Is Dorries having second thoughts? – politicalbetting.com

DougSeal said:

Why would a Tory try and create maximum problems for Sunak given where the Tories are in the polls? It’s sociopathic.

Pagan2 said:

QTWTAIN, you cant have a second thought unless you have a first one

MoonRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:

Bank of England to hoist interest rates to 5.75 per cent as experts warn UK inflation is out of control - City AM, 2023-06-13 10:22 AM

https://www.cityam.com/bank-of-england-to-hoist-interest-rates-to-5-75-per-cent-as-experts-warn-uk-inflation-is-out-of-control/

Poor Rishi, halving inflation is going well.

The actual write up beneath the headline doesn’t tell us anything new, but is still not as OTT than the very wrong headed headline. It definitely won’t go as far as 5.75, it probably won’t reach 5.5. Nor do the markets think we have lost control of inflation, if they did they would be acting already.

The truth in my opinion, Hunt and BoE want the markets to hear of such resolve, hear it at least 3 times a day, so probably slip the media these stories themselves. In my opinion inflation will be below 5 in the new year, so a success for Rishi Sunak. But a limited success in inflation at 5% doesn’t mean problems gone away, the next round of pay deals will need to be around 5% inflation.

This article seems to suggest Pay is responsible for underlying inflation going up. Truth is wage growth has been high. But there could also be other factors such as price gouging which Hunt and BoE don’t wish the media to flag up.

So many PBers, brains addled with too much freemarket ideology, post about UK better than expected growth and better than expected wage growth as though these things are always good in all situations. This is where PB free marketeers don’t understand the important subtleties of Thatcherism. Growth during overheating and high inflation is not great news if it means gains just getting eaten up by inflation so arn’t real gain at all.

If it sounds like I am calling quite a lot of PBs and their “growth and wage growth, lovely jubbly” posts stupid and naive in this situation, the truth is, I am.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

Gallowgate said:

Sandpit said:

So what do PB’s parents think of this judgement?

How much do parents know about these “charities” getting involved in sex education in schools?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/13/mother-legal-battle-school-share-sex-education-material/

“A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson.

“A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws.

“Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships.

“Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools.”

Why doesn't she just ask her daughter?

I was also wondering if any of this was set on a home learning platform.

If not, possibly it was an outside group giving a presentation.

In which case, wouldn't the request be better addressed to them?

Edit - the way the report is worded suggests it was: Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education,

So the school may not even have the materials.

Which sounds weird all by itself. Imagine the fun OFSTED would have with asking the head what goes on in lessons. "I don't know. That's contacted out and I don't even know what they are teaching."

Rather a lot of schools do that, through the Oak National Academy Programme.

Run by Ark Academies Trust and in my experience providing lessons of pretty poor quality.

The Ark Academies Trust was founded by, inter alia (checks notes) the current Head of OFSTED...

So I can't imagine she'd get that bent out by it.

But in this case it sounds as though:

1) A meeting was requested and the materials were shared;

2) The parent requested a copy of them to circulate among other parents, which was refused on copyright grounds;

3) She then made an FOI request which was refused on those same grounds;

4) She's now bitching about that.

Well, if she's unhappy, how about she contact the organisation and offer to buy a set for her campaign?

Of more import:

1) Why are schools contracting with these external organisations in the first place?

2) Why does the public sector sign contracts that favour commercial confidentiality over freedom of information?

(1) because teachers won't teach them because of all the guidelines in place

2) Because that's the way the law works. Do you suppose the MoD put the details of our much more expensive purchased weapons systems into public domain? Or indeed the DoH puts the formulae for various drugs on its website?

1) If teachers won’t teach lessons on certain subjects ‘because of the guidelines in place’, is that not indicative of a much wider problem in these areas?

2) a)No, there are national security issues with publishing military plans. b)Drug formulae are very much in the public domain already, as part of the patent process.

You are calling for is for *all* educational resources to be in the public domain. This will immediately hurt all private companies, organisations and charities that provide resources to schools. Their work will have to be taken over by the state, where necessary.

I never took you to be a communist...

Obviously I’m not a communist, I go along with the American idea, that work paid for with public money should be the property of the public. See nasa.gov for details.

Pay a company to develop lesson plans, but on the basis that the lesson plans are then public. It’s a job of work, rather than a perpetual revenue stream for the provider, that’s before we get on to the specific problems with sex ed.

Do you have any children in the UK public schools system? In which case, why are you so worked up about UK sex ed?

IME my son's school's been getting it right. Certainly better than back in my day.

Okay, I’ll give you that my immediate friend circle has a disproportionate number of parents who have removed their kids from the UK state education system.

My wider concern, is that the Western obsession with the woke gender stuff, at the expense of gaining knowledge and developing technology, is going to lead to Chinese (and possibly Indian) domination in the next few decades. We see this sometimes in the AI debates, but it’s a much wider cultural problem.

Albeit China has a below even Western average birthrate.

India however under Modi has an at least replacement level birthrate, couldn't care less about Woke and has strong National pride at all age levels unlike increasing Western self hatred, especially amongst the young. Indians are also increasingly educated and hard working and it is a democracy.

India is the nation to watch this century and has a fast growing economy too

Oh, sure, because Modi's anti-woke educational agenda is doing wonders for science and technology teaching in India... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/india-cuts-periodic-table-and-evolution-from-school-textbooks/

Indian growth rate 6% compared to a global growth rate of 2.7%.

The tech industry in India growing at an even faster 12% rate
https://peopleofcolorintech.com/front/india-is-one-of-the-fastest-growing-tech-hubs-in-the-world/

You are aware there’s something of a time lag between educational changes and their subsequent economic effects ?

Learning about the periodic table and evolution is not very relevant to the Tech industry

Learning about scientific fundamentals is not particularly relevant?

Next you'll be telling us that mathematics is not very relevant.

No, learning about the theory of evolution might be intellectually relevant (though some religious groups reject the theory) as might learning about the periodic table but they have no practical relevance to day to day work in the Tech industry

Having an understanding of the principles and mechanisms of evolution is actually applicable in some areas of machine learning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

None of that has much relevance to day to day work in most of the tech industry and of course the Darwinian theory of evolution is still rejected by some

On that logic, we shouldn't use satnav because reasons in Inverness ...

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6024800

HYUFD obviously has no clue about genetic algorithms yet claims to be a techie, I bet he is a nodejs developer

I am not a techie, I work in information management but not IT.

However even if I did genetic algorithms have very little relevance to day to IT work and India still has one of the fastest growing Tech industries in the world

They also have shit railway system!

Modi's much-heralded "high-speed" trains run along the 365 mile coast of Kerala in 8 hours (for example) - an average speed of just 45 mph!!

DougSeal said:

Why would a Tory try and create maximum problems for Sunak given where the Tories are in the polls? It’s sociopathic.

HYUFD said:

The longer the Mid Beds by election is delayed the better for Sunak, it is the most likely of the vacant seats to fall given the LDs are targeting it with their formidable by election machine

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

QTWTAIN, you cant have a second thought unless you have a first one

Totally confused. Didn't she resign? Doesn't she need to win an election before she can un-resign?

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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.

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:

Bank of England to hoist interest rates to 5.75 per cent as experts warn UK inflation is out of control - City AM, 2023-06-13 10:22 AM

https://www.cityam.com/bank-of-england-to-hoist-interest-rates-to-5-75-per-cent-as-experts-warn-uk-inflation-is-out-of-control/

Poor Rishi, halving inflation is going well.

The actual write up beneath the headline doesn’t tell us anything new, but is still not as OTT than the very wrong headed headline. It definitely won’t go as far as 5.75, it probably won’t reach 5.5. Nor do the markets think we have lost control of inflation, if they did they would be acting already.

The truth in my opinion, Hunt and BoE want the markets to hear of such resolve, hear it at least 3 times a day, so probably slip the media these stories themselves. In my opinion inflation will be below 5 in the new year, so a success for Rishi Sunak. But a limited success in inflation at 5% doesn’t mean problems gone away, the next round of pay deals will need to be around 5% inflation.

This article seems to suggest Pay is responsible for underlying inflation going up. Truth is wage growth has been high. But there could also be other factors such as price gouging which Hunt and BoE don’t wish the media to flag up.

So many PBers, brains addled with too much freemarket ideology, post about UK better than expected growth and better than expected wage growth as though these things are always good in all situations. This is where PB free marketeers don’t understand the important subtleties of Thatcherism. Growth during overheating and high inflation is not great news if it means gains just getting eaten up by inflation so arn’t real gain at all.

If it sounds like I am calling quite a lot of PBs and their “growth and wage growth, lovely jubbly” posts stupid and naive in this situation, the truth is, I am.

Also to note TSE, I would hate you to be of mistaken idea I’m trolling your posts to hit reply and tell you that you are wrong, and actually take pleasure from that.

For example, With this post from earlier, where it may appear I actually hit reply and told you that you are wrong, inflation will go under 5 allowing PM Sunak to claim victory and urge us to rejoice, the post is not really about telling you that you are wrong, it’s about explaining how you are in fact right about the subtleties of Thatcherism - it’s wrongly thought today as just being all about free markets, tax down, and pushing back the boundaries of individual freedom - but in reality there were situations where Thatcherism put taxes up, where windfall taxes were imposed, the x-factor of Thatcherism that made it work was not a slavish devotion to liberal economics, but it’s application at every moment within framework of good government - like when Lewis Hamilton says the ideal race pace is being on the right tyre for every moment, every single lap.

So when you call yourself a Thatcherite, and I call myself a Thatcherite, here is the definition we want people to understand isn’t it?

Thatcherism considered uniting the political faiths and colours of British society behind aspiration for all, a genuine all in it together approach, very much the opposite of populism. The very opposite of Thatcherism is to divide on the basis of defending privilege so just to sneak over the line and win elections - the defending privilege approach is exactly the malaise through every policy and every effort the Conservative Party has fallen into these days isn’t it. The Party which gave the world Thatcherism no longer appears to understand it, none of its leaders seem capable of passing the exam question: what is Thatcherism?

Are we in agreement? The need for real Thatcherism, and don’t get us wrong, don’t think of cosplay Thatcherism.

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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.

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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.

dixiedean said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

QTWTAIN, you cant have a second thought unless you have a first one

Totally confused. Didn't she resign? Doesn't she need to win an election before she can un-resign?

She hasn't officially resigned till she applies to the Chancellor (?) for the Chiltern Hundreds or Steward of somewhere.
She hasn't, so she hasn't.

dixiedean said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

The longer the Mid Beds by election is delayed the better for Sunak, it is the most likely of the vacant seats to fall given the LDs are targeting it with their formidable by election machine

I’ve just had an idea for a porn film. “Lib Dem Bi-Election Machine” about a well endowed centrist canvasser who can get votes both ways…writes itself really

Check out the swingometer on him!

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

QTWTAIN, you cant have a second thought unless you have a first one

Totally confused. Didn't she resign? Doesn't she need to win an election before she can un-resign?

She hasn't officially resigned till she applies to the Chancellor (?) for the Chiltern Hundreds or Steward of somewhere.
She hasn't, so she hasn't.

No, but...

I have today informed the chief whip that I am standing down as the MP for Mid Bedfordshire, with immediate effect.
It has been an honour to serve as the MP for such a wonderful constituency but it is now time for another to take the reins.

https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1667182498042740742?s=20

DougSeal said:

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:

Bank of England to hoist interest rates to 5.75 per cent as experts warn UK inflation is out of control - City AM, 2023-06-13 10:22 AM

https://www.cityam.com/bank-of-england-to-hoist-interest-rates-to-5-75-per-cent-as-experts-warn-uk-inflation-is-out-of-control/

Poor Rishi, halving inflation is going well.

The actual write up beneath the headline doesn’t tell us anything new, but is still not as OTT than the very wrong headed headline. It definitely won’t go as far as 5.75, it probably won’t reach 5.5. Nor do the markets think we have lost control of inflation, if they did they would be acting already.

The truth in my opinion, Hunt and BoE want the markets to hear of such resolve, hear it at least 3 times a day, so probably slip the media these stories themselves. In my opinion inflation will be below 5 in the new year, so a success for Rishi Sunak. But a limited success in inflation at 5% doesn’t mean problems gone away, the next round of pay deals will need to be around 5% inflation.

This article seems to suggest Pay is responsible for underlying inflation going up. Truth is wage growth has been high. But there could also be other factors such as price gouging which Hunt and BoE don’t wish the media to flag up.

So many PBers, brains addled with too much freemarket ideology, post about UK better than expected growth and better than expected wage growth as though these things are always good in all situations. This is where PB free marketeers don’t understand the important subtleties of Thatcherism. Growth during overheating and high inflation is not great news if it means gains just getting eaten up by inflation so arn’t real gain at all.

If it sounds like I am calling quite a lot of PBs and their “growth and wage growth, lovely jubbly” posts stupid and naive in this situation, the truth is, I am.

Also to note TSE, I would hate you to be of mistaken idea I’m trolling your posts to hit reply and tell you that you are wrong, and actually take pleasure from that.

For example, With this post from earlier, where it may appear I actually hit reply and told you that you are wrong, inflation will go under 5 allowing PM Sunak to claim victory and urge us to rejoice, the post is not really about telling you that you are wrong, it’s about explaining how you are in fact right about the subtleties of Thatcherism - it’s wrongly thought today as just being all about free markets, tax down, and pushing back the boundaries of individual freedom - but in reality there were situations where Thatcherism put taxes up, where windfall taxes were imposed, the x-factor of Thatcherism that made it work was not a slavish devotion to liberal economics, but it’s application at every moment within framework of good government - like when Lewis Hamilton says the ideal race pace is being on the right tyre for every moment, every single lap.

So when you call yourself a Thatcherite, and I call myself a Thatcherite, here is the definition we want people to understand isn’t it?

Thatcherism considered uniting the political faiths and colours of British society behind aspiration for all, a genuine all in it together approach, very much the opposite of populism. The very opposite of Thatcherism is to divide on the basis of defending privilege so just to sneak over the line and win elections - the defending privilege approach is exactly the malaise through every policy and every effort the Conservative Party has fallen into these days isn’t it. The Party which gave the world Thatcherism no longer appears to understand it, none of its leaders seem capable of passing the exam question: what is Thatcherism?

Are we in agreement? The need for real Thatcherism, and don’t get us wrong, don’t think of cosplay Thatcherism.

I Googled “Dutch Salute” today and I’ve lost my job, my marriage and there’s an arrest warrant issued for my arrest in 13 different countries. Thanks for that.

Beibheirli_C said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

QTWTAIN, you cant have a second thought unless you have a first one

Totally confused. Didn't she resign? Doesn't she need to win an election before she can un-resign?

She hasn't officially resigned till she applies to the Chancellor (?) for the Chiltern Hundreds or Steward of somewhere.
She hasn't, so she hasn't.

No, but...

I have today informed the chief whip that I am standing down as the MP for Mid Bedfordshire, with immediate effect.
It has been an honour to serve as the MP for such a wonderful constituency but it is now time for another to take the reins.

https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1667182498042740742?s=20

Obviously "Immediate effect" means an indeterminate time period rather than...... errrr.... now

Beibheirli_C said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

QTWTAIN, you cant have a second thought unless you have a first one

Totally confused. Didn't she resign? Doesn't she need to win an election before she can un-resign?

She hasn't officially resigned till she applies to the Chancellor (?) for the Chiltern Hundreds or Steward of somewhere.
She hasn't, so she hasn't.

No, but...

I have today informed the chief whip that I am standing down as the MP for Mid Bedfordshire, with immediate effect.
It has been an honour to serve as the MP for such a wonderful constituency but it is now time for another to take the reins.

https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1667182498042740742?s=20

Obviously "Immediate effect" means an indeterminate time period rather than...... errrr.... now

dixiedean said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

QTWTAIN, you cant have a second thought unless you have a first one

Totally confused. Didn't she resign? Doesn't she need to win an election before she can un-resign?

She hasn't officially resigned till she applies to the Chancellor (?) for the Chiltern Hundreds or Steward of somewhere.
She hasn't, so she hasn't.

No, but...

I have today informed the chief whip that I am standing down as the MP for Mid Bedfordshire, with immediate effect.
It has been an honour to serve as the MP for such a wonderful constituency but it is now time for another to take the reins.

https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1667182498042740742?s=20

Yes but.
That isn't resigning as an MP.

Benpointer said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

QTWTAIN, you cant have a second thought unless you have a first one

Totally confused. Didn't she resign? Doesn't she need to win an election before she can un-resign?

She hasn't officially resigned till she applies to the Chancellor (?) for the Chiltern Hundreds or Steward of somewhere.
She hasn't, so she hasn't.

No, but...

I have today informed the chief whip that I am standing down as the MP for Mid Bedfordshire, with immediate effect.
It has been an honour to serve as the MP for such a wonderful constituency but it is now time for another to take the reins.

https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1667182498042740742?s=20

Obviously "Immediate effect" means an indeterminate time period rather than...... errrr.... now

Lying Tories? Who'da thunk it, eh?

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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.

BartholomewRoberts said:

dixiedean said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

QTWTAIN, you cant have a second thought unless you have a first one

Totally confused. Didn't she resign? Doesn't she need to win an election before she can un-resign?

She hasn't officially resigned till she applies to the Chancellor (?) for the Chiltern Hundreds or Steward of somewhere.
She hasn't, so she hasn't.

No, but...

I have today informed the chief whip that I am standing down as the MP for Mid Bedfordshire, with immediate effect.
It has been an honour to serve as the MP for such a wonderful constituency but it is now time for another to take the reins.

https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1667182498042740742?s=20

Yes but.
That isn't resigning as an MP.

She's announced that she's announced that she's announcing that she'll do something.

She doesn't want to go to the Lords, she's aiming for Keir Starmer's job.

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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.

So you advocate murder of babies so extreme is your liberalism. We kill live animals well past birth for meat, that doesn't mean we should legalise murder of human beings.

Human life begins at its latest at 24 weeks as the vast majority of scientists and doctors agree, thank goodness you are no longer voting Conservative. I could not be in the same party as you if you hold such views

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

Good thread by Mark Hertling.

https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1668686297295101978
… The documents were likely extremely detailed intelligence assessments, w/ potential foe (& friendly) capabilities & weaknesses & US capabilities we would not want anyone - especially foes - to know.

Many have said, this isn't a document issue it's a national security issue. 3/


The takeaway.
… Yes, the President has declassification authority.

But that requires a process that then protects a LOT of people. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron.

And anyone who says someone can do it after leaving their leadership role is even more moronic. 10/.

What the documents issue shows for me is that most Republicans do not simply say that they think Trump won the last election (and that implicitly is therefore the legimiate President), they truly believe it.

Given that they appear to seriously believe a) Trump should have the same immunity from prosecution (even if he were guilty) as Presidents do (at least as far as the DOJ treats them), and b) that Trump still has all the rights, powers and privileges he did whilst he was President.

MoonRabbit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:

Bank of England to hoist interest rates to 5.75 per cent as experts warn UK inflation is out of control - City AM, 2023-06-13 10:22 AM

https://www.cityam.com/bank-of-england-to-hoist-interest-rates-to-5-75-per-cent-as-experts-warn-uk-inflation-is-out-of-control/

Poor Rishi, halving inflation is going well.

The actual write up beneath the headline doesn’t tell us anything new, but is still not as OTT than the very wrong headed headline. It definitely won’t go as far as 5.75, it probably won’t reach 5.5. Nor do the markets think we have lost control of inflation, if they did they would be acting already.

The truth in my opinion, Hunt and BoE want the markets to hear of such resolve, hear it at least 3 times a day, so probably slip the media these stories themselves. In my opinion inflation will be below 5 in the new year, so a success for Rishi Sunak. But a limited success in inflation at 5% doesn’t mean problems gone away, the next round of pay deals will need to be around 5% inflation.

This article seems to suggest Pay is responsible for underlying inflation going up. Truth is wage growth has been high. But there could also be other factors such as price gouging which Hunt and BoE don’t wish the media to flag up.

So many PBers, brains addled with too much freemarket ideology, post about UK better than expected growth and better than expected wage growth as though these things are always good in all situations. This is where PB free marketeers don’t understand the important subtleties of Thatcherism. Growth during overheating and high inflation is not great news if it means gains just getting eaten up by inflation so arn’t real gain at all.

If it sounds like I am calling quite a lot of PBs and their “growth and wage growth, lovely jubbly” posts stupid and naive in this situation, the truth is, I am.

Also to note TSE, I would hate you to be of mistaken idea I’m trolling your posts to hit reply and tell you that you are wrong, and actually take pleasure from that.

For example, With this post from earlier, where it may appear I actually hit reply and told you that you are wrong, inflation will go under 5 allowing PM Sunak to claim victory and urge us to rejoice, the post is not really about telling you that you are wrong, it’s about explaining how you are in fact right about the subtleties of Thatcherism - it’s wrongly thought today as just being all about free markets, tax down, and pushing back the boundaries of individual freedom - but in reality there were situations where Thatcherism put taxes up, where windfall taxes were imposed, the x-factor of Thatcherism that made it work was not a slavish devotion to liberal economics, but it’s application at every moment within framework of good government - like when Lewis Hamilton says the ideal race pace is being on the right tyre for every moment, every single lap.

So when you call yourself a Thatcherite, and I call myself a Thatcherite, here is the definition we want people to understand isn’t it?

Thatcherism considered uniting the political faiths and colours of British society behind aspiration for all, a genuine all in it together approach, very much the opposite of populism. The very opposite of Thatcherism is to divide on the basis of defending privilege so just to sneak over the line and win elections - the defending privilege approach is exactly the malaise through every policy and every effort the Conservative Party has fallen into these days isn’t it. The Party which gave the world Thatcherism no longer appears to understand it, none of its leaders seem capable of passing the exam question: what is Thatcherism?

Are we in agreement? The need for real Thatcherism, and don’t get us wrong, don’t think of cosplay Thatcherism.

You still haven't told us what you mean by "Dutch Salute"!

Dutch Salute theory in polling explained. Look for a gradual or even sudden rise for this trend across surveys.

For LLG frequently showing in the 60s, why wait till May 1st to work out how you are tactically voting, and tell pollsters something different till then - when you know today and can be right up front will the pollster?

Dutch Salute theory is based on HY being right about something he posted last week - in much of the blue wall the main challenge to the Tories are Lib Dem’s - so if it goes with current polling this degree of Labour voting will be many wasted votes in so many places and hand the seats to the Tories.

it’s no longer an If there’s going to be tactical voting to get the Tories out, With 60% LLG a great number will know exactly how to vote tactical a long time before the General Election.

However, this tactical voting is going to be massively regional - many telling pollsters today they will vote Lab, will start to tell pollsters Lib Dem instead. But they will do this in certain places, not evenly across the nation. In the Nationwide poll Labour will FALL - Labours lead over the Tories will FALL - all this with no extra Tory votes but Lib Dem’s on the rise.

This national polling, at first glance looking much more optimistic for the Tories, will utterly disguise what is really shaping up - the national polling picture cannot give us what will actually be going on - swing calculators based on average swing will slip woefully behind the huge variation in tactical vote between place to place, region to region, wall to wall.

Voters knowing in the coming months how they will vote tactically in the general election, simply becoming all up front with pollsters about their vote, and how tactical voting will be wildly different from place to place not showing in the nationwide polls, this explains Dutch Salute theory. What to look out for, what is causing it, and the added caution this builds into the NATIONAL POLLS, that, if I’m right, will if anything show Tories closing the gap to Labour, yet completely miss the tactical storm brewing.

Evidential evidence to evidently prove my theory? Last weeks Blue Wall poll where you would expect Lib Dem gain at Labours expense had lots, todays Red Wall survey where you would not expect much had none. The overall picture has a Dutch Salute on trend.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

She's obviously not thinking

A la Pagan2 I would have left it there.

Why use 4 words when 400 will do, that's my motto.

I have no strong feelings either way!

Malmesbury said:

DougSeal said:

Why would a Tory try and create maximum problems for Sunak given where the Tories are in the polls? It’s sociopathic.

Consider the "Starmer is a Tory" brigade. Some of them quite openly don't want That Kind Of Labour Party to win.

What they want is the purity of reducing the party to the People's Popular Front For The Liberation of Judea. And absolutely none of those People's Front For The Liberation of Judea - they're basically Romans.

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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.

All cut off points are arbitrary. Do we truly believe, for example, that a person goes from being unable to consent to sex at 15 years and 364 days, to being able to do so at 16 years and 1 day?

It seems to me that treating birth as the point at which one acquires human rights, compared to birth minus one day as being the point where one has none, is just as arbitrary.

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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?

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

dixiedean said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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.

Not all religions believe in a soul.

No, you're quite right. It did cross my mind to throw that caveat in there but honestly I was mostly aiming at the Christian extremism we get from HYUFD types but without it being quite so targeted so as not to be personal. Your correction to my imprecision is welcome.

It is you who are the extremist advocating abortion to birth and baby murder, a position just 1% of the population advocate

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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.

All cut off points are arbitrary. Do we truly believe, for example, that a person goes from being unable to consent to sex at 15 years and 364 days, to being able to do so at 16 years and 1 day?

It seems to me that treating birth as the point at which one acquires human rights, compared to birth minus one day as being the point where one has none, is just as arbitrary.

Looking back at the birth of my children, as well as thinking about all that happens with the birth, the last thing I would consider birth to be is arbitrary.

Birth is a joyous event. But, I'm still not seeing the ethical distinction between killing the newborn, and killng the about to be born.

Arguing for abortion up the point of birth is an argument for inhumanity, however logical it may seem to you.

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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

There's a world of difference between being potentially ready for birth and actually born.

Certainly by the 27th week the foetus would not be induced. Good luck going to the NHS at 27 weeks and requesting an induction or c-section with no other reason than the foetus is "ready".

Birth is the beginning of life, there's a reason why we consider someone's age to be 16 at 16 years after birth, rather than 16 years after conception, or 16 years after 24 weeks after the last period before conception.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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.

All cut off points are arbitrary. Do we truly believe, for example, that a person goes from being unable to consent to sex at 15 years and 364 days, to being able to do so at 16 years and 1 day?

It seems to me that treating birth as the point at which one acquires human rights, compared to birth minus one day as being the point where one has none, is just as arbitrary.

Looking back at the birth of my children, as well as thinking about all that happens with the birth, the last thing I would consider birth to be is arbitrary.

Birth is a joyous event. But, I'm still not seeing the ethical distinction between killing the newborn, and killng the about to be born.

Arguing for abortion up the point of birth is an argument for inhumanity, however logical it may seem to you.

It is completely inhumane I agree, but I don't see why it should be criminal for that reason.

I can't imagine any woman other than in the most extreme and most wretched of circumstances would want to do something so inhumane.

And if she, having weighed up the inhumanity of it and having felt the kicks etc still wants to do it, then I would regret the decision but think it should be hers and hers alone.

Unless or until the foetus is ready to be born, and I don't mean "theoretically if accidentally born could have a very slim chance of survival after spending months in a NICU", I mean "can be scheduled today for an induction or c-section".

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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

There's a world of difference between being potentially ready for birth and actually born.

Certainly by the 27th week the foetus would not be induced. Good luck going to the NHS at 27 weeks and requesting an induction or c-section with no other reason than the foetus is "ready".

Birth is the beginning of life, there's a reason why we consider someone's age to be 16 at 16 years after birth, rather than 16 years after conception, or 16 years after 24 weeks after the last period before conception.

No it is not the beginning of life, from the earliest stage of course human life does begin at conception and some would indeed ban all abortion on that basis.

However by 24 weeks most medics are agreed life can survive outside the uterus and there is therefore no doubt life has begun by that point and any abortion after that point is murder, simple as

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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?

Roger said:

nico679 said:

Absolutely disgraceful behaviour by Labour in the HOL.

My vote for them in 2024 is really going to be one of holding my nose . With Starmers new found Brexit zeal and their ridiculous over the top balancing the books mantra I’m finding it difficult to muster up any enthusiasm.

I want rid of the Tories and that’s it . But really I expected a bit more !

What happened in the HoL?

dixiedean said:

Consciousness doesn't even have an agreed definition.
Are you conscious when asleep? Or having surgery?

nico679 said:

Roger said:

nico679 said:

Absolutely disgraceful behaviour by Labour in the HOL.

My vote for them in 2024 is really going to be one of holding my nose . With Starmers new found Brexit zeal and their ridiculous over the top balancing the books mantra I’m finding it difficult to muster up any enthusiasm.

I want rid of the Tories and that’s it . But really I expected a bit more !

What happened in the HoL?

The Tories broke convention by using secondary legislation to bring back something the HOL had already voted against re protests . Essentially this means they can just ignore future votes against and bring things back in secondary legislation , the Tories are dismantling UK democracy . Labour then pathetically said they refused to support a fatal motion which would have stopped the Tories . Labour said it wasn’t proper to use a fatal motion in the HOL even though the Tories have already trashed convention. Labour really are deluded if they think the Tories would play fair in the future .

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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.

All cut off points are arbitrary. Do we truly believe, for example, that a person goes from being unable to consent to sex at 15 years and 364 days, to being able to do so at 16 years and 1 day?

It seems to me that treating birth as the point at which one acquires human rights, compared to birth minus one day as being the point where one has none, is just as arbitrary.

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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

There's a world of difference between being potentially ready for birth and actually born.

Certainly by the 27th week the foetus would not be induced. Good luck going to the NHS at 27 weeks and requesting an induction or c-section with no other reason than the foetus is "ready".

Birth is the beginning of life, there's a reason why we consider someone's age to be 16 at 16 years after birth, rather than 16 years after conception, or 16 years after 24 weeks after the last period before conception.

No it is not the beginning of life, from the earliest stage of course human life does begin at conception and some would indeed ban all abortion on that basis.

However by 24 weeks most medics are agreed life can survive outside the uterus and there is therefore no doubt life has begun by that point and any abortion after that point is murder, simple as

So a woman at 24 weeks can request an induction or c-section that day, since the foetus can survive outside the uterus? 🤔

A caesarean can be considered from 24-25 weeks yes
https://patient.info/pregnancy/labour-childbirth/caesarean-section#:~:text=After 24-25 weeks of,your baby than caesarean section.

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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

There's a world of difference between being potentially ready for birth and actually born.

Certainly by the 27th week the foetus would not be induced. Good luck going to the NHS at 27 weeks and requesting an induction or c-section with no other reason than the foetus is "ready".

Birth is the beginning of life, there's a reason why we consider someone's age to be 16 at 16 years after birth, rather than 16 years after conception, or 16 years after 24 weeks after the last period before conception.

No it is not the beginning of life, from the earliest stage of course human life does begin at conception and some would indeed ban all abortion on that basis.

However by 24 weeks most medics are agreed life can survive outside the uterus and there is therefore no doubt life has begun by that point and any abortion after that point is murder, simple as

So a woman at 24 weeks can request an induction or c-section that day, since the foetus can survive outside the uterus? 🤔

A caesarean can be considered from 24-25 weeks yes
https://patient.info/pregnancy/labour-childbirth/caesarean-section#:~:text=After 24-25 weeks of,your baby than caesarean section.

Only for emergencies if the mother or foetus is very unwell, not simply because the foetus is as you put it "ready".

Malmesbury said:

A

dixiedean said:

nico679 said:

Roger said:

nico679 said:

Absolutely disgraceful behaviour by Labour in the HOL.

My vote for them in 2024 is really going to be one of holding my nose . With Starmers new found Brexit zeal and their ridiculous over the top balancing the books mantra I’m finding it difficult to muster up any enthusiasm.

I want rid of the Tories and that’s it . But really I expected a bit more !

What happened in the HoL?

The Tories broke convention by using secondary legislation to bring back something the HOL had already voted against re protests . Essentially this means they can just ignore future votes against and bring things back in secondary legislation , the Tories are dismantling UK democracy . Labour then pathetically said they refused to support a fatal motion which would have stopped the Tories . Labour said it wasn’t proper to use a fatal motion in the HOL even though the Tories have already trashed convention. Labour really are deluded if they think the Tories would play fair in the future .

Yes but.
It'll be Labour using the precedent soon enough.

Edit:
NOT SOON ENOUGH.

Yes, indeed.

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Farooq said:

It's probably worthless drivel but I spent a fucking age typing it so here you go

FPT

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

The pro-choice lobby are now effectively lobbying for abortion up to the point of birth in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/calls-for-abortion-to-be-decriminalised-amid-row-over-jailing-of-uk-woman

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.

All cut off points are arbitrary. Do we truly believe, for example, that a person goes from being unable to consent to sex at 15 years and 364 days, to being able to do so at 16 years and 1 day?

It seems to me that treating birth as the point at which one acquires human rights, compared to birth minus one day as being the point where one has none, is just as arbitrary.

Point of order, it's 16 years and no days.