topcat(The most tip top) Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 7 hours ago, NotThePars said: banana must be back here as the feds are monitoring r/incels atm. You know that awkwardness when you laugh out loud at something on the internet and then someone asks what your laughing at but you can't really explain it because it would raise more questions That just happened 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 (edited) Anyway We've been through the horrible experience of my wife losing a pregnancy to an early miscarriage. And I know other couples that have been through the far, far more horrible experience of losing a newborn. I wouldn't dream of telling them that "we'd lost a child" as well and that our experiences were thus basically equivalent. Which would be the logical result of accepting the "pro-life" position that the fetus is a person. So I reject it as incompatible with being a decent human being Edited April 25, 2018 by topcat(The most tip top) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 10 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: Anyway We've been through the horrible experience of my wife losing a pregnancy to an early miscarriage. And I know other couples that have been through the far, far more horrible experience of losing a newborn. I wouldn't dream of telling them that "we'd lost a child" as well and that our experiences were thus basically equivalent. Which would be the logical result of accepting the "pro-life" position that the fetus is a person. So I reject it as incompatible with being a decent human being I understand everything you say here, but I'm not sure I can agree with the final line. Are you really saying it only becomes a person at the instant of childbirth? I know that would be the legal definition, but in practice it's very difficult to accept. My grandmother had a stillborn baby, who had been alive until hours before delivery. Anyone who tried to tell her that he wasn't "a person" wouldn't have been one for much longer themselves. I think it would be more accurate to say that the only ones who should be able to define that the foetus (none of your Yank spelling nonsense) is "a person" are the parents of that particular child/non-child/bundle of cells, although unfortunately that still doesn't cover the issue of the legal status of the "post-24 weeks but pre-birth" foetus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 The OP is a c**t and the world would be a better place if he had been aborted. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that this misogynistic w****r has started a thread like this. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Really don't see what business men and/or the state have telling women what they should/shouldn't be doing with their bodies. It can't be an easy decision for any woman to decide to abort and any man wanting to force her to give birth needs to have a word with himself. When should the state be allowed to intervene? Presumably you think the current 24 week cut off period should be extended then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 There is no child. It is a collection of cells until born, at which point it becomes a legal person. It's up to the woman whether or not she wishes to spend a few months in pain, discomfort and in more severe cases, endangering her life, not her ex. It’s hardly a “collection of cells” when it is old enough to live outwith. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 It’s hardly a “collection of cells” when it is old enough to live outwith. When you consider that a baby born at 26 weeks in this country has an 80% chance of survival I think it’s absolutely baffling that someone would refer to as a full term unborn baby as a “collection of cells”. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 I had one many years ago. It was the hardest decision we ever had to make. Burst condom and failed mornkng after pill. I would have been 8/9 weeks gone. Majority terminations are early on. You didn’t really get any support and I was too terrified admit it to anyone. But at the time it was the correct decision. I've subsequently miscarried pregnancies and had three children. it should absolutely be legal until 24 weeks or we will return to back street clinics. Abortions won’t stop happening. We (now ex husband) and I made the decision together. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 I understand everything you say here, but I'm not sure I can agree with the final line. Are you really saying it only becomes a person at the instant of childbirth? I know that would be the legal definition, but in practice it's very difficult to accept. My grandmother had a stillborn baby, who had been alive until hours before delivery. Anyone who tried to tell her that he wasn't "a person" wouldn't have been one for much longer themselves. I think it would be more accurate to say that the only ones who should be able to define that the foetus (none of your Yank spelling nonsense) is "a person" are the parents of that particular child/non-child/bundle of cells, although unfortunately that still doesn't cover the issue of the legal status of the "post-24 weeks but pre-birth" foetus. I was talking about miscarriage which is pre-24 weeks (pretty much by definition) while you were talking about stillbirth which is generally seen as a bigger tragedy.Again the way we talk and feel about natural terminations should be instructive when considering how we should feel about induced terminations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Just now, topcat(The most tip top) said: I was talking about miscarriage which is pre-24 weeks (pretty much by definition) while you were talking about stillbirth which is generally seen as a bigger tragedy. Again the way we talk and feel about natural terminations should be instructive when considering how we should feel about induced terminations. TBH I think we are getting at the same thing. It shouldn't be for anyone else to dictate to anyone else how to feel or act. Any comments should speak to the points, rather than for or against. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 TBH I think we are getting at the same thing. We’re not so different, you and I 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Just now, topcat(The most tip top) said: We’re not so different, you and I It's amazing how P&B is managing to be so thoughtful and sensible on a subject like this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted April 25, 2018 Author Share Posted April 25, 2018 Thread delivering, well played everyone No-one has directly addressed the framing of this law, though. Should the unborn child and the mother have equal right to life? If so, why? If not, why not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONKMAN Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 A woman and only she, should have the right to determine what she does with her own body. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskychimp Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 8 hours ago, Shandon Par said: "You've had a bit of my jizz inside you therefore I demand equal rights on what you should or shouldn't do with your body/life/future". That's a very Game of Thrones-esque attitude to the womenfolk throbbs. I agree it's the woman's choice but..... You've had a bit of my jizz inside you therefore I should be financially responsible for a child you've chosen to have against my wishes. Just to play the other side of this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shandon Par Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, whiskychimp said: I agree it's the woman's choice but..... You've had a bit of my jizz inside you therefore I should be financially responsible for a child you've chosen to have against my wishes. Just to play the other side of this. The state doesn’t intervene in male reproduction though. The whole notion seems like a hangover from a bygone era where women should know their place and do what they’re told. The whole discussion keeps going back to men and trying to compare it to what men feel about it, what their rights and responsibilities are and none of that really matters as men are not the ones carrying the kid and putting their mind and bodies through the wringer. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted April 25, 2018 Author Share Posted April 25, 2018 10 minutes ago, MONKMAN said: A woman and only she, should have the right to determine what she does with her own body. Should the baby have the same right? If not, why not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskychimp Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 1 minute ago, Shandon Par said: The state doesn’t intervene in male reproduction though. The whole notion seems like a hangover from a bygone era where women should know their place and do what they’re told. The whole discussion keeps going back to men and trying to compare it to what men feel about it, what their rights and responsibilities are and none of that really matters as men are not the ones carrying the kid and putting their mind and bodies through the wringer. Ffs. Ruining all the fun with your thoughful and well presented points. f**k off and let the others have a go first 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest Saints Fan Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, banana said: Should the baby have the same right? If not, why not? Because its not a viable baby until 24 weeks gestation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Should the baby have the same right? If not, why not? Because the baby could kill the mother and has no control over the situation, there is likely some medical advice taken with this decision but the mother who can make conscious thoughts and decisions must be in control of what is inside her. I wonder if we will stop having children the ‘natural’ way and eventually just grow them in labs it would be far safer for mother and child 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.