certainly by the time of the 27th week the foetus has already got most of the characteristics and size of a baby ready for birth
So at 27 weeks it's still a foetus?
No it has most of the characteristics of a baby and abortion at that point is murder
Except it’s not.
Except it is
Show me that statute.
Fetal personhood does not exist in English law; just your mind.
It does effectively by the 24 week rule, after which abortion becomes murder
No, it doesn’t. Not does it exist in your favoured guide to morality - see for example Exodus 21:22-25
Yes it does.
Taking life for life in Exodus if a pregnant woman is injured if anything only reinforces the point
Doctrinaire and ignorant. Not an unusual combination.
The biblical law draws a clear distinction between the life of a mother, or any other person - 'a life for a life' - and that of a foetus, which may be compensated by a cash payment.
Nope, only mentions her giving birth prematurely after being hit with no serious injury requiring a cash payment. Not a word in the actual biblical text there about cash payment for death of the foetus
Plus as King David tells God at Psalm 139:16 'Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; All its parts were written in your book Regarding the days when they were formed, Before any of them existed.'
"embryo" is, of course, a useful translation if you want to support your point (and it's weak support anyway, who cares what some book says?)
But what if it's not the best translation? After all, it wasn't written in English. So who has chosen "embryo"... and why?
The NIV reads: My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
So.. unformed body? Frame? (And by the way, what of these days being written beforehand... does that mean even a murder is preordained by God?)
The Hebrew, גָּלְמִ֤י, comes from גולם, meaing "golem" (yes, really!) meaning -an inchoate object, an amorphous mass -a dummy, a form -(mythology, Jewish folklore) a golem, a clay automaton -(entomology) a pupa -(colloquial) a fool, a clod, an oaf, an awkward person
Not very convincing any more, is it? But here's the final nail: your eyes saw my unformed body... all the days ordained for me... before one of them came to be That... that reads an awful lot to me like this "unformed body" or "embryo" is... before his numbered days. Doesn't sound like your God is counting the embryo stage.
'Unformed body' ie a human life created by God, David was of course anointed King by God, the reference to days being days on earth ultimately ending in that role, his human body already having been formed well before. Murder has nothing to do with it, that is down to human will, as free will has been present since Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge.
Oh it is very convincing and in the everlasting and eternal fight against ideological secular liberals like you we remain steadfast in upholding the word of God
What Actually Happened at Trump’s Arraignment? https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-actually-happened-trumps-arraignment ...It is raining, and I take cover under an overhang of the modern court building. A couple of young people come by and stand near me, chatting; I later learn they are interns for NBC, assigned to get into any line that may form near the entrance—and stay there. Some other folks, who turn out to work for ABC and the Washington Post, come over as well.
Before I know it or realize what’s going on, a media line for the hearing has begun to form around me, behind me to be precise, because other news organizations have determined that I am waiting in line. I try to explain that I am not in the line, much less starting the line. I suggest that we all agree that there is no line. But the line, having now decided that it is The Line, refuses to break up. And that means I can’t leave either. I am, after all, first in The Line—and nobody gives up a position at the head of The Line.
It is a very long night.
When I finally enter courtroom 13-3, 27 hours later, Trump is already seated at a table on the right-hand side of the room. Overhead, a warm white light appears to shine directly on the former president, casting his orange-blonde hair in a golden hue. He is, both literally and metaphorically, in the limelight. Yet it strikes me that Trump—the man who positioned bigness as a central issue of American politics (“hugely,” “bigly,” “little Marco”)—looks unmistakably small. ...
Almost certainly more important to the fate of the govt than Mad Nad
A brief thread on gilts. Apologies, it's an arcane subject. But the market in government debt, much more than the Bank of England, determines the interest rate homeowners and businesses pay. Today, the yield on 2 year money rose by 26 basis points. 1/6
Yes the Bank of England has admitted to have completely misjudged second round inflationary pressures.
Markets now expect base rates to increase from 4.5% to 5.75% by year-end (i.e. a rate increase at each remaining meeting, albeit it could be front loaded).
We're starting to get to levels where we'll see more people unable to meet their mortgage when they come off their fixed term.
The timing of interest rates peaking and the subsequent pain is terrible for Sunak.
One might disagree with almost everything he has to say, but there is no denying that Tucker has a massive audience in the US; likely second only to Joe Rogan in terms of the number of people watching, and way higher than mainstream news channels. 11m hits in six hours for this one (although Twitter videos often autoplay, so hit count will be higher than a comparable Youtube video).
Almost certainly more important to the fate of the govt than Mad Nad
A brief thread on gilts. Apologies, it's an arcane subject. But the market in government debt, much more than the Bank of England, determines the interest rate homeowners and businesses pay. Today, the yield on 2 year money rose by 26 basis points. 1/6
Yes the Bank of England has admitted to have completely misjudged second round inflationary pressures.
Markets now expect base rates to increase from 4.5% to 5.75% by year-end (i.e. a rate increase at each remaining meeting, albeit it could be front loaded).
We're starting to get to levels where we'll see more people unable to meet their mortgage when they come off their fixed term.
The timing of interest rates peaking and the subsequent pain is terrible for Sunak.
The last time this happened, less than a year ago, dozens of Tory MPs and journalists were calling on the government to resign. This time, not so much.
It’s not going to go anywhere, but Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee introduced articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on Monday, for the Burisma scandal and the border crisis.
It’s quite possible the Republicans are going to push this in the coming days, if only to distract from the Trump story. As with Trump’s impeachments though, any votes will be on party lines, so the sitting President doesn’t have much to worry about.
Almost certainly more important to the fate of the govt than Mad Nad
A brief thread on gilts. Apologies, it's an arcane subject. But the market in government debt, much more than the Bank of England, determines the interest rate homeowners and businesses pay. Today, the yield on 2 year money rose by 26 basis points. 1/6
Yes the Bank of England has admitted to have completely misjudged second round inflationary pressures.
Markets now expect base rates to increase from 4.5% to 5.75% by year-end (i.e. a rate increase at each remaining meeting, albeit it could be front loaded).
We're starting to get to levels where we'll see more people unable to meet their mortgage when they come off their fixed term.
The timing of interest rates peaking and the subsequent pain is terrible for Sunak.
The last time this happened, less than a year ago, dozens of Tory MPs and journalists were calling on the government to resign. This time, not so much.
Last time was much, much quicker and in response to government policy.
This time is a repricing of how high interest rates will need to go to get inflation back under control.
If anyone should be resigning it should be Bailey who has been consistently behind the curve.
One might disagree with almost everything he has to say, but there is no denying that Tucker has a massive audience in the US; likely second only to Joe Rogan in terms of the number of people watching, and way higher than mainstream news channels. 11m hits in six hours for this one (although Twitter videos often autoplay, so hit count will be higher than a comparable Youtube video).
IMV the issue with both Rogan and Carlson is that they are entertainers. They are there to entertain - which is one reason why their audiences are so large. Yet they present themselves as truthtellers (or truthseekers), and far too many idiots assume that what they're saying is the truth, rather than entertainment.
Imagine the Top Gear crew presenting a 'news' program.
One might disagree with almost everything he has to say, but there is no denying that Tucker has a massive audience in the US; likely second only to Joe Rogan in terms of the number of people watching, and way higher than mainstream news channels. 11m hits in six hours for this one (although Twitter videos often autoplay, so hit count will be higher than a comparable Youtube video).
IMV the issue with both Rogan and Carlson is that they are entertainers. They are there to entertain - which is one reason why their audiences are so large. Yet they present themselves as truthtellers (or truthseekers), and far too many idiots assume that what they're saying is the truth, rather than entertainment.
Imagine the Top Gear crew presenting a 'news' program.
That’s very true. The problem in the US is that the news programming itself is so rubbish and hyper-partisan, that for more than a decade Jon Stewart (a comedian) was the best source of impartial news on TV. The cable news channels still run opinion shows all evening, rather than hard news shows.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
The concept of pain is a tricky one, and I think the religiously motivated tend to make unjustified assumptions about how early a foetus is capable of pain. The external evidence about nerve growth and stimulus response tells one story, but similar stimulus-response experiments can lead people to surprising (and wrong) conclusions about insects and plants feeling "pain". The difficulty we have to overcome is the tendency to anthropomorphise physical responses and assume our internal experience is a good model. It usually isn't. Human conscious experience is not the same as that which would be "experienced" by a fly, a fig, or a foetus. We know that foetuses are endogenously sedated, and anybody here who has experienced "pain" under sedation will know it's a curious experience and certainly not, in my experience at least, deserving of the label "suffering".
Part of the problem for the religiously minded is this idea of the soul as a model for humanity is because of the sense that a soul is seen as rather like an on-off, a binary. It's either there or it isn't. But such a mental model is very poor map for conscious experience. Foetuses aren't conscious, not in the way people are. And if you have a -- something -- that isn't and has never been conscious, trying to lump it into the same category as a walking talking person is really quite problematic. Ultimately the being-with-a-soul argument pervades this debate even to the extent that people who do not believe in souls end up thinking in unscientific ways about it. A person doesn't suddenly go from not existing to existing in a moment. It happens gradually and one of the biggest inflection points in that curve-of-becoming is at birth.
And as almost all scientists agree human life, consciousness as well as ability to feel pain starts from 24 weeks.
Be assured we will fight you secular liberals with such gross disrespect for human life you would abort up to birth every step of the way.
This is not true.
I think most scientists would say that gametes are living cells, so there is a continuum of life from adult to gamete to zygote to foetus to baby. "Life" doesn't start at 24 weeks. But lots of things are living: bacteria, amoeba, mosquitoes, cabbages. What is living isn't particularly important to the ethical debate.
I think most scientists would shy away from claims as to when consciousness begins. That's a hugely complicated question. There are brain structures associated with consciousness that develop around 24-28 weeks, so that's a possible lower limit for consciousness, but most scientists would couch that with a lot of caveats. But animals have some degree of consciousness and we don't give them many rights, so the ethical debate is more complicated than finding a simple cut-off for consciousness anyway. Because there isn't a simple cut-off for consciousness: it's something that develops over time, through to maybe 18 months post-birth.
The ability to feel pain is... guess what? Complicated. Yes, there are brain structures around 24-28 weeks that may be necessary, although other parts of the system are developed much earlier. We're not quite certain. So, with caveats, maybe we could say the cut-off is around 24 weeks. But, again, animals can feel pain and we don't give them many rights, so the ethical debate is more complicated than finding a simple cut-off for pain.
Science is complicated. Legislation often has to be somewhat simpler and I'm not saying 24 weeks isn't a good cut-off for legislative purposes. I note 90% of abortions are done before 12 weeks. I also note that the demand for post-24 week abortions is very small and tends to involve very difficult and complicated cases.
We use stun guns before we kill animals.
And even them the fact we kill animals for food is no argument for legalising murder
Almost certainly more important to the fate of the govt than Mad Nad
A brief thread on gilts. Apologies, it's an arcane subject. But the market in government debt, much more than the Bank of England, determines the interest rate homeowners and businesses pay. Today, the yield on 2 year money rose by 26 basis points. 1/6
Yes the Bank of England has admitted to have completely misjudged second round inflationary pressures.
Markets now expect base rates to increase from 4.5% to 5.75% by year-end (i.e. a rate increase at each remaining meeting, albeit it could be front loaded).
We're starting to get to levels where we'll see more people unable to meet their mortgage when they come off their fixed term.
The timing of interest rates peaking and the subsequent pain is terrible for Sunak.
Yes and no. The primary cause of inflation is not the money supply but import prices, thanks to Covid and Ukraine. At issue is raising interest rates to prop up the exchange rate because a falling pound makes imports more expensive, and not to reduce the money supply. The government's dilemma is that reducing the money supply makes recession more likely and also makes government debt repayment more expensive, as well as mortgages as you say.
Nothing to worry bout cos they definitely won't work.
It’s Russia basing nuclear weapons there - they are not handing over control. Not sure why it’s especially interesting - you know that Russia has nukes in Kaliningrad?
Why are the Welsh so insular and bigoted towards the English?
A rapper had his performance at an arts festival in Wales cancelled – because his lyrics were too English.
The Welsh musician Sage Todz, 29, boasts a large following of fans for his songs, which he performs in both Welsh and English.
He was set to showcase his music at the Eisteddfod festival which celebrates the Welsh language and culture through singing, art, composition, dance and instrumental events.
But his appearance was later cancelled after he refused to change his set – after being told his songs contained “too much English”.
A former Gowling WLG lawyer who shared intimate pictures with an 18-year-old apprentice has been struck off the solicitors’ roll.
Oliver Bretherton, 41, made national headlines after he admitted to exchanging WhatsApp messages and videos of a sexual nature with his junior colleague. This included a clip of himself masturbating and a request for her to send videos and pictures of her doing the same, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard.
The married lawyer, who qualified in 2007, also admitted to kissing the apprentice on one occasion but denied acting without integrity. He described it as a “consensual relationship” between “two willing adults who were engaged in a sexual relationship acting in a particular way”.
But the SDT heard that Bretherton took advantage of the young woman, known only as Person A, for almost two years.
Two other former colleagues also gave evidence against the former law firm director, with the tribunal hearing how he had apparently described one 23-year-old trainee as “hot” and “competing to be my favourite blonde,” The Law Society Gazette reports. Another apprentice, 21, said the lawyer had put ice cubes down the back of her dress and commented on her cleavage at a work party.
In May, the tribunal found 70 of the 76 allegations proved against him following a two-month hearing that will go down as one of the longest and most expensive in disciplinary history.
Speaking at the time, Gowling WLG said it was “appalled” by one of its former lawyer’s conduct and vowed to support the individuals who came forward with complaints against him.
A barrister has been jailed after trying to buy drugs from his clients.
Henry Hendron, who has represented a string of high-profile clients including the former MP Nadine Dorries, admitted two counts of intentionally encouraging or assisting the supply of class A drugs and a similar charge involving class C drugs.
He also admitted a charge of possessing a class A drug.
Messages on the 42-year-old’s phone revealed that he had asked to buy crystal meth and GBL from two former clients.
A hearing at Woolwich crown court in London was told that the lawyer was arrested last year outside Belmarsh prison after he had visited one client, Arno Smit.
A barrister has been jailed after trying to buy drugs from his clients.
Henry Hendron, who has represented a string of high-profile clients including the former MP Nadine Dorries, admitted two counts of intentionally encouraging or assisting the supply of class A drugs and a similar charge involving class C drugs.
He also admitted a charge of possessing a class A drug.
Messages on the 42-year-old’s phone revealed that he had asked to buy crystal meth and GBL from two former clients.
A hearing at Woolwich crown court in London was told that the lawyer was arrested last year outside Belmarsh prison after he had visited one client, Arno Smit.
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
Perhaps Dorries hasn't resigned because she isn't going to resign.
She only announced she was stepping down immediately because she had to do so to secure her gong. Except that there was no gong, so no need to actually step down from the Commons.
Under what circumstances would the Speaker allow her to make a personal statement? Lets hope he does because it could be fun - in the House she can say anything about anyone. And as we saw in her Heil piece, she has a lot to say.
A barrister has been jailed after trying to buy drugs from his clients.
Henry Hendron, who has represented a string of high-profile clients including the former MP Nadine Dorries, admitted two counts of intentionally encouraging or assisting the supply of class A drugs and a similar charge involving class C drugs.
He also admitted a charge of possessing a class A drug.
Messages on the 42-year-old’s phone revealed that he had asked to buy crystal meth and GBL from two former clients.
A hearing at Woolwich crown court in London was told that the lawyer was arrested last year outside Belmarsh prison after he had visited one client, Arno Smit.
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
I don't like her politics, and want the HoL abolished, but have a certain sympathy for her. There is something tragic about political suttee on the binfire of Johnson's career. He corrodes everything and everyone he comes into contact with.
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
I don't like her politics, and want the HoL abolished, but have a certain sympathy for her. There is something tragic about political suttee on the binfire of Johnson's career. He corrodes everything and everyone he comes into contact with.
The entire Johnson honours list should have been delayed further. He is about to be eviscerated by the standards committee. Tory apart by Brexiteer Tories for lying to the house over and over and over again. So his list should have remained parked.
Then after the committee report goes to the Commons, then look at the list. He wants to give gongs to who??? No bloody way.
Considering the people who made it through the scissors stage there remains a clear and rational argument that party DJ and not-his-daughter et al should also be removed as Nads apparently has been. The list brings Johnson, the corruption party, and the House of Sycophants even lower - if that is even possible,
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
His actions facilitated a gross injustice to be perpetrated on innocent victims, some of whom died before their innocence was finally confirmed and one of whom lost his home and job. He allowed a child abuser to go unpunished for longer than he should have and to make utterly groundless and horrible accusations. He sought to manipulate the criminal justice system and the police for political ends. His apology was wholly unequal to what he did. For an ex-DPP, of all people, to nominate him to the Lords was a disgrace. A black mark against Starmer.
Dorries is an entitled ninny. Though she does deserve some credit for going back to work as a nurse during Covid. She is a fool for putting any sort of trust in Boris, though. If only she (and many other Tories) had read this from September 2018 -
Anyway I am off shortly to see my GP to find out what is wrong with me. I know - an actual GP! It's quite exciting to see a real live one in the flesh at last. With luck the news won't be too ghastly. The day here is too nice to be spoiled.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
The concept of pain is a tricky one, and I think the religiously motivated tend to make unjustified assumptions about how early a foetus is capable of pain. The external evidence about nerve growth and stimulus response tells one story, but similar stimulus-response experiments can lead people to surprising (and wrong) conclusions about insects and plants feeling "pain". The difficulty we have to overcome is the tendency to anthropomorphise physical responses and assume our internal experience is a good model. It usually isn't. Human conscious experience is not the same as that which would be "experienced" by a fly, a fig, or a foetus. We know that foetuses are endogenously sedated, and anybody here who has experienced "pain" under sedation will know it's a curious experience and certainly not, in my experience at least, deserving of the label "suffering".
Part of the problem for the religiously minded is this idea of the soul as a model for humanity is because of the sense that a soul is seen as rather like an on-off, a binary. It's either there or it isn't. But such a mental model is very poor map for conscious experience. Foetuses aren't conscious, not in the way people are. And if you have a -- something -- that isn't and has never been conscious, trying to lump it into the same category as a walking talking person is really quite problematic. Ultimately the being-with-a-soul argument pervades this debate even to the extent that people who do not believe in souls end up thinking in unscientific ways about it. A person doesn't suddenly go from not existing to existing in a moment. It happens gradually and one of the biggest inflection points in that curve-of-becoming is at birth.
Well said.
To me the whole "24 weeks" cut-off is arbitrary and absurd. A bit like Sunday trading laws. A silly, messy compromise that doesn't really satisfy anyone but most people are content to live with because they'd rather not rock the boat and compromise just sounds reasonable.
To me logically birth is the inflection point as you say, so while I would find the idea of a 32 week abortion to be utterly horrible, I wouldn't make it illegal. Horrible things should not be unlawful. At approximately 37 weeks I believe the NHS could perhaps offer induction as an alternative, so that seems a reasonable cut-off, terminate the pregnancy but with a live-birth at that stage, but 24 is just a messy compromise. They're never going to voluntarily induce then.
I actually have more intellectual respect for people who want the practice outlawed altogether, than for the 24 week cut-off. At least they're intellectually consistent. I don't agree with them, but I can see where they're coming from much better.
The logic behind 24 weeks is that is the approximate age of viability.
At that point the child can live independently of the mother.
It seems a reasonable cut off point to say “at this point the child has rights as an independent human being”
There is nothing magical about passage through the birth canal that imbues any mystic rights
Neither magic nor mysticism exist, so nor should there be.
There certainly is something about a babies first breath that is a reasonable point to mark that as when it is born and life begins from there.
There is nothing magical about a babies first breath that justifies murdering a 38 week old baby
A 38 week old baby is a baby that was born 38 weeks ago.
Almost certainly more important to the fate of the govt than Mad Nad
A brief thread on gilts. Apologies, it's an arcane subject. But the market in government debt, much more than the Bank of England, determines the interest rate homeowners and businesses pay. Today, the yield on 2 year money rose by 26 basis points. 1/6
Listening to Trump’s bonkers speech from last night and reading Boris rants about his poor misfortune at being stabbed in the back I’m trying to work out if the pair of them really believe what they spew out or if they are just so completely cynical that they will say whatever they need to boost their own positions.
Maybe they started out cynical and became deranged.
Either way neither of them care about the consequences of their words undermining the countries they profess to love and they are both dangerous by virtue of cynicism or stupidity/derangement.
Strange that they both reached power around the same time and maybe they represent how the world of social media has changed politics so that all that is important is to get that lie running around the world as quickly as possible by as many believers as possible since considered thought has gone out the window.
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
His actions facilitated a gross injustice to be perpetrated on innocent victims, some of whom died before their innocence was finally confirmed and one of whom lost his home and job. He allowed a child abuser to go unpunished for longer than he should have and to make utterly groundless and horrible accusations. He sought to manipulate the criminal justice system and the police for political ends. His apology was wholly unequal to what he did. For an ex-DPP, of all people, to nominate him to the Lords was a disgrace. A black mark against Starmer.
Dorries is an entitled ninny. Though she does deserve some credit for going back to work as a nurse during Covid. She is a fool for putting any sort of trust in Boris, though. If only she (and many other Tories) had read this from September 2018 -
Anyway I am off shortly to see my GP to find out what is wrong with me. I know - an actual GP! It's quite exciting to see a real live one in the flesh at last. With luck the news won't be too ghastly. The day here is too nice to be spoiled.
On the scales of entitled in British Politics, I think she is on about 6.5 out of 10
Then again, there are some quite extraordinary egoists in politics.
I don’t see that she has been hard done by in any way. Promoted way above her talents and has had a quite long run in front line politics. She could easily, if she had any gumption, turn that into a very comfortable retirement involving little work and good pay. As many MPs do.
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
I don't like her politics, and want the HoL abolished, but have a certain sympathy for her. There is something tragic about political suttee on the binfire of Johnson's career. He corrodes everything and everyone he comes into contact with.
No - in politics you are either a leader, or pick a leader.
She chose… poorly.
And will end up with an excellent pension for life, and should be able make a fair bit of money in various “consultancy” roles, like other ex MPs. Hardly starving to death in a garret in Paris, Dickens style.
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
I don't like her politics, and want the HoL abolished, but have a certain sympathy for her. There is something tragic about political suttee on the binfire of Johnson's career. He corrodes everything and everyone he comes into contact with.
No - in politics you are either a leader, or pick a leader.
She chose… poorly.
And will end up with an excellent pension for life, and should be able make a fair bit of money in various “consultancy” roles, like other ex MPs. Hardly starving to death in a garret in Paris, Dickens style.
I think she’s quite wealthy from her book sales isn’t she? So hers will not be a bleak house.
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
I don't like her politics, and want the HoL abolished, but have a certain sympathy for her. There is something tragic about political suttee on the binfire of Johnson's career. He corrodes everything and everyone he comes into contact with.
No - in politics you are either a leader, or pick a leader.
She chose… poorly.
And will end up with an excellent pension for life, and should be able make a fair bit of money in various “consultancy” roles, like other ex MPs. Hardly starving to death in a garret in Paris, Dickens style.
I think she’s quite wealthy from her book sales isn’t she? So hers will not be a bleak house.
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
I don't like her politics, and want the HoL abolished, but have a certain sympathy for her. There is something tragic about political suttee on the binfire of Johnson's career. He corrodes everything and everyone he comes into contact with.
No - in politics you are either a leader, or pick a leader.
She chose… poorly.
And will end up with an excellent pension for life, and should be able make a fair bit of money in various “consultancy” roles, like other ex MPs. Hardly starving to death in a garret in Paris, Dickens style.
I think she’s quite wealthy from her book sales isn’t she? So hers will not be a bleak house.
Indeed, I doubt she'll fall on hard times.
Although if she keeps wittering on about London and Liverpool her Great Expectations will became A Tale of Two Cities.
And the whole lot definitely seems to be sketches by Bozza.
"The FT is reporting that Dorries might delay her resignation with the suggestion that she’ll try to cause the maximum problems as she can for Sunak."
In other words, there are Conservative MPs who are aiming to inflict maximal damage to the Consevative Party. Hardly fitting behaviour for a national parliament.
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
I don't like her politics, and want the HoL abolished, but have a certain sympathy for her. There is something tragic about political suttee on the binfire of Johnson's career. He corrodes everything and everyone he comes into contact with.
No - in politics you are either a leader, or pick a leader.
She chose… poorly.
And will end up with an excellent pension for life, and should be able make a fair bit of money in various “consultancy” roles, like other ex MPs. Hardly starving to death in a garret in Paris, Dickens style.
I think she’s quite wealthy from her book sales isn’t she? So hers will not be a bleak house.
Indeed, I doubt she'll fall on hard times.
Although if she keeps wittering on about London and Liverpool her Great Expectations will became A Tale of Two Cities.
Oi! Pinching two books at once is not fair, you should pick which papers you prefer and stick to it
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
I don't like her politics, and want the HoL abolished, but have a certain sympathy for her. There is something tragic about political suttee on the binfire of Johnson's career. He corrodes everything and everyone he comes into contact with.
No - in politics you are either a leader, or pick a leader.
She chose… poorly.
And will end up with an excellent pension for life, and should be able make a fair bit of money in various “consultancy” roles, like other ex MPs. Hardly starving to death in a garret in Paris, Dickens style.
I think she’s quite wealthy from her book sales isn’t she? So hers will not be a bleak house.
Indeed, I doubt she'll fall on hard times.
Although if she keeps wittering on about London and Liverpool her Great Expectations will became A Tale of Two Cities.
And the whole lot definitely seems to be sketches by Bozza.
I do wonder how much of the breaking of local Conservative councils will give up an opening to the Greens - not just in nabbing conservationist Conservative types, but also because for a lot of voters in certain seats it is more important to not elect a Conservative at all. This seat used to be a three way tie between LDs, Cons and Greens, has been held by LDs, Greens and Cons within the last 10 years (although it did recently have some boundary changes) and sits within a parliamentary seat that only flipped LD in 2019. In the all up local elections in '22 the Cons went from 30 something councillors to 4 or 5. And within one election cycle the Greens have gone from 1 councillor to 3, with one of those being in the same ward as the LD leader of the council (although he wasn't the LD candidate up for re-election).
I think we could see a big surge of Green Party councillors in the coming years - especially as Starmer seems to be moving more to the right and the Conservatives do not seem to be course correcting to the centre a la Cameron.
Two teenage boys were riding a Sur Ron electric motorbike.
This bike had been purchased for one of the boys by his parents, although it should not have been.
It requires a moped licence to ride, which he didn't have.
It also needs to be insured and licenced, which it wasn't.
While riding it you need to have protective gear on, which they didn't.
It was ridden, inter alia, the wrong way round a roundabout and down a public footpath that motor vehicles are banned from at a speed in excess of the speed limit.
It was at one point followed by a police van, but at this moment there is little evidence to suggest the van was actually pursuing it (e,g. No lights or siren).
The boys then proceeded to ride at high pace and crashed into something, which tragically resulted in their deaths. Which is why we have all these regulations.
How is this the police's fault? Because from where I'm sitting it looks like (a) the boys' fault and (b) the parents' fault. If they'd actually obeyed the safety laws which they may now realise are there for a good reason, there wouldn't have been a problem.
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
His actions facilitated a gross injustice to be perpetrated on innocent victims, some of whom died before their innocence was finally confirmed and one of whom lost his home and job. He allowed a child abuser to go unpunished for longer than he should have and to make utterly groundless and horrible accusations. He sought to manipulate the criminal justice system and the police for political ends. His apology was wholly unequal to what he did. For an ex-DPP, of all people, to nominate him to the Lords was a disgrace. A black mark against Starmer.
Dorries is an entitled ninny. Though she does deserve some credit for going back to work as a nurse during Covid. She is a fool for putting any sort of trust in Boris, though. If only she (and many other Tories) had read this from September 2018 -
Anyway I am off shortly to see my GP to find out what is wrong with me. I know - an actual GP! It's quite exciting to see a real live one in the flesh at last. With luck the news won't be too ghastly. The day here is too nice to be spoiled.
On the scales of entitled in British Politics, I think she is on about 6.5 out of 10
Then again, there are some quite extraordinary egoists in politics.
I don’t see that she has been hard done by in any way. Promoted way above her talents and has had a quite long run in front line politics. She could easily, if she had any gumption, turn that into a very comfortable retirement involving little work and good pay. As many MPs do.
TBF some ofi her pension will stem from her nursing career. (I wonder, incidentally, if MPs can transfer existing pensions into their Parliamentary one, and whether the Parliamentary pensions are RPI or CPI linked ...). But that will only serve to trigger some of the Tories and NHS- and public employee-haters on here.
Almost certainly more important to the fate of the govt than Mad Nad
A brief thread on gilts. Apologies, it's an arcane subject. But the market in government debt, much more than the Bank of England, determines the interest rate homeowners and businesses pay. Today, the yield on 2 year money rose by 26 basis points. 1/6
Gilt rates are higher now under Rishi and Hunt than they were when people turned hysterical about them against Truss and Kwasi.
In fact, since inflation is lower now than in September or October last year, real rates, which are what matters, are considerably higher. But funnily enough that's never mentioned...
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
I don't like her politics, and want the HoL abolished, but have a certain sympathy for her. There is something tragic about political suttee on the binfire of Johnson's career. He corrodes everything and everyone he comes into contact with.
No - in politics you are either a leader, or pick a leader.
She chose… poorly.
And will end up with an excellent pension for life, and should be able make a fair bit of money in various “consultancy” roles, like other ex MPs. Hardly starving to death in a garret in Paris, Dickens style.
I think she’s quite wealthy from her book sales isn’t she? So hers will not be a bleak house.
Indeed, I doubt she'll fall on hard times.
Although if she keeps wittering on about London and Liverpool her Great Expectations will became A Tale of Two Cities.
Oi! Pinching two books at once is not fair, you should pick which papers you prefer and stick to it
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
The concept of pain is a tricky one, and I think the religiously motivated tend to make unjustified assumptions about how early a foetus is capable of pain. The external evidence about nerve growth and stimulus response tells one story, but similar stimulus-response experiments can lead people to surprising (and wrong) conclusions about insects and plants feeling "pain". The difficulty we have to overcome is the tendency to anthropomorphise physical responses and assume our internal experience is a good model. It usually isn't. Human conscious experience is not the same as that which would be "experienced" by a fly, a fig, or a foetus. We know that foetuses are endogenously sedated, and anybody here who has experienced "pain" under sedation will know it's a curious experience and certainly not, in my experience at least, deserving of the label "suffering".
Part of the problem for the religiously minded is this idea of the soul as a model for humanity is because of the sense that a soul is seen as rather like an on-off, a binary. It's either there or it isn't. But such a mental model is very poor map for conscious experience. Foetuses aren't conscious, not in the way people are. And if you have a -- something -- that isn't and has never been conscious, trying to lump it into the same category as a walking talking person is really quite problematic. Ultimately the being-with-a-soul argument pervades this debate even to the extent that people who do not believe in souls end up thinking in unscientific ways about it. A person doesn't suddenly go from not existing to existing in a moment. It happens gradually and one of the biggest inflection points in that curve-of-becoming is at birth.
Well said.
To me the whole "24 weeks" cut-off is arbitrary and absurd. A bit like Sunday trading laws. A silly, messy compromise that doesn't really satisfy anyone but most people are content to live with because they'd rather not rock the boat and compromise just sounds reasonable.
To me logically birth is the inflection point as you say, so while I would find the idea of a 32 week abortion to be utterly horrible, I wouldn't make it illegal. Horrible things should not be unlawful. At approximately 37 weeks I believe the NHS could perhaps offer induction as an alternative, so that seems a reasonable cut-off, terminate the pregnancy but with a live-birth at that stage, but 24 is just a messy compromise. They're never going to voluntarily induce then.
I actually have more intellectual respect for people who want the practice outlawed altogether, than for the 24 week cut-off. At least they're intellectually consistent. I don't agree with them, but I can see where they're coming from much better.
The logic behind 24 weeks is that is the approximate age of viability.
At that point the child can live independently of the mother.
It seems a reasonable cut off point to say “at this point the child has rights as an independent human being”
There is nothing magical about passage through the birth canal that imbues any mystic rights
Neither magic nor mysticism exist, so nor should there be.
There certainly is something about a babies first breath that is a reasonable point to mark that as when it is born and life begins from there.
There is nothing magical about a babies first breath that justifies murdering a 38 week old baby
A 38 week old baby is a baby that was born 38 weeks ago.
Nah, that's just HYUFD fiddling with definitions again - like suddenly a few Scottish skippers of large seagoing trawlers become the entire Scottish fishing trade, incoluding onshore processing, for the purposes of Brexit and Tory politics.
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
I don't like her politics, and want the HoL abolished, but have a certain sympathy for her. There is something tragic about political suttee on the binfire of Johnson's career. He corrodes everything and everyone he comes into contact with.
No - in politics you are either a leader, or pick a leader.
She chose… poorly.
And will end up with an excellent pension for life, and should be able make a fair bit of money in various “consultancy” roles, like other ex MPs. Hardly starving to death in a garret in Paris, Dickens style.
I think she’s quite wealthy from her book sales isn’t she? So hers will not be a bleak house.
Indeed, I doubt she'll fall on hard times.
Although if she keeps wittering on about London and Liverpool her Great Expectations will became A Tale of Two Cities.
And the whole lot definitely seems to be sketches by Bozza.
I think context is important here. I have certainly said 'Should be put against a wall and shot' and 'All xxx should be shot' when commenting about some individual or group of people who have done something stupid. It is a saying we use and not meant literally.
We should all be able to distinguish between this sort of stuff and real hate speech which is harmful.
It’s not going to go anywhere, but Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee introduced articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on Monday, for the Burisma scandal and the border crisis.
It’s quite possible the Republicans are going to push this in the coming days, if only to distract from the Trump story. As with Trump’s impeachments though, any votes will be on party lines, so the sitting President doesn’t have much to worry about.
You do know that there a Trump appointed special prosecutor still investigating the Bidens ? Thus far, there's no there, there.
Which rather puts into context his fact free whines about "Biden prosecuting me". When it's actually a grand jury of his fellow Floridians.
Liz was only ever an idea, badly executed (or rather with one glaring omission), and Rishi was only ever the safe pair of hands after the "disaster" that was Liz & Kwasi.
At some point the Cons are going to have to reclaim the economy safe in our hands mantle.
Why are the Welsh so insular and bigoted towards the English?
A rapper had his performance at an arts festival in Wales cancelled – because his lyrics were too English.
The Welsh musician Sage Todz, 29, boasts a large following of fans for his songs, which he performs in both Welsh and English.
He was set to showcase his music at the Eisteddfod festival which celebrates the Welsh language and culture through singing, art, composition, dance and instrumental events.
But his appearance was later cancelled after he refused to change his set – after being told his songs contained “too much English”.
Because it is a Welsh language festival and competition. Would be the same with an Esperanto competition. You can't expect to turn up to a rugger meeting and expect to play soccer.
"The FT is reporting that Dorries might delay her resignation with the suggestion that she’ll try to cause the maximum problems as she can for Sunak."
In other words, there are Conservative MPs who are aiming to inflict maximal damage to the Consevative Party. Hardly fitting behaviour for a national parliament.
Why are the Welsh so insular and bigoted towards the English?
A rapper had his performance at an arts festival in Wales cancelled – because his lyrics were too English.
The Welsh musician Sage Todz, 29, boasts a large following of fans for his songs, which he performs in both Welsh and English.
He was set to showcase his music at the Eisteddfod festival which celebrates the Welsh language and culture through singing, art, composition, dance and instrumental events.
But his appearance was later cancelled after he refused to change his set – after being told his songs contained “too much English”.
Because it is a Welsh language festival and competition. Would be the same with an Esperanto competition. You can't expect to turn up to a rugger meeting and expect to play soccer.
Do people turn up to Union matches expecting the younger and more useless cousin League?
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
I don't like her politics, and want the HoL abolished, but have a certain sympathy for her. There is something tragic about political suttee on the binfire of Johnson's career. He corrodes everything and everyone he comes into contact with.
No - in politics you are either a leader, or pick a leader.
She chose… poorly.
And will end up with an excellent pension for life, and should be able make a fair bit of money in various “consultancy” roles, like other ex MPs. Hardly starving to death in a garret in Paris, Dickens style.
I think she’s quite wealthy from her book sales isn’t she? So hers will not be a bleak house.
Indeed, I doubt she'll fall on hard times.
Although if she keeps wittering on about London and Liverpool her Great Expectations will became A Tale of Two Cities.
And the whole lot definitely seems to be sketches by Bozza.
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
I don't like her politics, and want the HoL abolished, but have a certain sympathy for her. There is something tragic about political suttee on the binfire of Johnson's career. He corrodes everything and everyone he comes into contact with.
No - in politics you are either a leader, or pick a leader.
She chose… poorly.
And will end up with an excellent pension for life, and should be able make a fair bit of money in various “consultancy” roles, like other ex MPs. Hardly starving to death in a garret in Paris, Dickens style.
I think she’s quite wealthy from her book sales isn’t she? So hers will not be a bleak house.
Indeed, I doubt she'll fall on hard times.
Although if she keeps wittering on about London and Liverpool her Great Expectations will became A Tale of Two Cities.
And the whole lot definitely seems to be sketches by Bozza.
Not Little Dorries?
'Little' in my experience Chimes better with Johnson.
Almost certainly more important to the fate of the govt than Mad Nad
A brief thread on gilts. Apologies, it's an arcane subject. But the market in government debt, much more than the Bank of England, determines the interest rate homeowners and businesses pay. Today, the yield on 2 year money rose by 26 basis points. 1/6
Gilt rates are higher now under Rishi and Hunt than they were when people turned hysterical about them against Truss and Kwasi.
Gilt rates are very largely influenced by base rates. When we have a decade of interest rates under 1% it is believable that this might carry on so bond rates are low. Now we have broken free of the very low interest rates future rates are much less certain so a 10 year gilt has to reflect that uncertainty. In other words we are somewhat back to normal although interest rates remain below inflation.
There were many negative consequences of super low interest rates. One was that most pension funds became technically insolvent because you need absurd amounts of capital to meet the pension obligations. The bounce back in interest rates has massively reduced the liabilities of pension funds which in turn reduces the need for large contributions from employers which should allow more investment instead.
It is wrong to look at gilts solely from the perspective of what the government has to pay on its debts.
I think context is important here. I have certainly said 'Should be put against a wall and shot' and 'All xxx should be shot' when commenting about some individual or group of people who have done something stupid. It is a saying we use and not meant literally.
We should all be able to distinguish between this sort of stuff and real hate speech which is harmful.
On the other hand not saying stuff in public that can be taken out of context and used against you is I would have thought one of the key skills required for a politician. If you can't stop yourself saying things like X should be shot, even in jest, you're probably not cut out for that line of work. This is one reason why I would never go into politics, BTW, since I quite enjoy saying outrageous things for humorous effect once in a while but I appreciate this is incompatible with a role in public life, especially these days.
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
I don't like her politics, and want the HoL abolished, but have a certain sympathy for her. There is something tragic about political suttee on the binfire of Johnson's career. He corrodes everything and everyone he comes into contact with.
No - in politics you are either a leader, or pick a leader.
She chose… poorly.
And will end up with an excellent pension for life, and should be able make a fair bit of money in various “consultancy” roles, like other ex MPs. Hardly starving to death in a garret in Paris, Dickens style.
I think she’s quite wealthy from her book sales isn’t she? So hers will not be a bleak house.
Indeed, I doubt she'll fall on hard times.
Although if she keeps wittering on about London and Liverpool her Great Expectations will became A Tale of Two Cities.
And the whole lot definitely seems to be sketches by Bozza.
Not Little Dorries?
Is Nad the Woman in White?
I did ask yesterday, when all the LD’s on here were ringing round the AirB&B’s in Mid Beds, whether she’d actually resigned yet.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
The concept of pain is a tricky one, and I think the religiously motivated tend to make unjustified assumptions about how early a foetus is capable of pain. The external evidence about nerve growth and stimulus response tells one story, but similar stimulus-response experiments can lead people to surprising (and wrong) conclusions about insects and plants feeling "pain". The difficulty we have to overcome is the tendency to anthropomorphise physical responses and assume our internal experience is a good model. It usually isn't. Human conscious experience is not the same as that which would be "experienced" by a fly, a fig, or a foetus. We know that foetuses are endogenously sedated, and anybody here who has experienced "pain" under sedation will know it's a curious experience and certainly not, in my experience at least, deserving of the label "suffering".
Part of the problem for the religiously minded is this idea of the soul as a model for humanity is because of the sense that a soul is seen as rather like an on-off, a binary. It's either there or it isn't. But such a mental model is very poor map for conscious experience. Foetuses aren't conscious, not in the way people are. And if you have a -- something -- that isn't and has never been conscious, trying to lump it into the same category as a walking talking person is really quite problematic. Ultimately the being-with-a-soul argument pervades this debate even to the extent that people who do not believe in souls end up thinking in unscientific ways about it. A person doesn't suddenly go from not existing to existing in a moment. It happens gradually and one of the biggest inflection points in that curve-of-becoming is at birth.
Well said.
To me the whole "24 weeks" cut-off is arbitrary and absurd. A bit like Sunday trading laws. A silly, messy compromise that doesn't really satisfy anyone but most people are content to live with because they'd rather not rock the boat and compromise just sounds reasonable.
To me logically birth is the inflection point as you say, so while I would find the idea of a 32 week abortion to be utterly horrible, I wouldn't make it illegal. Horrible things should not be unlawful. At approximately 37 weeks I believe the NHS could perhaps offer induction as an alternative, so that seems a reasonable cut-off, terminate the pregnancy but with a live-birth at that stage, but 24 is just a messy compromise. They're never going to voluntarily induce then.
I actually have more intellectual respect for people who want the practice outlawed altogether, than for the 24 week cut-off. At least they're intellectually consistent. I don't agree with them, but I can see where they're coming from much better.
The logic behind 24 weeks is that is the approximate age of viability.
At that point the child can live independently of the mother.
It seems a reasonable cut off point to say “at this point the child has rights as an independent human being”
There is nothing magical about passage through the birth canal that imbues any mystic rights
Neither magic nor mysticism exist, so nor should there be.
There certainly is something about a babies first breath that is a reasonable point to mark that as when it is born and life begins from there.
There is nothing magical about a babies first breath that justifies murdering a 38 week old baby
A 38 week old baby is a baby that was born 38 weeks ago.
I hesitate to get into this argument, because it's so emotive and febrile, but...
A family member used to work for BPAS, assessing women, carrying out abortions and dispensing the drugs. The vast majority of abortions are carried out before the foetus is viable outside the womb. She only had one case which was anywhere near the (I think 25 week?) limit.
Her view is that 25 weeks is too high - what exists at 25 weeks isn't a ball of cells or a foetus that can't survive outside the womb. You essentially have a baby that could more than likely survive outside the womb. If carrying out a surgical abortion at that stage or later, not one purely relying on chemicals, you are essentially - and I'm sorry for this so early in the day - dismembering a baby in order to remove it. Her personal view is that the limit should be dropped to something like 22 weeks.
I don't know the details of this tragic case but I do think aborting at that late stage is wrong. But that's my opinion. To say life begins at birth, given the capabilities of modern medicine, feels to me simplistic and naive.
I fully support a woman's right to abortion. I have no ethical qualms about it until it gets too late - and I acknowledge the current limit is a grey area and a bit of a compromise. But we have to draw the line somewhere, imperfect as that may be.
Why are the Welsh so insular and bigoted towards the English?
A rapper had his performance at an arts festival in Wales cancelled – because his lyrics were too English.
The Welsh musician Sage Todz, 29, boasts a large following of fans for his songs, which he performs in both Welsh and English.
He was set to showcase his music at the Eisteddfod festival which celebrates the Welsh language and culture through singing, art, composition, dance and instrumental events.
But his appearance was later cancelled after he refused to change his set – after being told his songs contained “too much English”.
Because it is a Welsh language festival and competition. Would be the same with an Esperanto competition. You can't expect to turn up to a rugger meeting and expect to play soccer.
Why not, the reverse literally happened when rugby was created?
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
I don't like her politics, and want the HoL abolished, but have a certain sympathy for her. There is something tragic about political suttee on the binfire of Johnson's career. He corrodes everything and everyone he comes into contact with.
No - in politics you are either a leader, or pick a leader.
She chose… poorly.
And will end up with an excellent pension for life, and should be able make a fair bit of money in various “consultancy” roles, like other ex MPs. Hardly starving to death in a garret in Paris, Dickens style.
I think she’s quite wealthy from her book sales isn’t she? So hers will not be a bleak house.
Indeed, I doubt she'll fall on hard times.
Although if she keeps wittering on about London and Liverpool her Great Expectations will became A Tale of Two Cities.
And the whole lot definitely seems to be sketches by Bozza.
Not Little Dorries?
Given the way this is dragging on, it is not shot using that some are taking a Jarndyce’d view of the matter. Jarndyce’d squared, to be honest.
Why are the Welsh so insular and bigoted towards the English?
A rapper had his performance at an arts festival in Wales cancelled – because his lyrics were too English.
The Welsh musician Sage Todz, 29, boasts a large following of fans for his songs, which he performs in both Welsh and English.
He was set to showcase his music at the Eisteddfod festival which celebrates the Welsh language and culture through singing, art, composition, dance and instrumental events.
But his appearance was later cancelled after he refused to change his set – after being told his songs contained “too much English”.
Because it is a Welsh language festival and competition. Would be the same with an Esperanto competition. You can't expect to turn up to a rugger meeting and expect to play soccer.
Why are the Welsh so insular and bigoted towards the English?
A rapper had his performance at an arts festival in Wales cancelled – because his lyrics were too English.
The Welsh musician Sage Todz, 29, boasts a large following of fans for his songs, which he performs in both Welsh and English.
He was set to showcase his music at the Eisteddfod festival which celebrates the Welsh language and culture through singing, art, composition, dance and instrumental events.
But his appearance was later cancelled after he refused to change his set – after being told his songs contained “too much English”.
Because it is a Welsh language festival and competition. Would be the same with an Esperanto competition. You can't expect to turn up to a rugger meeting and expect to play soccer.
Do people turn up to Union matches expecting the younger and more useless cousin League?
*grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
League has that big girl's blouse fifth tackle rule.
Whereas today is the 20th anniversary of this memorable quote, which sums up the brilliance of union.
If she doesn't resign then this is most embarrassing thing Nadine Dorries has done since she ate a kangaroo's bunghole live on TV.
A less influential version of Clare Short.
Tbh I do have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries who, after making her way in life without the old school tie advantages of, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has run smack into the reality that her political career is now over, that her peerage is just a pawn in the power game between Boris and Rishi, and that neither man cares about her.
I don't like her politics, and want the HoL abolished, but have a certain sympathy for her. There is something tragic about political suttee on the binfire of Johnson's career. He corrodes everything and everyone he comes into contact with.
No - in politics you are either a leader, or pick a leader.
She chose… poorly.
And will end up with an excellent pension for life, and should be able make a fair bit of money in various “consultancy” roles, like other ex MPs. Hardly starving to death in a garret in Paris, Dickens style.
I think she’s quite wealthy from her book sales isn’t she? So hers will not be a bleak house.
Indeed, I doubt she'll fall on hard times.
Although if she keeps wittering on about London and Liverpool her Great Expectations will became A Tale of Two Cities.
And the whole lot definitely seems to be sketches by Bozza.
Not Little Dorries?
Is Nad the Woman in White?
I did ask yesterday, when all the LD’s on here were ringing round the AirB&B’s in Mid Beds, whether she’d actually resigned yet.
Bright, sunny but breezy here this morning!
Sunak is certainly no longer Johnson and Dorries' Mutual Friend.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
The concept of pain is a tricky one, and I think the religiously motivated tend to make unjustified assumptions about how early a foetus is capable of pain. The external evidence about nerve growth and stimulus response tells one story, but similar stimulus-response experiments can lead people to surprising (and wrong) conclusions about insects and plants feeling "pain". The difficulty we have to overcome is the tendency to anthropomorphise physical responses and assume our internal experience is a good model. It usually isn't. Human conscious experience is not the same as that which would be "experienced" by a fly, a fig, or a foetus. We know that foetuses are endogenously sedated, and anybody here who has experienced "pain" under sedation will know it's a curious experience and certainly not, in my experience at least, deserving of the label "suffering".
Part of the problem for the religiously minded is this idea of the soul as a model for humanity is because of the sense that a soul is seen as rather like an on-off, a binary. It's either there or it isn't. But such a mental model is very poor map for conscious experience. Foetuses aren't conscious, not in the way people are. And if you have a -- something -- that isn't and has never been conscious, trying to lump it into the same category as a walking talking person is really quite problematic. Ultimately the being-with-a-soul argument pervades this debate even to the extent that people who do not believe in souls end up thinking in unscientific ways about it. A person doesn't suddenly go from not existing to existing in a moment. It happens gradually and one of the biggest inflection points in that curve-of-becoming is at birth.
Well said.
To me the whole "24 weeks" cut-off is arbitrary and absurd. A bit like Sunday trading laws. A silly, messy compromise that doesn't really satisfy anyone but most people are content to live with because they'd rather not rock the boat and compromise just sounds reasonable.
To me logically birth is the inflection point as you say, so while I would find the idea of a 32 week abortion to be utterly horrible, I wouldn't make it illegal. Horrible things should not be unlawful. At approximately 37 weeks I believe the NHS could perhaps offer induction as an alternative, so that seems a reasonable cut-off, terminate the pregnancy but with a live-birth at that stage, but 24 is just a messy compromise. They're never going to voluntarily induce then.
I actually have more intellectual respect for people who want the practice outlawed altogether, than for the 24 week cut-off. At least they're intellectually consistent. I don't agree with them, but I can see where they're coming from much better.
The logic behind 24 weeks is that is the approximate age of viability.
At that point the child can live independently of the mother.
It seems a reasonable cut off point to say “at this point the child has rights as an independent human being”
There is nothing magical about passage through the birth canal that imbues any mystic rights
Neither magic nor mysticism exist, so nor should there be.
There certainly is something about a babies first breath that is a reasonable point to mark that as when it is born and life begins from there.
There is nothing magical about a babies first breath that justifies murdering a 38 week old baby
So why does the God you worship cause so many miscarriages?
It’s rather unpleasant that you are trying to make a cheap debating point from something as tragic as a miscarriage
But they occur naturally when pregnancies are non viable
If your God exists, why doesn't He act to prevent them?
Because He sets the framework and doesn’t intervene at the point of demand.
It’s the same question - how can God allow earthquakes? They are a natural event based on movement of tectonic plates. I’m sure there is a good scientific reason why tectonic plates work in the way they do, but that’s beyond my Ken (I just have faith in science)
Why are the Welsh so insular and bigoted towards the English?
A rapper had his performance at an arts festival in Wales cancelled – because his lyrics were too English.
The Welsh musician Sage Todz, 29, boasts a large following of fans for his songs, which he performs in both Welsh and English.
He was set to showcase his music at the Eisteddfod festival which celebrates the Welsh language and culture through singing, art, composition, dance and instrumental events.
But his appearance was later cancelled after he refused to change his set – after being told his songs contained “too much English”.
Because it is a Welsh language festival and competition. Would be the same with an Esperanto competition. You can't expect to turn up to a rugger meeting and expect to play soccer.
Do people turn up to Union matches expecting the younger and more useless cousin League?
*grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
League has that big girl's blouse fifth tackle rule.
Whereas today is the 20th anniversary of this memorable quote, which sums up the brilliance of union.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
The concept of pain is a tricky one, and I think the religiously motivated tend to make unjustified assumptions about how early a foetus is capable of pain. The external evidence about nerve growth and stimulus response tells one story, but similar stimulus-response experiments can lead people to surprising (and wrong) conclusions about insects and plants feeling "pain". The difficulty we have to overcome is the tendency to anthropomorphise physical responses and assume our internal experience is a good model. It usually isn't. Human conscious experience is not the same as that which would be "experienced" by a fly, a fig, or a foetus. We know that foetuses are endogenously sedated, and anybody here who has experienced "pain" under sedation will know it's a curious experience and certainly not, in my experience at least, deserving of the label "suffering".
Part of the problem for the religiously minded is this idea of the soul as a model for humanity is because of the sense that a soul is seen as rather like an on-off, a binary. It's either there or it isn't. But such a mental model is very poor map for conscious experience. Foetuses aren't conscious, not in the way people are. And if you have a -- something -- that isn't and has never been conscious, trying to lump it into the same category as a walking talking person is really quite problematic. Ultimately the being-with-a-soul argument pervades this debate even to the extent that people who do not believe in souls end up thinking in unscientific ways about it. A person doesn't suddenly go from not existing to existing in a moment. It happens gradually and one of the biggest inflection points in that curve-of-becoming is at birth.
Well said.
To me the whole "24 weeks" cut-off is arbitrary and absurd. A bit like Sunday trading laws. A silly, messy compromise that doesn't really satisfy anyone but most people are content to live with because they'd rather not rock the boat and compromise just sounds reasonable.
To me logically birth is the inflection point as you say, so while I would find the idea of a 32 week abortion to be utterly horrible, I wouldn't make it illegal. Horrible things should not be unlawful. At approximately 37 weeks I believe the NHS could perhaps offer induction as an alternative, so that seems a reasonable cut-off, terminate the pregnancy but with a live-birth at that stage, but 24 is just a messy compromise. They're never going to voluntarily induce then.
I actually have more intellectual respect for people who want the practice outlawed altogether, than for the 24 week cut-off. At least they're intellectually consistent. I don't agree with them, but I can see where they're coming from much better.
The logic behind 24 weeks is that is the approximate age of viability.
At that point the child can live independently of the mother.
It seems a reasonable cut off point to say “at this point the child has rights as an independent human being”
There is nothing magical about passage through the birth canal that imbues any mystic rights
Neither magic nor mysticism exist, so nor should there be.
There certainly is something about a babies first breath that is a reasonable point to mark that as when it is born and life begins from there.
There is nothing magical about a babies first breath that justifies murdering a 38 week old baby
So why does the God you worship cause so many miscarriages?
It’s rather unpleasant that you are trying to make a cheap debating point from something as tragic as a miscarriage
But they occur naturally when pregnancies are non viable
If your God exists, why doesn't He act to prevent them?
Because He sets the framework and doesn’t intervene at the point of demand.
It’s the same question - how can God allow earthquakes? They are a natural event based on movement of tectonic plates. I’m sure there is a good scientific reason why tectonic plates work in the way they do, but that’s beyond my Ken (I just have faith in science)
So why did God intervene and free the Israelites from the bondage of slavery in Egypt but didn't intervene in the holocaust?
Why are the Welsh so insular and bigoted towards the English?
A rapper had his performance at an arts festival in Wales cancelled – because his lyrics were too English.
The Welsh musician Sage Todz, 29, boasts a large following of fans for his songs, which he performs in both Welsh and English.
He was set to showcase his music at the Eisteddfod festival which celebrates the Welsh language and culture through singing, art, composition, dance and instrumental events.
But his appearance was later cancelled after he refused to change his set – after being told his songs contained “too much English”.
Because it is a Welsh language festival and competition. Would be the same with an Esperanto competition. You can't expect to turn up to a rugger meeting and expect to play soccer.
Do people turn up to Union matches expecting the younger and more useless cousin League?
*grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
All right, I tackle this. Anyone who does so is missing a fast, often open, game and instead watching a slower, maul and scrum-infested game.
I think context is important here. I have certainly said 'Should be put against a wall and shot' and 'All xxx should be shot' when commenting about some individual or group of people who have done something stupid. It is a saying we use and not meant literally.
We should all be able to distinguish between this sort of stuff and real hate speech which is harmful.
its a pretty juvenile thing to say though for a deputy council leader so just on that he seems not up to the job
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
The concept of pain is a tricky one, and I think the religiously motivated tend to make unjustified assumptions about how early a foetus is capable of pain. The external evidence about nerve growth and stimulus response tells one story, but similar stimulus-response experiments can lead people to surprising (and wrong) conclusions about insects and plants feeling "pain". The difficulty we have to overcome is the tendency to anthropomorphise physical responses and assume our internal experience is a good model. It usually isn't. Human conscious experience is not the same as that which would be "experienced" by a fly, a fig, or a foetus. We know that foetuses are endogenously sedated, and anybody here who has experienced "pain" under sedation will know it's a curious experience and certainly not, in my experience at least, deserving of the label "suffering".
Part of the problem for the religiously minded is this idea of the soul as a model for humanity is because of the sense that a soul is seen as rather like an on-off, a binary. It's either there or it isn't. But such a mental model is very poor map for conscious experience. Foetuses aren't conscious, not in the way people are. And if you have a -- something -- that isn't and has never been conscious, trying to lump it into the same category as a walking talking person is really quite problematic. Ultimately the being-with-a-soul argument pervades this debate even to the extent that people who do not believe in souls end up thinking in unscientific ways about it. A person doesn't suddenly go from not existing to existing in a moment. It happens gradually and one of the biggest inflection points in that curve-of-becoming is at birth.
Well said.
To me the whole "24 weeks" cut-off is arbitrary and absurd. A bit like Sunday trading laws. A silly, messy compromise that doesn't really satisfy anyone but most people are content to live with because they'd rather not rock the boat and compromise just sounds reasonable.
To me logically birth is the inflection point as you say, so while I would find the idea of a 32 week abortion to be utterly horrible, I wouldn't make it illegal. Horrible things should not be unlawful. At approximately 37 weeks I believe the NHS could perhaps offer induction as an alternative, so that seems a reasonable cut-off, terminate the pregnancy but with a live-birth at that stage, but 24 is just a messy compromise. They're never going to voluntarily induce then.
I actually have more intellectual respect for people who want the practice outlawed altogether, than for the 24 week cut-off. At least they're intellectually consistent. I don't agree with them, but I can see where they're coming from much better.
The logic behind 24 weeks is that is the approximate age of viability.
At that point the child can live independently of the mother.
It seems a reasonable cut off point to say “at this point the child has rights as an independent human being”
There is nothing magical about passage through the birth canal that imbues any mystic rights
How do you mean "independently"? Newborn babies aren't independent. Probably even a fit and healthy 30 year old person isn't independent, not truly.
You could envisage a situation where a zygote can be extracted from the Fallopian tube of a woman shortly after conception and then grown in a machine, or implanted into another woman. So does that mean it's a child that has rights as an independent human? It doesn't seem so different that a newborn, still entirely dependent on others for its survival, being given up by its biological parents and nurtured by someone or something else.
All cut off points are somewhat arbitrary. The "24 weeks" is one that has common currency, and not for insignificant reasons, but it's really an even less magical and mystical moment than passage through the birth canal (or surgical opening!)
"Viability" is not really as obvious as it first seems.
Has a reasonable chance of surviving to adulthood. Below about 21/22 weeks it is very low.
Surrogacy doesn’t offer additional rights vs traditional pregnancy
And a zygote can’t be grown in a machine at present
"at present" is the issue here. I'd add to that "at present and here". You see, technology changes and is unevenly distributed. The purpose of my "you could envisage" was to get you to think about whether the law should track technological availability. Also think about whether that technology was available but only at huge cost. Who should pay for someone to fulfil their legal obligations? The woman? The state? What if the state cut back on the service but didn't change the law? What if some device were invented that could beam a foetus harmlessly out, Star-Trek style, into an incubator?
The problem with the viability argument is it's contingent on all these things. It's not a fatal flaw, but it's considerably murkier than it first appears.
The law should evolve with science and capabilities. Ignoring the ethical concerns with your straw man, as viability moves earlier than should the latest date for abortion. The principle is at what point does the child have an effectively independent existence from mother.
24 weeks is not an absolute position for ever and always
Why are the Welsh so insular and bigoted towards the English?
A rapper had his performance at an arts festival in Wales cancelled – because his lyrics were too English.
The Welsh musician Sage Todz, 29, boasts a large following of fans for his songs, which he performs in both Welsh and English.
He was set to showcase his music at the Eisteddfod festival which celebrates the Welsh language and culture through singing, art, composition, dance and instrumental events.
But his appearance was later cancelled after he refused to change his set – after being told his songs contained “too much English”.
Because it is a Welsh language festival and competition. Would be the same with an Esperanto competition. You can't expect to turn up to a rugger meeting and expect to play soccer.
Do people turn up to Union matches expecting the younger and more useless cousin League?
*grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
All right, I tackle this. Anyone who does so is missing a fast, often open, game and instead watching a slower, maul and scrum-infested game.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
The concept of pain is a tricky one, and I think the religiously motivated tend to make unjustified assumptions about how early a foetus is capable of pain. The external evidence about nerve growth and stimulus response tells one story, but similar stimulus-response experiments can lead people to surprising (and wrong) conclusions about insects and plants feeling "pain". The difficulty we have to overcome is the tendency to anthropomorphise physical responses and assume our internal experience is a good model. It usually isn't. Human conscious experience is not the same as that which would be "experienced" by a fly, a fig, or a foetus. We know that foetuses are endogenously sedated, and anybody here who has experienced "pain" under sedation will know it's a curious experience and certainly not, in my experience at least, deserving of the label "suffering".
Part of the problem for the religiously minded is this idea of the soul as a model for humanity is because of the sense that a soul is seen as rather like an on-off, a binary. It's either there or it isn't. But such a mental model is very poor map for conscious experience. Foetuses aren't conscious, not in the way people are. And if you have a -- something -- that isn't and has never been conscious, trying to lump it into the same category as a walking talking person is really quite problematic. Ultimately the being-with-a-soul argument pervades this debate even to the extent that people who do not believe in souls end up thinking in unscientific ways about it. A person doesn't suddenly go from not existing to existing in a moment. It happens gradually and one of the biggest inflection points in that curve-of-becoming is at birth.
Well said.
To me the whole "24 weeks" cut-off is arbitrary and absurd. A bit like Sunday trading laws. A silly, messy compromise that doesn't really satisfy anyone but most people are content to live with because they'd rather not rock the boat and compromise just sounds reasonable.
To me logically birth is the inflection point as you say, so while I would find the idea of a 32 week abortion to be utterly horrible, I wouldn't make it illegal. Horrible things should not be unlawful. At approximately 37 weeks I believe the NHS could perhaps offer induction as an alternative, so that seems a reasonable cut-off, terminate the pregnancy but with a live-birth at that stage, but 24 is just a messy compromise. They're never going to voluntarily induce then.
I actually have more intellectual respect for people who want the practice outlawed altogether, than for the 24 week cut-off. At least they're intellectually consistent. I don't agree with them, but I can see where they're coming from much better.
The logic behind 24 weeks is that is the approximate age of viability.
At that point the child can live independently of the mother.
It seems a reasonable cut off point to say “at this point the child has rights as an independent human being”
There is nothing magical about passage through the birth canal that imbues any mystic rights
Neither magic nor mysticism exist, so nor should there be.
There certainly is something about a babies first breath that is a reasonable point to mark that as when it is born and life begins from there.
There is nothing magical about a babies first breath that justifies murdering a 38 week old baby
A 38 week old baby is a baby that was born 38 weeks ago.
I hesitate to get into this argument, because it's so emotive and febrile, but...
A family member used to work for BPAS, assessing women, carrying out abortions and dispensing the drugs. The vast majority of abortions are carried out before the foetus is viable outside the womb. She only had one case which was anywhere near the (I think 25 week?) limit.
Her view is that 25 weeks is too high - what exists at 25 weeks isn't a ball of cells or a foetus that can't survive outside the womb. You essentially have a baby that could more than likely survive outside the womb. If carrying out a surgical abortion at that stage or later, not one purely relying on chemicals, you are essentially - and I'm sorry for this so early in the day - dismembering a baby in order to remove it. Her personal view is that the limit should be dropped to something like 22 weeks.
I don't know the details of this tragic case but I do think aborting at that late stage is wrong. But that's my opinion. To say life begins at birth, given the capabilities of modern medicine, feels to me simplistic and naive.
I fully support a woman's right to abortion. I have no ethical qualms about it until it gets too late - and I acknowledge the current limit is a grey area and a bit of a compromise. But we have to draw the line somewhere, imperfect as that may be.
One argument against eating meat is that people wouldn't be able to bring themselves to kill the animals that they eat or even be there when the animals are slaughtered.
Doctors have the right to say no to doing an abortion. I'm not sure you'd find any prepared to do a 30 something week abortion if it were legal. I'd like to know if @BartholomewRoberts would be happy to be present at one.
Almost certainly more important to the fate of the govt than Mad Nad
A brief thread on gilts. Apologies, it's an arcane subject. But the market in government debt, much more than the Bank of England, determines the interest rate homeowners and businesses pay. Today, the yield on 2 year money rose by 26 basis points. 1/6
Yes the Bank of England has admitted to have completely misjudged second round inflationary pressures.
Markets now expect base rates to increase from 4.5% to 5.75% by year-end (i.e. a rate increase at each remaining meeting, albeit it could be front loaded).
We're starting to get to levels where we'll see more people unable to meet their mortgage when they come off their fixed term.
The timing of interest rates peaking and the subsequent pain is terrible for Sunak.
The government should have cleaned house and sacked Bailey two years ago when the extent of his oversight failure at the FCA became clear. We need a proper inflation hawk at the BoE, Raghuram Rajan could probably be tempted into taking over. The failure to push interest rates up earlier and more significantly is really hurting now because we've got ourselves into an inflationary spiral with pay.
Why are the Welsh so insular and bigoted towards the English?
A rapper had his performance at an arts festival in Wales cancelled – because his lyrics were too English.
The Welsh musician Sage Todz, 29, boasts a large following of fans for his songs, which he performs in both Welsh and English.
He was set to showcase his music at the Eisteddfod festival which celebrates the Welsh language and culture through singing, art, composition, dance and instrumental events.
But his appearance was later cancelled after he refused to change his set – after being told his songs contained “too much English”.
Because it is a Welsh language festival and competition. Would be the same with an Esperanto competition. You can't expect to turn up to a rugger meeting and expect to play soccer.
Do people turn up to Union matches expecting the younger and more useless cousin League?
*grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
All right, I tackle this. Anyone who does so is missing a fast, often open, game and instead watching a slower, maul and scrum-infested game.
Does that work better when you take a line out?
No; no capital letter at the beginning of a sentence. And you a teacher!
Why are the Welsh so insular and bigoted towards the English?
A rapper had his performance at an arts festival in Wales cancelled – because his lyrics were too English.
The Welsh musician Sage Todz, 29, boasts a large following of fans for his songs, which he performs in both Welsh and English.
He was set to showcase his music at the Eisteddfod festival which celebrates the Welsh language and culture through singing, art, composition, dance and instrumental events.
But his appearance was later cancelled after he refused to change his set – after being told his songs contained “too much English”.
Because it is a Welsh language festival and competition. Would be the same with an Esperanto competition. You can't expect to turn up to a rugger meeting and expect to play soccer.
Do people turn up to Union matches expecting the younger and more useless cousin League?
*grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
All right, I tackle this. Anyone who does so is missing a fast, often open, game and instead watching a slower, maul and scrum-infested game.
Does that work better when you take a line out?
No; no capital letter at the beginning of a sentence. And you a teacher!
The full stop was meant to be deleted as well. I blame autocorrect.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
The concept of pain is a tricky one, and I think the religiously motivated tend to make unjustified assumptions about how early a foetus is capable of pain. The external evidence about nerve growth and stimulus response tells one story, but similar stimulus-response experiments can lead people to surprising (and wrong) conclusions about insects and plants feeling "pain". The difficulty we have to overcome is the tendency to anthropomorphise physical responses and assume our internal experience is a good model. It usually isn't. Human conscious experience is not the same as that which would be "experienced" by a fly, a fig, or a foetus. We know that foetuses are endogenously sedated, and anybody here who has experienced "pain" under sedation will know it's a curious experience and certainly not, in my experience at least, deserving of the label "suffering".
Part of the problem for the religiously minded is this idea of the soul as a model for humanity is because of the sense that a soul is seen as rather like an on-off, a binary. It's either there or it isn't. But such a mental model is very poor map for conscious experience. Foetuses aren't conscious, not in the way people are. And if you have a -- something -- that isn't and has never been conscious, trying to lump it into the same category as a walking talking person is really quite problematic. Ultimately the being-with-a-soul argument pervades this debate even to the extent that people who do not believe in souls end up thinking in unscientific ways about it. A person doesn't suddenly go from not existing to existing in a moment. It happens gradually and one of the biggest inflection points in that curve-of-becoming is at birth.
Well said.
To me the whole "24 weeks" cut-off is arbitrary and absurd. A bit like Sunday trading laws. A silly, messy compromise that doesn't really satisfy anyone but most people are content to live with because they'd rather not rock the boat and compromise just sounds reasonable.
To me logically birth is the inflection point as you say, so while I would find the idea of a 32 week abortion to be utterly horrible, I wouldn't make it illegal. Horrible things should not be unlawful. At approximately 37 weeks I believe the NHS could perhaps offer induction as an alternative, so that seems a reasonable cut-off, terminate the pregnancy but with a live-birth at that stage, but 24 is just a messy compromise. They're never going to voluntarily induce then.
I actually have more intellectual respect for people who want the practice outlawed altogether, than for the 24 week cut-off. At least they're intellectually consistent. I don't agree with them, but I can see where they're coming from much better.
The logic behind 24 weeks is that is the approximate age of viability.
At that point the child can live independently of the mother.
It seems a reasonable cut off point to say “at this point the child has rights as an independent human being”
There is nothing magical about passage through the birth canal that imbues any mystic rights
Neither magic nor mysticism exist, so nor should there be.
There certainly is something about a babies first breath that is a reasonable point to mark that as when it is born and life begins from there.
There is nothing magical about a babies first breath that justifies murdering a 38 week old baby
So why does the God you worship cause so many miscarriages?
It’s rather unpleasant that you are trying to make a cheap debating point from something as tragic as a miscarriage
But they occur naturally when pregnancies are non viable
If your God exists, why doesn't He act to prevent them?
Because He sets the framework and doesn’t intervene at the point of demand.
It’s the same question - how can God allow earthquakes? They are a natural event based on movement of tectonic plates. I’m sure there is a good scientific reason why tectonic plates work in the way they do, but that’s beyond my Ken (I just have faith in science)
So why did God intervene and free the Israelites from the bondage of slavery in Egypt but didn't intervene in the holocaust?
Not to mention poor old Sennacherib. God intervened regularly in the Old testament, according to the script. The God as test tube holder, keeping score remotely, is a slightly weird creation of the New Testament which is, on one view, incompatible with the loving and caring god we are then supposed to have.
While they say that abortions post-24 weeks would not be legalised, any woman who did so should not be subject to prosecution. Which effectively means you can terminate the pregnancy up to the point of birth and not suffer any (legal) consequences.
Quite right too.
Why would it be right? I'm interested in the logic. I am assuming it is a libertarian argument.
My argument would be that, given we know foetuses can feel pain etc in the womb past a certain point, allowing such procedures effectively represents the legalisation of torture.
Her body, her choice. Animals can feel pain, I still eat meat and wouldn't outlaw fishing.
Life begins at birth for me - and no woman should ever be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to carry.
If there is to be a weeks limit then I would set the limit as where the NHS would/could induce the baby, ie at full-term. If its too premature to induce the birth, then termination should be an option - however unpleasant that is.
The concept of pain is a tricky one, and I think the religiously motivated tend to make unjustified assumptions about how early a foetus is capable of pain. The external evidence about nerve growth and stimulus response tells one story, but similar stimulus-response experiments can lead people to surprising (and wrong) conclusions about insects and plants feeling "pain". The difficulty we have to overcome is the tendency to anthropomorphise physical responses and assume our internal experience is a good model. It usually isn't. Human conscious experience is not the same as that which would be "experienced" by a fly, a fig, or a foetus. We know that foetuses are endogenously sedated, and anybody here who has experienced "pain" under sedation will know it's a curious experience and certainly not, in my experience at least, deserving of the label "suffering".
Part of the problem for the religiously minded is this idea of the soul as a model for humanity is because of the sense that a soul is seen as rather like an on-off, a binary. It's either there or it isn't. But such a mental model is very poor map for conscious experience. Foetuses aren't conscious, not in the way people are. And if you have a -- something -- that isn't and has never been conscious, trying to lump it into the same category as a walking talking person is really quite problematic. Ultimately the being-with-a-soul argument pervades this debate even to the extent that people who do not believe in souls end up thinking in unscientific ways about it. A person doesn't suddenly go from not existing to existing in a moment. It happens gradually and one of the biggest inflection points in that curve-of-becoming is at birth.
Well said.
To me the whole "24 weeks" cut-off is arbitrary and absurd. A bit like Sunday trading laws. A silly, messy compromise that doesn't really satisfy anyone but most people are content to live with because they'd rather not rock the boat and compromise just sounds reasonable.
To me logically birth is the inflection point as you say, so while I would find the idea of a 32 week abortion to be utterly horrible, I wouldn't make it illegal. Horrible things should not be unlawful. At approximately 37 weeks I believe the NHS could perhaps offer induction as an alternative, so that seems a reasonable cut-off, terminate the pregnancy but with a live-birth at that stage, but 24 is just a messy compromise. They're never going to voluntarily induce then.
I actually have more intellectual respect for people who want the practice outlawed altogether, than for the 24 week cut-off. At least they're intellectually consistent. I don't agree with them, but I can see where they're coming from much better.
The logic behind 24 weeks is that is the approximate age of viability.
At that point the child can live independently of the mother.
It seems a reasonable cut off point to say “at this point the child has rights as an independent human being”
There is nothing magical about passage through the birth canal that imbues any mystic rights
Neither magic nor mysticism exist, so nor should there be.
There certainly is something about a babies first breath that is a reasonable point to mark that as when it is born and life begins from there.
There is nothing magical about a babies first breath that justifies murdering a 38 week old baby
So why does the God you worship cause so many miscarriages?
It’s rather unpleasant that you are trying to make a cheap debating point from something as tragic as a miscarriage
But they occur naturally when pregnancies are non viable
If your God exists, why doesn't He act to prevent them?
Because He sets the framework and doesn’t intervene at the point of demand.
It’s the same question - how can God allow earthquakes? They are a natural event based on movement of tectonic plates. I’m sure there is a good scientific reason why tectonic plates work in the way they do, but that’s beyond my Ken (I just have faith in science)
So why did God intervene and free the Israelites from the bondage of slavery in Egypt but didn't intervene in the holocaust?
Not to mention poor old Sennacherib. God intervened regularly in the Old testament, according to the script. The God as test tube holder, keeping score remotely, is a slightly weird creation of the New Testament which is, on one view, incompatible with the loving and caring god we are then supposed to have.
I think context is important here. I have certainly said 'Should be put against a wall and shot' and 'All xxx should be shot' when commenting about some individual or group of people who have done something stupid. It is a saying we use and not meant literally.
We should all be able to distinguish between this sort of stuff and real hate speech which is harmful.
On the other hand not saying stuff in public that can be taken out of context and used against you is I would have thought one of the key skills required for a politician. If you can't stop yourself saying things like X should be shot, even in jest, you're probably not cut out for that line of work. This is one reason why I would never go into politics, BTW, since I quite enjoy saying outrageous things for humorous effect once in a while but I appreciate this is incompatible with a role in public life, especially these days.
Agree. Same with me. One of the reasons I used to spend a lot of time and effort getting people elected, but would never stand myself, ever.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MI9MXKduq8
I’m going to extend. It’s too much fun
Riven by violence and drugs, France’s second city is descending into anarchy.
By Andrew Hussey" (£)
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2023/06/letter-from-marseille-lawless-metropolis-france
A brief thread on gilts. Apologies, it's an arcane subject. But the market in government debt, much more than the Bank of England, determines the interest rate homeowners and businesses pay. Today, the yield on 2 year money rose by 26 basis points. 1/6
https://twitter.com/nickmacpherson2/status/1668711895551946753?s=20
“We are very very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can’t wait.
“I hate him passionately, I blew up at Peter Navarro today in frustration. I actually like Peter. But I can’t handle much more of this.”
What Actually Happened at Trump’s Arraignment?
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-actually-happened-trumps-arraignment
...It is raining, and I take cover under an overhang of the modern court building. A couple of young people come by and stand near me, chatting; I later learn they are interns for NBC, assigned to get into any line that may form near the entrance—and stay there. Some other folks, who turn out to work for ABC and the Washington Post, come over as well.
Before I know it or realize what’s going on, a media line for the hearing has begun to form around me, behind me to be precise, because other news organizations have determined that I am waiting in line. I try to explain that I am not in the line, much less starting the line. I suggest that we all agree that there is no line. But the line, having now decided that it is The Line, refuses to break up. And that means I can’t leave either. I am, after all, first in The Line—and nobody gives up a position at the head of The Line.
It is a very long night.
When I finally enter courtroom 13-3, 27 hours later, Trump is already seated at a table on the right-hand side of the room. Overhead, a warm white light appears to shine directly on the former president, casting his orange-blonde hair in a golden hue. He is, both literally and metaphorically, in the limelight. Yet it strikes me that Trump—the man who positioned bigness as a central issue of American politics (“hugely,” “bigly,” “little Marco”)—looks unmistakably small. ...
And Leon chose to visit a haunted house instead.
Markets now expect base rates to increase from 4.5% to 5.75% by year-end (i.e. a rate increase at each remaining meeting, albeit it could be front loaded).
We're starting to get to levels where we'll see more people unable to meet their mortgage when they come off their fixed term.
The timing of interest rates peaking and the subsequent pain is terrible for Sunak.
Which reminds me, it’s Fathers’ Day this Sunday.
Marriages in China drop to record low despite government push
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/14/marriages-in-china-drop-to-record-low-despite-government-push
https://www.westernjournal.com/articles-impeachment-filed-joe-biden-kamala-harris/
It’s quite possible the Republicans are going to push this in the coming days, if only to distract from the Trump story. As with Trump’s impeachments though, any votes will be on party lines, so the sitting President doesn’t have much to worry about.
This time is a repricing of how high interest rates will need to go to get inflation back under control.
If anyone should be resigning it should be Bailey who has been consistently behind the curve.
Imagine the Top Gear crew presenting a 'news' program.
"They're not coming after me, they're coming after you and I just happen to be standing in their way and I will never be moving"
https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1668791799878393858
Meanwhile, he’s at 61% in a poll of likely GOP primary voters, with DeSantis second on 23%.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-voters-see-trump-as-best-shot-against-biden/
A rapper had his performance at an arts festival in Wales cancelled – because his lyrics were too English.
The Welsh musician Sage Todz, 29, boasts a large following of fans for his songs, which he performs in both Welsh and English.
He was set to showcase his music at the Eisteddfod festival which celebrates the Welsh language and culture through singing, art, composition, dance and instrumental events.
But his appearance was later cancelled after he refused to change his set – after being told his songs contained “too much English”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/13/sage-todz-banned-national-eisteddfod-english-welsh-festival/
Oliver Bretherton, 41, made national headlines after he admitted to exchanging WhatsApp messages and videos of a sexual nature with his junior colleague. This included a clip of himself masturbating and a request for her to send videos and pictures of her doing the same, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard.
The married lawyer, who qualified in 2007, also admitted to kissing the apprentice on one occasion but denied acting without integrity. He described it as a “consensual relationship” between “two willing adults who were engaged in a sexual relationship acting in a particular way”.
But the SDT heard that Bretherton took advantage of the young woman, known only as Person A, for almost two years.
Two other former colleagues also gave evidence against the former law firm director, with the tribunal hearing how he had apparently described one 23-year-old trainee as “hot” and “competing to be my favourite blonde,” The Law Society Gazette reports. Another apprentice, 21, said the lawyer had put ice cubes down the back of her dress and commented on her cleavage at a work party.
In May, the tribunal found 70 of the 76 allegations proved against him following a two-month hearing that will go down as one of the longest and most expensive in disciplinary history.
Speaking at the time, Gowling WLG said it was “appalled” by one of its former lawyer’s conduct and vowed to support the individuals who came forward with complaints against him.
https://www.legalcheek.com/2023/06/married-city-lawyer-who-shared-intimate-pictures-with-18-year-old-female-apprentice-struck-off/
Henry Hendron, who has represented a string of high-profile clients including the former MP Nadine Dorries, admitted two counts of intentionally encouraging or assisting the supply of class A drugs and a similar charge involving class C drugs.
He also admitted a charge of possessing a class A drug.
Messages on the 42-year-old’s phone revealed that he had asked to buy crystal meth and GBL from two former clients.
A hearing at Woolwich crown court in London was told that the lawyer was arrested last year outside Belmarsh prison after he had visited one client, Arno Smit.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/barrister-henry-hendron-jailed-for-trying-to-buy-drugs-from-clients-vdxm93ctc
She's just a Scouse Tom Watson.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/minister-nadine-dorries-criticised-for-tweeting-doctored-video-from-farright-account-attacking-keir-starmer
She only announced she was stepping down immediately because she had to do so to secure her gong. Except that there was no gong, so no need to actually step down from the Commons.
Under what circumstances would the Speaker allow her to make a personal statement? Lets hope he does because it could be fun - in the House she can say anything about anyone. And as we saw in her Heil piece, she has a lot to say.
Then after the committee report goes to the Commons, then look at the list. He wants to give gongs to who??? No bloody way.
Considering the people who made it through the scissors stage there remains a clear and rational argument that party DJ and not-his-daughter et al should also be removed as Nads apparently has been. The list brings Johnson, the corruption party, and the House of Sycophants even lower - if that is even possible,
His actions facilitated a gross injustice to be perpetrated on innocent victims, some of whom died before their innocence was finally confirmed and one of whom lost his home and job. He allowed a child abuser to go unpunished for longer than he should have and to make utterly groundless and horrible accusations. He sought to manipulate the criminal justice system and the police for political ends. His apology was wholly unequal to what he did. For an ex-DPP, of all people, to nominate him to the Lords was a disgrace. A black mark against Starmer.
Dorries is an entitled ninny. Though she does deserve some credit for going back to work as a nurse during Covid. She is a fool for putting any sort of trust in Boris, though. If only she (and many other Tories) had read this from September 2018 -
Anyway I am off shortly to see my GP to find out what is wrong with me. I know - an actual GP! It's quite exciting to see a real live one in the flesh at last. With luck the news won't be too ghastly. The day here is too nice to be spoiled.
Maybe they started out cynical and became deranged.
Either way neither of them care about the consequences of their words undermining the countries they profess to love and they are both dangerous by virtue of cynicism or stupidity/derangement.
Strange that they both reached power around the same time and maybe they represent how the world of social media has changed politics so that all that is important is to get that lie running around the world as quickly as possible by as many believers as possible since considered thought has gone out the window.
Then again, there are some quite extraordinary egoists in politics.
I don’t see that she has been hard done by in any way. Promoted way above her talents and has had a quite long run in front line politics. She could easily, if she had any gumption, turn that into a very comfortable retirement involving little work and good pay. As many MPs do.
She chose… poorly.
And will end up with an excellent pension for life, and should be able make a fair bit of money in various “consultancy” roles, like other ex MPs. Hardly starving to death in a garret in Paris, Dickens style.
And the whole lot definitely seems to be sketches by Bozza.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/two-police-officers-served-with-gross-misconduct-notices-after-teens-killed-in-cardiff-crash/ar-AA1cuFZc?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bf829581a12647899d41054ac43dedb0&ei=12#comments
In other words, there are Conservative MPs who are aiming to inflict maximal damage to the Consevative Party.
Hardly fitting behaviour for a national parliament.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1668762813127434241?s=20
I do wonder how much of the breaking of local Conservative councils will give up an opening to the Greens - not just in nabbing conservationist Conservative types, but also because for a lot of voters in certain seats it is more important to not elect a Conservative at all. This seat used to be a three way tie between LDs, Cons and Greens, has been held by LDs, Greens and Cons within the last 10 years (although it did recently have some boundary changes) and sits within a parliamentary seat that only flipped LD in 2019. In the all up local elections in '22 the Cons went from 30 something councillors to 4 or 5. And within one election cycle the Greens have gone from 1 councillor to 3, with one of those being in the same ward as the LD leader of the council (although he wasn't the LD candidate up for re-election).
I think we could see a big surge of Green Party councillors in the coming years - especially as Starmer seems to be moving more to the right and the Conservatives do not seem to be course correcting to the centre a la Cameron.
Two teenage boys were riding a Sur Ron electric motorbike.
This bike had been purchased for one of the boys by his parents, although it should not have been.
It requires a moped licence to ride, which he didn't have.
It also needs to be insured and licenced, which it wasn't.
While riding it you need to have protective gear on, which they didn't.
It was ridden, inter alia, the wrong way round a roundabout and down a public footpath that motor vehicles are banned from at a speed in excess of the speed limit.
It was at one point followed by a police van, but at this moment there is little evidence to suggest the van was actually pursuing it (e,g. No lights or siren).
The boys then proceeded to ride at high pace and crashed into something, which tragically resulted in their deaths. Which is why we have all these regulations.
How is this the police's fault? Because from where I'm sitting it looks like (a) the boys' fault and (b) the parents' fault. If they'd actually obeyed the safety laws which they may now realise are there for a good reason, there wouldn't have been a problem.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-65895061
We should all be able to distinguish between this sort of stuff and real hate speech which is harmful.
Which rather puts into context his fact free whines about "Biden prosecuting me".
When it's actually a grand jury of his fellow Floridians.
At some point the Cons are going to have to reclaim the economy safe in our hands mantle.
Not sure how this happens tbh.
God*
Aliens
Edit: Abortion
Things that are worth discussing on PB:
Just about everything else.
(*Although I bloody love it when @HYUFD goes off on a religious one and starts talking dirty.)
*grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
There were many negative consequences of super low interest rates. One was that most pension funds became technically insolvent because you need absurd amounts of capital to meet the pension obligations. The bounce back in interest rates has massively reduced the liabilities of pension funds which in turn reduces the need for large contributions from employers which should allow more investment instead.
It is wrong to look at gilts solely from the perspective of what the government has to pay on its debts.
I did ask yesterday, when all the LD’s on here were ringing round the AirB&B’s in Mid Beds, whether she’d actually resigned yet.
Bright, sunny but breezy here this morning!
A family member used to work for BPAS, assessing women, carrying out abortions and dispensing the drugs. The vast majority of abortions are carried out before the foetus is viable outside the womb. She only had one case which was anywhere near the (I think 25 week?) limit.
Her view is that 25 weeks is too high - what exists at 25 weeks isn't a ball of cells or a foetus that can't survive outside the womb. You essentially have a baby that could more than likely survive outside the womb. If carrying out a surgical abortion at that stage or later, not one purely relying on chemicals, you are essentially - and I'm sorry for this so early in the day - dismembering a baby in order to remove it. Her personal view is that the limit should be dropped to something like 22 weeks.
I don't know the details of this tragic case but I do think aborting at that late stage is wrong. But that's my opinion. To say life begins at birth, given the capabilities of modern medicine, feels to me simplistic and naive.
I fully support a woman's right to abortion. I have no ethical qualms about it until it gets too late - and I acknowledge the current limit is a grey area and a bit of a compromise. But we have to draw the line somewhere, imperfect as that may be.
IRMC.
Whereas today is the 20th anniversary of this memorable quote, which sums up the brilliance of union.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/jun/15/rugbyunion.newzealandrugbyunionteam
It’s the same question - how can God allow earthquakes? They are a natural event based on movement of tectonic plates. I’m sure there is a good scientific reason why tectonic plates work in the way they do, but that’s beyond my Ken (I just have faith in science)
Anyone who does so is missing a fast, often open, game and instead watching a slower, maul and scrum-infested game.
24 weeks is not an absolute position for ever and always
Doctors have the right to say no to doing an abortion. I'm not sure you'd find any prepared to do a 30 something week abortion if it were legal. I'd like to know if @BartholomewRoberts would be happy to be present at one.
This all lands at the feet of Bailey and the MPC.
To reduce the damage, will
@RishiSunak
surprise everyone with a snap election *this* October?
That's the chatter among some Tories and Labour too:
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1668876340454359041
But hey, whatever floats peoples' boats.
No, wait, wrong discussion.
Rishi Sunak wants to amend a vote on Boris Johnson's privileges committee report to prevent his party from completely collapsing
He wants MPs to just "note" the findings he misled parliament and not "accept" them...