Tory MPs line up to disagree with Jacob Rees-Mogg's 'utterly abhorrent' views on abortion

First topic message reminder :

A number of Conservative MPs have criticised Jacob Rees-Mogg's views on abortion, some expressing vehement disagreement while others have gently espoused their more liberal stances.

On Wednesday, Mr Rees-Mogg, who is tipped to one day take over from Theresa May and become Tory leader, said he disagreed with abortion in every circumstance, including in cases of incest and rape. He also said that because he is a Catholic, he disagrees with same-sex marriage.

Margot James MP said: "Agree with @TimesOpinion about Jacob R-M who I like very much; but his views on pregnant women are utterly abhorrent"


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/07/tory-mps-line-disagree-jacob-rees-moggs-utterly-abhorrent-views/


Religious beliefs again, at the forefront of idiocy.

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

You don't understand that by saying any woman at anytime for any reason is allowed an abortion without question or judgement is an open invitation to men from misogynistic cultures and world views to hijack your beloved women's empowerment to further their own ends??

Try this

Keys + fox + henhouse = dead hens

I haven't said any of the above....try to concentrate.

You have not said it that is correct, but that is where the abortion free-for-all is heading and you're dressed in a cheerleader skirt pole dancing on the party bus

So............

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You have be a woman and in that situation to fully appreciate how it is.    No amount of posturing pontificating man will ever appreciate how it is, how it feels, what it does.

Having said that, in this day and age, there should be no reason to get pregnant unless you've been raped.   Contraception is fully available and easy to to access, unlike the early days when it was nigh impossible to get it unless you were married with a dozen kids.   I remember going to my GP when I was seventeen and single and being turned away when I asked to go on the pill.    I was told I didn't need to, and that I was too young.

Since when did contraceptives become 100% workable?

Accidents happen and people (or products) make mistakes, in general though HT is right.

According to government figures the rate for abortions in younger women has decreased whilst the number of older women having terminations has increased.

"The decline is particularly marked in the under-16 and 16-17 age groups where the rates have both halved since 2006. In particular the abortion rate in the 16-17 age group declined from a peak of 23.4 per 1,000 women in 2007, to 10.8 per 1,000 women in 2016.
 
2.6 The abortion rate for 18-19 year olds also declined from 33.3 per 1,000 women in 2006 to 23.0 per 1,000 women in 2016, and for those aged 20-24 the rate also declined from 32.5 per 1,000 women in 2006 to 27.0 per 1,000 women in 2016.
 
2.7 For women over the age of 25, abortion rates have seen marginal increases in recent years. Rates for those aged 25-29 are only slightly lower in 2016 (23.6 per 1,000 women) than 2006 (24.3 per 1,000 women), but rates have increased over the last four years, having fallen to 21.8 per 1,000 women in 2012.
 
2.8 The rates for women aged 30-34 have increased steadily from 15.0 per 1,000 women in 2006 to 17.4 in 2016, and rates for women aged 35 and over have also increased from 6.9 per 1,000 women in 2006 to 8.1 in 2016."


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/618533/Abortion_stats_2016_commentary_with_tables.pdf

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

I haven't said any of the above....try to concentrate.

You have not said it that is correct, but that is  where the abortion free-for-all is heading and you're dressed in a cheerleader skirt pole dancing  on the party bus

So............

Correct I didn't say that, so stop quoting my posts as if I have....stick to the facts.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Since when did contraceptives become 100% workable?

Accidents happen and people (or pruducts) make mistakes, in general though HT is right.

According to government figures the rate for abortions in younger women has decreased whilst the number of older women having terminations has increased.

In general she is wrong, as often abortions are off cases where people have gotten pregnant accidentally.

Of all women who get pregnant, 2-8% do so using the pill. Its supposed to be 99% effective. Condoms are 97% effective.

So have no no idea why on earth you then post an article on the ages of abortions, as that has no bearing.

What Horatio said was based on a poor ignorance that some women have and men as well, that contraception, is 100% effective. Its not. So to say only women raped, is blatantly ignorant.

I posted the age chart because I found it interesting....not to prove or disprove anyones posts.

HT is right in comparing the way women were treated re the pill in the 60's....she is also right in pointing out that in comparison there should be far fewer unwanted pregnancies today because education and contraception is so available.

Syl wrote:I posted the age chart because I found it interesting....not to prove or disprove anyones posts.

HT is right in comparing the way women were treated re the pill in the 60's....she is also right in pointing out that in comparison there should be far fewer unwanted pregnancies today because education and contraception is so available.

OMG and yet you still defend a poor point she made. Your article had no bearing to the poor point she made

Yes women were treated poorly before, which again has no bearing in regard to her other point on women raped.

Even if they are not on the pill having unprotected sex, that does not mean you get to decide what that woman chooses to do with her own body. So her point makes absolutely no difference, as the point is simple. Its either pro abortion or against abortion. Its that simple and nobody here would say a woman cannot remove a unwanted living organism within their body. So why are you trying to worm out of condemning what essentially was a piss poor point by her?

There would be far more abortions if there wasn't so much stigma attached to it. The amount of women I've come across who admitted that they'd had a baby simply because abortion is such a "frowned upon" act.

Of course it usually works out well in the end, the mother is normally happy and loves the baby when it comes.

But still.

I admire some of Ben Shapiro's views, but on others like abortion, we can see how they are religiously motivated more than they are off reason. This is a good example on how here Ben's using poor emotion.
You will also see how it is dismantled.

Note the specifics of the argument: “All human life deserves protection.” Of course, that’s not really what Shapiro means, for it is not ‘protection’, in general, that’s the fundamental basis of government in Shapiro’s mind, but protection against murder, which is – coincidentally enough! – his definition of abortion. Otherwise, we are stuck with protections that contradict Shapiro’s worldview, such as zero-consequence emergency room visits (protects life) as well as both legitimate regulations that have saved lives (such as removing lead from the environment) and unnecessarily burdensome ones (such as New York City’s proposal to eliminate large sodas from certain locations).

Now, let’s keep this in mind as we examine Shapiro’s attack on abortion:




I mean- Jesus. Where to begin? In Shapiro’s typically lazy, haphazard fashion, he literally tries to throw everything at you in the hope that something sticks: the parsimony argument, slippery-slope, kindred-species, a ‘sanctity of life’ assumption, and even a deluge of emotional manipulation to shift the terms of the debate towards preferred ground. This is not to say that Shapiro even knows that these arguments have names and have already been debated (and some settled) for decades, or else why dilute his own position with their sloppiest, least convincing iterations? More, the top comment from the video seems absolutely stunned at the ‘quality’ of Shapiro’s argument, leaving one with the distinct impression that neither Shapiro nor the commenter have ever engaged with an opposing viewpoint in an honest, deep, and intellectually curious way.

There’s a lot to unpack and throw overboard, so let’s take the video apart before settling on Shapiro’s key claims. Yet just as I plan to engage Shapiro on his turf, out of a good faith attempt to rebut his most pressing concern (life-as-inviolable), I will ultimately end the argument with my own needs: pragmatism and the realities of the Social Contract. More, I will do this without accepting the logical necessity of rebutting the slippery-slope, showing it to not only be philosophically inconsistent on its own terms, but completely at odds with Shapiro’s implicit acceptance of the question’s more global scope.

The video starts with- you guessed it- a straw man wrapped in a tangent of Shapiro’s own making. Taking a pro-abortion video from actress Olivia Wilde, he is ‘disgusted’ by her alleged hypocrisy in talking sweetly about her own pregnancy in the same breath as discussing abortion rights. “This is about perverse a notion as I can imagine,” he says, “that as you are about to have your child, you’re thinking, ‘boy, wouldn’t it be great if I could still kill this thing?’” Uh, no, and even the use of subtly miscued words (‘wouldn’t it be’ vs. the more logical ‘have a right to’) is there to put forward a narrative that simply doesn’t exist. Ridiculously, Shapiro then asserts that she MUST be thinking ‘Maybe I should just kill it…’, but why? Because Shapiro is so closed-off intellectually that he can’t imagine someone taking a detached position 100% antithetical to her own stated desires? As if, you know, she in fact accepts she is not the measure of the world, and what’s right for her may not always be right for others? Ah, but life is much too sacred for such thought-experiments, I guess…as long as you’re unborn. Then anything goes, really.

Wilde goes on to discuss human rights, at which point Shapiro impatiently cuts her off to begin his emotional onslaught. “This is going to be mildly graphic, but it’s important,” he says, already suggesting there will be more pictures than dialectic. “I’m sick of the euphemisms! This is not aborting a fetus. It is not getting rid of a ball of tissue. This is a baby…” The screen shows a botched late-stage abortion (perhaps 24+ weeks) by Kermit Gosnell, followed by scientific depictions of gestational stages. “No one has a right to choose this picture. That’s a baby!” he repeats, all the while sprinkling allusions to his own “beautiful children”, offering graphic descriptions of minority-case abortions (“crushed skulls”, “brain gets sucked out”), and even manages a Freudian slip that lets his true feelings known and bankrupts his own argument. Just look at what he says of Gosnell: that he was “the most prolific serial killer in American history”. But why? Because he performed abortions? Yet so do thousands of other doctors, some of them far longer than Gosnell and likely with even more ‘casualties’. If ALL abortions are murder, as Shapiro claims, what’s so special about Gosnell? Oh, that’s right; he performed illegal, late-term abortions where the fetus looks more like a child, deluding the hyperemotional Shapiro into accepting it as ‘true’ murder (hence the ‘serial killer’ cognomen) against the other, run-of-the-mill abortions he implicitly knows to be anything but. Damn- Shapiro didn’t even get to his argument yet, and STILL managed to undo its conclusion!

And if that wasn’t enough, consider Shapiro’s unsettling hypocrisy just a few minutes in. Recently, he was asked about abortion in the case of rape, and he pointed out that if abortion is in fact murder, rape “cannot change the calculus”. That’s correct, and something that ‘weak’ anti-abortionists who make exceptions for special cases absolutely need to consider. Yet while he complains at the student’s “use of an exceptional case in order to…guilt me into supporting a broad-based abortion platform”, what does Shapiro do in the video? Oh, right, he dangles an image of an exceptional-case, late-term abortion (roughly 1% of all abortions) in order to bolster an EMOTIONAL argument for a broad-based anti-abortion platform. Gotta love the Right’s manipulativeness, even as they gaslight the Left into believing that it’s strictly THEIR behavior that’s at issue.

I mean, re-watch the video again, if you must. Can you HONESTLY say that its content is any different from a typical feminist screed, save that the bullshit comes from the other side of the political aisle? Give Shapiro an Antifa mask and let him argue that conservatives should be banned from public speaking, and the intellectual tactics (or lack thereof) would be identical. Yet before we can even address Shapiro’s main point- what is ‘murder’, exactly? More, why is it not even discussed, much less defined? Shouldn’t we know what we’re talking about before a conversation begins? In fact, I’d argue that murder is the unsanctioned taking of a human life: sanctions, of course, which we permit and remit at will depending on the particulars of the Social Contract. More pertinently, what is the ontological sense of ‘human life’ when, definitionally, the human being is not even born: is not even a full-fledged logical category, much less an autonomous person that – in all commonly-aborted stages – is almost parasitically dependent upon its host? Do we confer, for example, EVERY categorical privilege of the oak tree to an acorn? If so, why, and what is the essential quality that’s under discussion? If not, do we simply make an ad hoc exception on the ‘sanctity’ of life (which is mere question-begging, naturally) in order to retroactively apply our own group identity (‘the born and autonomous’) to one arbitrarily-privileged subgroup that has not even met the sole prima facie requirement of membership?

So- in order to deal with all this sophistry, we’re now on the slippery-slope, the video’s key philosophical argument and probably the most common argument against abortion today. Shapiro casts doubt on the idea that a fetus is a baby ‘only’ at week 24, or 16, much less on the actual day of birth, preferring to side-step the above objections. He denies, for instance, the ‘clump of cells’ characterization (although for a period that is ALL a fetus is), implying that inviolable life begins at the moment of conception, wherein all abortions are now impermissible. Typically, the philosophers’ response at this point is to argue that “a continuous route of development from route A to B are not fundamentally different with respect to some property P” (to quote David Boonin), just as the miniscule difference between the light at noon and right after up until a second before midnight “does not mean that we must conclude that midnight is as bright as noon or that we should treat it as if it is”. Yet some might push the argument further, insisting that the lack of fundamental change from conception (as a ‘potential’ human) to whenever (as a fully viable one) ALSO implies the same potential exists right before conception, as well. This creates a logical quandary for the anti-abortionist, as it seems he must now argue for the preservation of the most basic genetic material in a way that no libertarian (on either side of the Left/Right divide!) could comfortably do.

Yet Shapiro would no doubt reject this as a needless reductio ad absurdum, since he could just as easily assume one fundamental stage of life: the exact time when conception instantiates. Ok, but as Boonin points out, the zygote’s ‘instantiation’ still has “the sperm and ovum as two distinct organisms” even as they change and interact, while the end-point of the sperm’s penetration is still “one distinct organism operating inside another”. The male and female chromosomes release and begin to pair off, but, as per the ship of Theseus, just when do sperm and egg cease being distinct entities if we can still point to their individual (and most fundamental) parts at, before, and even after instantiation? Their genetic material is still ‘theirs’, albeit in a different relationship once it’s released, once again upon entanglement, and then again once the process is complete. Even as all this is happening, both sex cells are merely being re-contextualized without quite ceasing to be: the point, oddly enough, that some might argue is the ‘true’ instantiation within the instantiation. Yet all we’ve had is stages without any fundamental shift, merely changing the original question of conception to a kind of quantum puzzle that asks the same question of its own self! More, even if we had a point of instantiation, there is still the issue of determining why THIS point is the one that’s ethically relevant as opposed to the second before or after, and by what precise mechanism instantiation grants it that moral privilege. The appeal, again, must be to some unproven premise and/or social adjudication that is no different, axiomatically, from the abortionist’s Social Contract.

To be sure, I am NOT denying the reasonableness – at least in the anti-abortionist’s mind – of trying to find some end-point to the slippery-slope, but there is a deeper truth at play here which Ben Shapiro’s argument brings out. In short, for all of Shapiro’s critique of the Left’s moral relativism (a critique I often agree with, by the way), he must STILL choose a perfectly arbitrary yet convenient point of departure for both a legal and ethical definition of life. The difference between us, however, is that while Shapiro fidgets and fights at such a task, then pretends abortionists are immoral for engaging in the same wrangling, I am perfectly willing to accept an arbitrary yet pragmatic definition which takes an end-point demarcated for some social good (even if it violates the ‘inviolability’ of life) rather than stick to logically unfalsifiable categories. Even the privileging of a fetus as ‘distinctly’ human when, say, acorns are never to be thought of as trees, creates yet another axiom for the anti-abortionist to defend: namely, what is it about human life that absolves it of the need to be scrutinized and boxed into the same categories as all other natural phenomena? A true liberal, of course, can merely answer ‘Because…’ and point to the Social Contract as his expedient while safely eating meat and killing spiders at will. Shapiro, however, must get metaphysical, and rely on the one thing he said he’d NEVER use: religion, or whatever ad hoc, secular equivalent of religion he wishes to concoct. Shapiro is neither a vegetarian, however, nor – absurdly enough – a ‘believer’ in animals’ free will, for while the abortionists are not allowed to demarcate as we see fit, he can safely divorce an animal’s suffering from an ovum’s, and even befog our own place in the animal kingdom just because. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, Ben. It just makes you an unwitting abortionist. Welcome!

Yet the Social Contract is even more than that. To begin, I’d define it as an arbitrary global point of departure (full of other, more local points of departure) that is popularly agreed upon for the sake of some demotic good. If argued from one’s original position, it is a means of not only seeing the world more fairly beyond the veil, but allows us to do precisely as we see fit, adding and subtracting from the tally of what’s allowed/not allowed without either worrying about the ‘need’ to impose religious-based values (as Shapiro implicitly does) nor about Nietzsche’s hypothesis of world de-valuation. In a way, we can create values as quickly as we can create and strip rights. Nor is this an argument for moral relativism, at least in the sense that we do have specific premises – right-to-life at point X, right-to-dignity until death – both unalterable AND forever shifting. Just as this ‘point X’ granted us a society that has been able to reduce violence and increase wealth a thousand-fold, the right-to-dignity has expanded to include things (such as the right-to-life!) Shapiro-types could have NEVER dreamed of in their immobile, caste-like perceptions some millennia ago.

So, to answer Shapiro’s query of when it would be inappropriate to kill a fetus: on the day of live birth. Anything before that – brain, no brain, heart, no heart, viable, non-autonomous – is fair game for an abortion. Is this sick? Psychopathic, even? Perhaps. Yet if these are the terms we’ll bandy about, is it less or more psychopathic than Shapiro’s insistence that a woman who is beaten and raped be denied emergency room treatment due to her inability to pay? Or then forcing that same woman to carry the resultant pregnancy to term, feeling her own body change – a constant reminder of her own rape – getting fatter, vomiting, suffering mood swings, pain, depression, pissing herself, and, when the time comes, being compelled to not only pass on her own genetic information, but her rapist’s, as well? Hm, if phrased like that, well…But, don’t worry, girl! Ben’s a hero. He would – he said so – part with a little cash to help you out in whatever way you need, although, to be sure, there are many of you, but only one Ben. Perhaps I am wrong, though? Perhaps there are in fact many Bens. There’s the Ben who is concerned about the most precious group in our society: the unborn. Then there’s the Ben who tells you to beg friends for money after you – precious resource! – are actually born. There’s the Ben who will take out his wallet for you when the occasion demands. And, of course, there’s the Ben who will turn you away at Bellevue while cooing at your distended belly. No, chivalry is not dead, ladies. There’s still Ben, by God, and the dumb bitches who get raped. Here, bitch: have a dollar. I’ll make sure you pray for you at Temple.

Now, I know that Shapiro will bristle at the suggestion that anti-abortion is, ipso facto, a misogynistic stance. But why? Sanctioning abortion is- beyond what I’ve already argued- a mere recognition of the need to level the playing field as per the Social Contract. More, this is ordinary biology: the very biology, ironically enough, which feminists have tried to argue against, and which Shapiro merely pays lip service to without in fact understanding. What is a male? The disposable sex. What is a female? The gatekeepers of sex. Naturally, they each have their respective advantages and disadvantages, with men’s chief historical liability being subject to war, murder, and various grunt work, while women’s being subject to compulsory birth-giving, boredom, and passivity. As a result, men have sought ways to bring about peace- and control women!- since time immemorial, while women have tried- among other things- to control their own reproductive cycles. But redistribution is NOT justice! Oh really, Ben? Might I propose that you would, in typical conservative fashion, absolutely lose your mind to learn that women are sentenced less often and for far less time for the same crimes that men commit? Unfair, huh? Discriminatory, even. Do you wish to change this? Why? Women are simply using THEIR biology and exploiting men’s natural compassion for women in order to gain an advantage that men can never have, just as they are condemned to things- for the same physiological reasons- which men will never go through! So, which one is it, Ben? Do we give BOTH sexes the option of redress in ways specific to their sex, or do we- after embracing our own misogyny- redress men’s issues, first, then pay off any unwanted pregnancies by throwing money at the mother? Odd, indeed, that after all of your supposed ‘enlightenment’, she still looks so much like your little whore.


http://alexsheremet.com/ben-shapiro-total-fraud/

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:I posted the age chart because I found it interesting....not to prove or disprove anyones posts.

HT is right in comparing the way women were treated re the pill in the 60's....she is also right in pointing out that in comparison there should be far fewer unwanted pregnancies today because education and contraception is so available.

OMG and yet you still defend a poor point she made. Your article had no bearing to the poor point she made

Yes women were treated poorly before, which again has no bearing in regard to her other point on women raped.

Even if they are not on the pill having unprotected sex, that does not mean you get to decide what that woman chooses to do with her own body. So her point makes absolutely no difference, as the point is simple. Its either pro abortion or against abortion. Its that simple and nobody here would say a woman cannot remove a unwanted living organism within their body. So why are you trying to worm out of condemning what essentially was a piss poor point by her?

Bloody hell....for the second time I posted the age chart because I found it interesting and others may too. That had nothing to do with what HT posted and I had already addressed her point anyway.
Those statistics go back 10 years, they have no connection with the 1960's.



One post ...TWO different points.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


OMG and yet you still defend a poor point she made. Your article had no bearing to the poor point she made

Yes women were treated poorly before, which again has no bearing in regard to her other point on women raped.

Even if they are not on the pill having unprotected sex, that does not mean you get to decide what that woman chooses to do with her own body. So her point makes absolutely no difference, as the point is simple. Its either pro abortion or against abortion. Its that simple and nobody here would say a woman cannot remove a unwanted living organism within their body. So why are you trying to worm out of condemning what essentially was a piss poor point by her?

Bloody hell....for the second time I posted the age chart because I found it interesting and others may too. That had nothing to do with what HT posted and I had already addressed her point anyway.



One post ...TWO different points.

And on that post you excused her view and even complimented it and even worse tried to defend her point

I suggest you learn to take criticism

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Bloody hell....for the second time I posted the age chart because I found it interesting and others may too. That had nothing to do with what HT posted and I had already addressed her point anyway.



One post ...TWO different points.

And on that post you excused her view and even complimented it and even worse tried to defend her point

I suggest you learn to take criticism

Says you.  

Her view was 100% right  about how women were treated pre 60's and her observation about birth control being much more available now than then was also spot on.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


And on that post you excused her view and even complimented it and even worse tried to defend her point

I suggest you learn to take criticism

Her view was 100% right  about how women were treated pre 60's and her observation about birth control being much more available now than then was also spot on.

Deflection alert.

Am I talking about that point?

What did she say?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Having said that, in this day and age, there should be no reason to get pregnant unless you've been raped.  

You said spot on.

How is that spot on?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Her view was 100% right  about how women were treated pre 60's and her observation about birth control being much more available now than then was also spot on.

Deflection alert.

Am I talking about that point?

What did she say?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Having said that, in this day and age, there should be no reason to get pregnant unless you've been raped.  

You said spot on.

How is that spot on?

I said spot on and even gave her a ...it was for the whole post.
I did acknowledge in the next post that mistakes happen and neither people nor products are perfect.

Another point I agreed with 100% is that no man can ever understand how a woman feels when she is pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Deflection alert.

Am I talking about that point?

What did she say?



You said spot on.

How is that spot on?

I said spot on and even gave her a ...it was for the whole post.
I did acknowledge in the next post that mistakes happen and people nor products are perfect.

So its a mistake to get pregnant unless raped then? So basically any child conceived and born is wrong, unless that mother has been raped?

Giving a green is fine based on highlighting the correct points, but you never highlighted what was essentially a very piss poor point.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I said spot on and even gave her a ...it was for the whole post.
I did acknowledge in the next post that mistakes happen and people nor products are perfect.

So its a mistake to get pregnant unless raped then? So basically any child conceived and born is wrong, unless that mother has been raped?

Giving a green is fine based on highlighting the correct points, but you never highlighted what was essentially a very piss poor point.

I added to my post but was too slow.
Something else in her post was also spot on....she said...

"You have be a woman and in that situation to fully appreciate how it is. No amount of posturing pontificating man will ever appreciate how it is, how it feels, what it does"

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So its a mistake to get pregnant unless raped then? So basically any child conceived and born is wrong, unless that mother has been raped?

Giving a green is fine based on highlighting the correct points, but you never highlighted what was essentially a very piss poor point.

I added to my post but was too slow.
Something else in her post was also spot on....she said...

"You have be a woman and in that situation to fully appreciate how it is. No amount of posturing pontificating man will ever appreciate how it is, how it feels, what it does"

So that makes her view okay then, that only pregnancy via rape is acceptable then?

I agree that no man can appreciate what its like to go through pregnancy and why, to me. A woman has every right to decide as a host to carry that fetus.

You are avoiding the point, so again, what about the point I have just said. Was your own son wrong to be conceived, based on her thinking?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I added to my post but was too slow.
Something else in her post was also spot on....she said...

"You have be a woman and in that situation to fully appreciate how it is. No amount of posturing pontificating man will ever appreciate how it is, how it feels, what it does"

So that makes her view okay then, that only pregnancy via rape is acceptable then?

I agree that no many can appreciate what its like to go through pregnancy and why, to me. A woman has every right to decide as a host to carry that fetus.

You are avoiding the point, so again, what about the point I have just said. Was your own son wrong to be conceived, based on her thinking?

She obviously meant there was no reason to have an unwanted pregnancy unless raped.
You are dissecting every word of her post and my answer,  homing in, and not putting the words in context to what was meant.

I think I have made my views pretty clear throughout the thread Thor, and if HT can be bothered to answer your criticism of her post that's up to her, but I have finished.
I stand by my own posts no one elses.

Grounds for abortion

In 2015:

The vast majority of abortions (98%) were carried out under ground C (pregnancy not exceeded 24th week and continuance of pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnancy woman).
3,213 abortions (2%) were carried out under ground E – substantial risk the child would be born seriously handicapped.

Abortion rates in England and Wales reached a five-year high in 2015, when 185,824 terminations were recorded.

Currently the law makes it a criminal offence for a woman to seek an abortion, and a doctor to provide one, other than when two doctors believe a termination is necessary to prevent long term mental or physical ill health to the mother. You can't just walk in and demand one.

Yes, contraception isn't fool proof. I think the point I wanted to make is that women should be using contraception within a relationship if they don't want a child, rather than just relying on an abortion. Accidents happen. But those who are raped have no choices. For them, it must be horrific.





http://www.fpa.org.uk/factsheets/abortion

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So that makes her view okay then, that only pregnancy via rape is acceptable then?

I agree that no many can appreciate what its like to go through pregnancy and why, to me. A woman has every right to decide as a host to carry that fetus.

You are avoiding the point, so again, what about the point I have just said. Was your own son wrong to be conceived, based on her thinking?

She obviously meant there was no reason to have an unwanted pregnancy unless raped.
You are dissecting every word of her  post and my answer,  homing in, and not putting the words in context to what was meant.

I think I have made my views pretty clear throughout the thread Thor, and if HT can be bothered to answer your criticism of her post that's up to her, but I have finished.
I stand by my own posts no one elses.

I don't interact with him because it's like trying to reason with a baboon.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So that makes her view okay then, that only pregnancy via rape is acceptable then?

I agree that no many can appreciate what its like to go through pregnancy and why, to me. A woman has every right to decide as a host to carry that fetus.

You are avoiding the point, so again, what about the point I have just said. Was your own son wrong to be conceived, based on her thinking?

She obviously meant there was no reason to have an unwanted pregnancy unless raped.
You are dissecting every word of her and my post and my answer,  homing in, and not putting the words in context to what was meant.

I think I have made my views pretty clear throughout the thread Thor, and if HT can be bothered to answer your criticism of her post that's up to her, but I have finished.
I stand by my own posts no one elses.

But that is even more stupid. As already seen, many women get pregnant through the failure of contraceptives. So even then her words are poorly stupid and at best insulting to many women, which you are again defending. Even worse where women have gotten pregnant and then only to have that man ditch them. That they do not want to bring that child into this world after having that love torn from them. So to say only rape is acceptable, is casting and demeaning countless women. Which makes a mockery of her point on men not understanding. As it shows you clearly does not understand what also many women go through.

You poorly look to defend a person based off like here and not on something very piss poor they have said. I find that wrong. True honesty comes at being able to tell people we get on with, that they are wrong on things.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

She obviously meant there was no reason to have an unwanted pregnancy unless raped.
You are dissecting every word of her  post and my answer,  homing in, and not putting the words in context to what was meant.

I think I have made my views pretty clear throughout the thread Thor, and if HT can be bothered to answer your criticism of her post that's up to her, but I have finished.
I stand by my own posts no one elses.

I don't interact with him because it's like trying to reason with a baboon.

And yet this intelligent baboon (clearly showing how sexist and hateful of men you are) Was able to be more understanding of women than you were.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So that makes her view okay then, that only pregnancy via rape is acceptable then?

I agree that no many can appreciate what its like to go through pregnancy and why, to me. A woman has every right to decide as a host to carry that fetus.

You are avoiding the point, so again, what about the point I have just said. Was your own son wrong to be conceived, based on her thinking?

She obviously meant there was no reason to have an unwanted pregnancy unless raped.
You are dissecting every word of her  post and my answer,  homing in, and not putting the words in context to what was meant.

I think I have made my views pretty clear throughout the thread Thor, and if HT can be bothered to answer your criticism of her post that's up to her, but I have finished.
I stand by my own posts no one elses.

Then there's the other side of the coin.   These men who claim they too have a right to say yay or nay over whether a woman carries a child to full term.   A common trait of domestic violence  is “reproductive coercion”  - the sabotaging of women’s birth control methods; rape and controlling whether a woman can obtain an abortion are all ways that abusers try to control their victims.  

Should abortion be legal across the board?   Anytime, any place, to any woman of any age?   Yes, I think so.   I think it would be truly horrific to return to the knitting needle/coat hanger desperation of the back street abortion.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

She obviously meant there was no reason to have an unwanted pregnancy unless raped.
You are dissecting every word of her and my post and my answer,  homing in, and not putting the words in context to what was meant.

I think I have made my views pretty clear throughout the thread Thor, and if HT can be bothered to answer your criticism of her post that's up to her, but I have finished.
I stand by my own posts no one elses.

But that is even more stupid. As already seen, many women get pregnant through the failure of contraceptives. So even then her words are poorly stupid and at best insulting to many women, which you are again defending. Even worse where women have gotten pregnant and then only to have that man ditch them. That they do not want to bring that child into this world after having that love torn from them. So to say only rape is acceptable, is casting and demeaning countless women. Which makes a mockery of her point on men not understanding. As it shows you clearly does not understand what also many women go through.

You poorly look to defend a person based off like here and not on something very piss poor they have said. I find that wrong. True honesty comes at being able to tell people we get on with, that they are wrong on things.

I have already told you which parts of her post I agree with.
If you had ever seen HT and me having rows you would realise that your last paragraph is utter rubbish.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

She obviously meant there was no reason to have an unwanted pregnancy unless raped.
You are dissecting every word of her  post and my answer,  homing in, and not putting the words in context to what was meant.

I think I have made my views pretty clear throughout the thread Thor, and if HT can be bothered to answer your criticism of her post that's up to her, but I have finished.
I stand by my own posts no one elses.

Then there's the other side of the coin.   These men who claim they too have a right to say yay or nay over whether a woman carries a child to full term.   A common trait of domestic violence  is “reproductive coercion”  - the sabotaging of women’s birth control methods; rape and controlling whether a woman can obtain an abortion are all ways that abusers try to control their victims.  

Should abortion be legal across the board?   Anytime, any place, to any woman of any age?   Yes, I think so.   I think it would be truly horrific to return to the knitting needle/coat hanger desperation of the back street abortion.

I can remember a couple of cases where men have legally tried to stop their partners having an abortion...they have of course failed.
I do have sympathy for men if they really want the child, but obviously its not their decision and never should be.

Then like you say, there are men who want to control for different reasons. Men who want their wives to be pregnant all the time with no regard for her....just another way to exert control.

Your last point....I wonder if people who are so against abortion ever think of that?

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

But that is even more stupid. As already seen, many women get pregnant through the failure of contraceptives. So even then her words are poorly stupid and at best insulting to many women, which you are again defending. Even worse where women have gotten pregnant and then only to have that man ditch them. That they do not want to bring that child into this world after having that love torn from them. So to say only rape is acceptable, is casting and demeaning countless women. Which makes a mockery of her point on men not understanding. As it shows you clearly does not understand what also many women go through.

You poorly look to defend a person based off like here and not on something very piss poor they have said. I find that wrong. True honesty comes at being able to tell people we get on with, that they are wrong on things.

I have already told you which parts of her post I agree with.
If you had ever seen HT and me having rows you would realise that your last paragraph is utter rubbish.

Misdirection again.

You have had plenty of opportunity to condemn her poor views on what she believes is acceptable as a pregnancy. I mean she fails to account for many things. Even where a family has one of them loose their job, that now its not financially viable to to have that child. Or where that woman simple changes her mind and does not want to have the next 18 years of her life taken up looking after someone else. That is her choice and to say she can or cannot, is as bad as anyone forcing her to go through a pregnancy. Where this happens to many women throughout the world and is one off the biggest causes of poverty. Where women are not given control of their reproductive system. She goes off her views, never considering the many situations that women face. Which like I say, shows she is worse than many men, not thinking in how many women feel or go through, when they become pregnant.

So if you want to keep giving me feeble excuses not to be even at least critical of her poor views. That is up to you, but expect I will take you both to task, especially when she invokes archaic views.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I have already told you which parts of her post I agree with.
If you had ever seen HT and me having rows you would realise that your last paragraph is utter rubbish.

Misdirection again.

You have had plenty of opportunity to condemn her poor views on what she believes is acceptable as a pregnancy. I mean she fails to account for many things. Even where a family has one of them loose their job, that now its not financially viable to to have that child. Or where that woman simple changes her mind and does not want to have the next 18 years of her life taken up looking after someone else. That is her choice and to say she can or cannot, is as bad as anyone forcing her to go through a pregnancy. Where this happens to many women throughout the world and is one off the biggest causes of poverty. Where women are not given control of their reproductive system. She goes off her views, never considering the many situations that women face. Which like I say, shows she is worse than many men, not thinking in how many women feel or go through, when they become pregnant.

So if you want to keep giving me feeble excuses not to be even at least critical of her poor views. That is up to you, but expect I will take you both to task, especially when she invokes archaic views.

Are you for real?
Yesterday I gave a list of reasons why a woman may seek out an abortion.
Your immediate reply was I was missing the whole point of the thread and none of the reasons I had listed were relevant....in fact they ALL were..

If you are going to argue at least be bloody consistent.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Misdirection again.

You have had plenty of opportunity to condemn her poor views on what she believes is acceptable as a pregnancy. I mean she fails to account for many things. Even where a family has one of them loose their job, that now its not financially viable to to have that child. Or where that woman simple changes her mind and does not want to have the next 18 years of her life taken up looking after someone else. That is her choice and to say she can or cannot, is as bad as anyone forcing her to go through a pregnancy. Where this happens to many women throughout the world and is one off the biggest causes of poverty. Where women are not given control of their reproductive system. She goes off her views, never considering the many situations that women face. Which like I say, shows she is worse than many men, not thinking in how many women feel or go through, when they become pregnant.

So if you want to keep giving me feeble excuses not to be even at least critical of her poor views. That is up to you, but expect I will take you both to task, especially when she invokes archaic views.

Are you for real?
Yesterday I gave a list of reasons why a woman may seek out an abortion.
Your immediate reply was I was missing the whole point of the thread and none of the reasons I had listed were relevant....in fact they ALL were..

If you are going to argue at least be bloody consistent.  

They are not relevant, as the point is on whether abortion is acceptable or not.
You cannot invoke specific reasons when it can be acceptable, the point you utterly miss.
I back abortion, yet you only back this on certain parameters.
Making you a hypocrite and missing the point. I rightly argued how and explain how people do.
All reasons to have abortions are relevant, as its that woman's right to decide whether she wishes to carry something inside her she does not want to.
Again the point you glaringly miss.
So Horatio claiming that men do not understand, by then even you claiming there has to be exceptions, when its on abortion or not. Shows its your emotions that get in the way of a reasoned view on abortion or not. That fetus only survives based on the host. If born even a few weeks early, it would be unlikely to survive, without the aid of medical assistance.

So you either support abortions or you do not.

There is no middle ground

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Then there's the other side of the coin.   These men who claim they too have a right to say yay or nay over whether a woman carries a child to full term.   A common trait of domestic violence  is “reproductive coercion”  - the sabotaging of women’s birth control methods; rape and controlling whether a woman can obtain an abortion are all ways that abusers try to control their victims.  

Should abortion be legal across the board?   Anytime, any place, to any woman of any age?   Yes, I think so.   I think it would be truly horrific to return to the knitting needle/coat hanger desperation of the back street abortion.

I can remember a couple of cases where men have legally tried to stop their partners having an abortion...they have of course failed.
I do have sympathy for men if they really want the child, but obviously its not their decision and never should be.

Then like you say, there are men who want to control for different reasons. Men who want their wives to be pregnant all the time with no regard for her....just another way to exert control.

Your last point....I wonder if people who are so against abortion ever think of that?

Something like 80 percent of abortions are white Western women.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I can remember a couple of cases where men have legally tried to stop their partners having an abortion...they have of course failed.
I do have sympathy for men if they really want the child, but obviously its not their decision and never should be.

Then like you say, there are men who want to control for different reasons. Men who want their wives to be pregnant all the time with no regard for her....just another way to exert control.

Your last point....I wonder if people who are so against abortion ever think of that?

Something like 80 percent of abortions are white Western women.

Any why there is a continued population explosion in African, South America and Asian parts of the world, as women do not have control over their own reproductive systems or a choice to have an abortion

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I can remember a couple of cases where men have legally tried to stop their partners having an abortion...they have of course failed.
I do have sympathy for men if they really want the child, but obviously its not their decision and never should be.

Then like you say, there are men who want to control for different reasons. Men who want their wives to be pregnant all the time with no regard for her....just another way to exert control.

Your last point....I wonder if people who are so against abortion ever think of that?

Something like 80 percent of abortions are white Western women.

The figures shocked me tbh...depending which article you read  ONE in either THREE or FOUR  women will have an abortion in the UK during their lifetime , that's very high imo.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/1-in-3-women-have-an-abortion-and-95-dont-regret-it-so-why-arent-we-talking-about-it-10392750.html

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Something like 80 percent of abortions are white Western women.

The figures shocked me tbh...depending which article you read  ONE in either THREE or FOUR  women will have an abortion in the UK during their lifetime , that's very high imo.

What does it matter how many there is, if you back the right of women to decide to control their own bodies?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

The figures shocked me tbh...depending which article you read  ONE in either THREE or FOUR  women will have an abortion in the UK during their lifetime , that's very high imo.

What does it matter how many there is, if you back the right of women to decide to control their own bodies?

Of course it matters how many women seek abortions.
Something is going badly wrong in society if women aren't protecting themselves, the question should be asked WHY?.....I am talking of women who have consensual sex.

Abortion shouldn't be viewed as an alternative to using birth control....you seem to talk as if it is.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

What does it matter how many there is, if you back the right of women to decide to control their own bodies?

Of course it matters how many women seek abortions.
Something is going badly wrong in society if women aren't protecting themselves, the question should be asked WHY?.....I am talking of women who have consensual sex.

Abortion isn't just another way of using birth control....you seem to talk as if it is.

Here we go again, that you now invoke a view that women are not protecting themselves. If 2-8% of pregnancies happens from protected sex, how many pregnancies do you think that is? So lets say based on the number of live births in 2016 was 696,271. 8% of this is 55,000. Even at 2% its 14,000. You then seem to think that this alone is only acceptable for a woman to decide over having control over her own body. Its not. A woman can change her mind and has every right to do so. Its not down to you to decide on what she chooses to do with her own body. She is the host carrier of that fetus and if she for what every reason wants to abort, then that is her choice. So numbers are irrelevant.

So how is it going badly wrong? Unless you think only you and others think you can decide what women can do with their bodies?

So no it does not matter and even more in this climate of population explosion. Its far better that a baby is only born into this world, to loving parent/parents. Or adoptive parents that want to raise that child. Which the later requires that woman to decide if she wants to carry to full term. With the fact there is 70,000 children in care in the UK, where you then add to that number here of abortions being stopped. How many more would thus end in care and unloved? Do you ever stop to think outside your poor moral failure arguments? The fact that you also ignore that the cause of poverty is women not being able to have control over their own reproductive systems and bodies, shows how little you actually understand problems in the world. With more mouths to feed, then a mass more of people end up starving. So you see how i can use your number argument against you, as how many do you think suffer, when there is more mouths to feed and millions more suffer then with starvation?

When will you get it inside your head, its up to that woman to decide, not you or anyone else?

Like I said...abortion shouldn't be viewed as just another method of birth control.
You can try to find out why so many abortions are performed without denying a womans right to choose.

Syl wrote:Like I said...abortion shouldn't be viewed as just another method of birth control.
You can try to find out why so many abortions are performed without denying  a womans right to choose.

Which means you constantly contradict yourself on the rights of women itself.
Abortion is a form of birth control. How you think its not is quite baffling.

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

You have not said it that is correct, but that is  where the abortion free-for-all is heading and you're dressed in a cheerleader skirt pole dancing  on the party bus

So............

Correct I didn't say that, so stop quoting my posts as if I have....stick to the facts.

Those are the facts.

You throw your hat in with the abortion industry you don't get to disassociate yourself from the ugly parts.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

Correct I didn't say that, so stop quoting my posts as if I have....stick to the facts.

Those are the facts.

You throw your hat in with the abortion industry you don't get to disassociate yourself from the ugly parts.

Industry?

You have a point with Syl being contradictive.

That is it.

The point is, do you get to decide what a woman does or does not with her body.

Which gets back to my point. Are you against a woman removing a living organism from her body?

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Those are the facts.

You throw your hat in with the abortion industry you don't get to disassociate yourself from the ugly parts.

Industry?

You have a point with Syl being contradictive.

That is it.

The point is, do you get to decide what a woman does or does not with her body.

Which gets back to my point. Are you against a woman removing a living organism from her body?

Now now Thor....don't start looking for back up, you can show yourself up very well without any helping hands.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:Like I said...abortion shouldn't be viewed as just another method of birth control.
You can try to find out why so many abortions are performed without denying  a womans right to choose.

Which means you constantly contradict yourself on the rights of women itself.
Abortion is a form of birth control. How you think its not is quite baffling.

No doubt you think bulimia or anorexia is just another form of dieting.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Industry?

You have a point with Syl being contradictive.

That is it.

The point is, do you get to decide what a woman does or does not with her body.

Which gets back to my point. Are you against a woman removing a living organism from her body?

Now now Thor....don't start looking for back up, you can show yourself up very well without any helping hands.

Well considering my views are polar apart from smelly and the fact he just about has as much disdain for me, as he does for Black Africans. Shows how really warped that view is to think I am looking for back up from an imbecile. I merely agree he is right that you contradict on this.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Which means you constantly contradict yourself on the rights of women itself.
Abortion is a form of birth control. How you think its not is quite baffling.

No doubt you think bulimia or anorexia is just another form of dieting.

They are extreme forms of dieting that have drastic effects formed from mental health issues.

Dumb argument

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

No doubt you think bulimia or anorexia is just another form of dieting.

They are extreme forms of dieting that have drastic effects.

Dumb argument

Your argument is getting more extreme by the post.

Out of the thread now...its getting repetitous.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

They are extreme forms of dieting that have drastic effects.

Dumb argument

Your argument is getting more extreme by the post.

Out of the thread now...its getting repetitous.

Because I simple proved how much of a contradiction you have been on this and even so, more poor in your reasoning.
Like I say, you cannot take reasonable criticism.

So what do you do?

Offer a piss poor copout

See ya

I mean how dumb can someone be. Countless people suffer from mental health issues like bulimia and anorexia and Syl offers this as a comparison to women choosing to have control over their bodies with abortion?

Is she thus suggesting that women who have abortions, must have mental health issues?

Thus ignoring the fact both conditions, bulimia and anorexia are well know mental health disorders?

I find that appalling that anyone would invoke that on a woman's right to choose what to decide over her own body. It makes a mockery of mental health issues.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Industry?

You have a point with Syl being contradictive.

That is it.

The point is, do you get to decide what a woman does or does not with her body.

Which gets back to my point. Are you against a woman removing a living organism from her body?

Now now Thor....don't start looking for back up, you can show yourself up very well without any helping hands.

Didge is like a self hating octopus when it comes to making himself look a twat.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

Now now Thor....don't start looking for back up, you can show yourself up very well without any helping hands.

Didge is like a self hating octopus when it comes to making himself look a twat.

Ahhh, when all else fails. Smelly invokes a leftist regressive trait. Attempt to deligitimize the opponent and not their views.

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge is like a self hating octopus when it comes to making himself look a twat.

Ah when all else fails, smelly invokes a leftist regressive trait, attempt to deligitimize the opponent and not their views.

Go with what works I say

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Ah when all else fails, smelly invokes a leftist regressive trait, attempt to deligitimize the opponent and not their views.

Go with what works I say

But as seen it fails smelly and if this is all you can do, to try to counter a view you cannot actually counter with reason. It leaves you comparable to what you most dislike. Those regressive leftists, who you often argue against.

Not only is it a contradiction in terms, it proves you have no faith in your own arguments.

When it doubt get the clubs out

smelly-bandit wrote:When it doubt get the clubs out

Spoken like a true Antifa activist.