SurfaceAgentX2Zero
5:30 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
Mike Oxsaw 5:17 Thu Oct 4
I agree on all points.
However, premature babies are now being delivered as early as 20 weeks and surviving. How does this stack up against a legal time limit for abortion of 24 weeks.
According to the most recent survey I can find (2005, so old) 68% of the public think the limit should be lowered:
2% said it should be permitted throughout pregnancy
25% support maintaining the current limit of 24 weeks
30% would back a measure to reduce the legal limit for abortion to 20 weeks
19% support a limit of 12 weeks
9% support a limit of fewer than 12 weeks
6% responded that abortion should never be allowed
|
Darlo Debs
5:26 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
Nurse besides being highly patronising towards me I believe his view has little intellectual.merit, given that a life that cannot be sustained as MO says outside of the body and is therefore not yet a life but a potential one.
No Christian of any persuasion should be agreeing with Capital Punishment including JRM i would hope. Its up to.God to punish our sins surely?
|
Side of Ham
5:19 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
YOU are the one who pollutes this site PRICKle.
Make no mistake.
|
Hammer and Pickle
5:17 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
Well, I'm not going anywhere while you can piss off and pander to you hapless menfolk's droopy egos in the privacy of your own squalid home without polluting this site all day and night.
|
Mike Oxsaw
5:17 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
Plus, in the early stages of it's existence, a zygote/foetus is still only a POTENTIAL human life, not an actual viable one - in the same way, a punt up-field from a defender is a potential goal.
Much still has to "go to plan" for that potential to be realised, in both examples.
I'm of the opinion that a woman should have the option of an abortion until the foetus becomes a truly viable entity, capable of existence outside the mother. There is no fixed date for that moment, so the individual state of the pregnancy should be the only decider.
That's likely to equally offend those closer to the extreme views on this subject. So be it.
Also, pregnant women should be given life sentences for having gin & knitting needles within 50 meters of themselves. A fairer policy for a fairer sex.
Did somebody mention sex???
|
Side of Ham
5:15 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
Hammer and Pickle 5:09 Thu Oct 4
Look in the mirror whilst glancing at the drivel you post on here and you will see JRM.
|
Nurse Ratched
5:13 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
Pickle, go and be a clotpole on another thread. The issue currently under discussion hete is interesting and we can do without your clownish interjections.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
5:12 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
H&P
And yet, as I have pointed out, he has been at pains not to pass judgment over anyone's autonomy.
Whereas you have defended rapists on numerous occasions.
|
Hammer and Pickle
5:09 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
JRM and his ilk can pontificate on how a woman conducts herself when pregnant all they want.
However, the moment they attempt to pass judgment over her autonomy, they are simply abusing power and have lost all moral arguments.
Game over.
|
Fo the Communist
5:07 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
The other issue with JRM is that he's a conviction politician who says what he believes rather than what he thinks you want to hear.
This is a trait that most of us would applaud.
You can't have it both ways and call for a return to conviction politics but only when those convictions align with yours.
That said, he remains a fucking oddball, convictions or not.
|
Nurse Ratched
5:03 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
*its moral dubiousness. Frigging autocorrect.
|
Nurse Ratched
5:00 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
Debs, your language is unnecessarily emotive and your tone is approaching hysterical. Possibly you have hit a brick wall with your stance on this issue and cannot defend it on moral grounds (as have I, but at least I'm honest about it) and seek to disguise that awkward fact.
I can see his point on an intellectual level. You know, when all the emotion and partisan politics are taken out of it. Maybe it's easier for me because I am not an overly emotion individual. I'm rational. I'm also glad that, despite it's moral dubiousness, women who have been raped, and even women who have NOT been raped, can still get abortions on demand in this country.
I slag off the fundies when they have no moral leg to stand on (e.g Halal, Kosher, male and female genital mutilation)
Unfortunately for me, JRM's fundy viewpoint here has me stumped for an adequate rebuttal. I would dearly like to be able to do so because I want abortion to continue to be available to women in all circumstances.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
4:55 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
Darlo Debs 4:47 Thu Oct 4
No Debs. He didn't say women shouldn't be allowed to abort children of rape. In fact, he implicitly said they should. However, he disagrees with it and is perfectly entitled to his view that the rights of the innocent child take precedence over the rights of the mother.
You use of language is nonsensical, too. You deem doing nothing, in the form of not performing a termination, to be 'forcing' something.
The only acts of force here are those of the rapist and the doctor who performs the abortion and essentially executes the child for the crime of its parent.. As I said, reluctantly, I agree with the use of force by the doctor, but I can sure as hell see Rees-Mogg's point.
|
Hammer and Pickle
4:53 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
Stop the smears, Zero.
Do some useful work.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
4:48 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
You actually defend rapists Pickled, so nobody is going to listen to your patronising shit on this matter.
|
Darlo Debs
4:47 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
..and i.am.pointng out the hypicrisy with which you are sympathising with his ultra orthodox religious views as Surfy just pointed out to us.
Often see you slagging off the fundies Nurse. So why not JRM?
Surf i said he said women shouldn't be allowed to abort cases. He said he disagreed with abortion even in the case of rape. Nit that he'd get to change the law in this but am sure he would if the chance were there
.
|
Hammer and Pickle
4:47 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
And it is not the liberal position that it is "OK" to terminate innocent life.
You people are truly putrid, you know that?
|
Hammer and Pickle
4:46 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
It's not, one would argue from an adult's point of view, a "separate issue".
|
Nurse Ratched
4:41 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
You are looking at it from the woman's perspective. I was looking at it from that of the embryo/foetus/baby.
I'm not doubting the woman has gone through an appalling attack. But that's a separate issue.
I was comparing the virtue of NOT killing a violent criminal (ironically a rapist, perhaps) with the accepted liberal orthodoxy of it being ok to terminate a life that is innocent.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
4:40 Thu Oct 4
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
|
Darlo Debs 4:27 Thu Oct 4
N, Debs, he didn't. Go and read what he actual said. Actually I'll make it easy for you. This is the BBC's report of the interview:
The Church's teachings on faith and morals were "authoritative", he said, but he added it was not for him to judge others.
However, he said he was completely opposed to abortion.
"With abortion, it is something that is done to the unborn child. That is different."
Asked whether his opposition applied in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, he replied: "I'm afraid so."
Mr Rees-Mogg said women's abortion rights under UK law were "not going to change".
"It's all very well to say we live in a multicultural country... until you're a Christian, until you hold the traditional views of the Catholic Church, and that seems to me fundamentally wrong," Mr Rees-Mogg said.
"People are entitled to hold these views."
He added that the "democratic majority" were equally entitled to laws that did not follow the Catholic Church's teaching.
So. At no point does he advocate forcing women to have a child that arises from rape.
As Nursie has said, this is a hugely difficult moral issue. Rees-Mogg believes that the right to life of an innocent, healthy child should not be forfeit due to the crimes of its father. That is a perfectly reasonable position, albeit one that I, reluctantly in this specific case, disagree with. The fact that he chooses to discuss this in a rational way and the fact that he accepts his opinion is out of line with the majority and should not prevail does him credit.
The interview in no way gives credence to any slur that he is a 'bad' or 'evil' person.
Please stop lapping up shit from actually evil people on Facebook.
|
| 
