MrRook
Landlord.
After ticking off the majority of American women when their supreme court threw out Roe vs Wade the repubs present this as their vision of American womanhood.
What "genius" thought this was a good idea?
- Thread starter MrRook
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
I read that and can honestly say i haven't a clue about Roe vs Wade but I did notice your phone needs charging 
MrRook
Landlord.
Roe vs Wade was the right to get an abortion.I read that and can honestly say i haven't a clue about Roe vs Wade but I did notice your phone needs charging
I haven't a clue how the population of America view the right to have an abortion so i wouldn't comment but here in the UK we have the arguments below, if i had to vote here i would be for abortion we never want to go back to the bad old days of back street abortions -
"Stopping legal abortions would mean a return to 'back street' abortions, causing a great deal of suffering to the health and wellbeing of the woman"
Some of the arguments for abortion
- A woman has the right to choose whether or not she wants to have the baby. It is her body.
- In the case of rape, it would be lacking in compassion to deny a woman the right to an abortion.
- The woman might be too young to bring up a child, or she may have work or family commitments which make bringing up a child difficult or impossible.
- The pregnant woman's health and welfare are more important than that of the embryo or foetus.
- The embryo or foetus does not have the same rights as the mother.
- The quality of life of the unborn child or the woman's existing children could be adversely affected by the birth.
- Stopping legal abortions would mean a return to 'back street' abortions, causing a great deal of suffering to the health and wellbeing of the woman. Abortion could therefore be the lesser of two evils.
Some of the arguments against abortion
- Roman Catholics believe that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is morally wrong. Most Protestant churches in Britain also view abortion as a moral wrong, but concede that there are some limited conditions when it can be allowed.
- Every human being, including an embryo or foetus, has the right to live and to reach their potential.
- There are alternatives to abortion, eg adoption.
- The unborn child is denied choice.
- Abortion destroys human life and makes life appear cheap and disposable. This affects the quality and value of life.
- People born with disabilities can live full and happy lives.
Last edited:
An Ankoù
Landlord.
I shouldn't worry, Chippy. It;s an American thing and the US Supreme Court is, in my opinion, sold out to Trump's lot and a bunch of loony evangengelicalists. If you think flat-earthers are bad you haven't met these swivel-eyed nut jobs and their mates the Creationists.Definitely staying out of this minefield
In many ways Roe v Wade was straightforward in that in '73 the Supreme Court ruled that a woman's right to choose was implied by the Constitution of the U.S. More recently, the same court ruled that it was not, leaving the legality or otherwise of abortions up to individual states (if I understand this aright).
The situation in the UK is much more muddled. Abortion is supposed to be the exception and the idea that women have the right to an abortion is not supported in law. However, the lippiest of lip service is paid to satisfying the terms of the Abortion Act of '67 and it appears that abortion on demand is a right. It isn't. The situation could change any time without new legislation being passed. This really does need to be sorted out.
Fair play to Macron who has just ensured that a woman's fertility rights are enshrined in the French constitution. Why? in case the next Presidential returns Le Pen. Notice it;s always the ultra-right who want to trample on women's rights whether it be the UK, France, Poland, USA or anywhere else.
Definitely staying out of this minefield
I edited that post and did the opposite.
MrRook
Landlord.
Supposedly there's a thing in America called doctor/patient confidentiality. And I think this is something that should be between a woman and her doctor, not some jackass(es) who want to control everyone and everything according to what some invisible sky daddy supposedly wrote in a 2,000 year old book.
If no abortions were performed how many extra people would exist?
MrRook
Landlord.
Never gonna happen. Abortion bans only stop legal, safe abortions, there's always going to be abortions.
I think that was actually the gist of Roe vs. Wade, that what happens between a doctor and his patient, is nobody else's business.
Sky daddy that's a new one on me i like it 
The Bible is very clear that the soul enters the body at first breath and the Old Testament specifies very different punishments for wilfully ending a pregnancy and murder.
These people should actually read their special book instead of latching on to the cherrypicked snippets from others that fit with their own particular prejudices.
These people should actually read their special book instead of latching on to the cherrypicked snippets from others that fit with their own particular prejudices.
Last edited:
An Ankoù
Landlord.
Ah, that book of prehistoric wisdom and caveman science and a proud history of murder and genocide in the name of the Almighty? I'm afraid Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows would disagree with much of it and that's far more up to date. Most of the ills of today derive from a mindless adherence to the bits of the OT that seem to endorse acts and lifestyles against common sense.
Example from the beginning: "Go forth and multiply, rule over nature and subdue it" We now have a global population of 7+ billion souls on a planet that can comfortably support less than a billion. It is the gravest superstition to actually provide animals and nature with any kind of rights and consideration as they were given to us by God to exploit and the LORD will provide, innit!
What a load of all tripe. Not surprising that the ultra right tend to be religious fanatics, is it. Suits their purpose nicely.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2020
- Messages
- 1,351
- Reaction score
- 783
Ahhh, overpopulation. That old chestnut...They were moaning about overpopulation in Victorian times where the global population was under 1 billion. And it was only just over 2 billion at the end of WW2 so we've seen a population explosion from 2 billion to over 7 billion in the last 70 years or so, and over that time life has never been so good for so many human beings...ever in the history of human beings. Health and life expectancy has increased massively, people are richer than ever before - 100 years ago 97% of the population were living in abject poverty, now over 50% of the global population are middle class and less that 20% of the global population are living in abject poverty (a mere 140 million less than the global population in victorian times). It has been the greatest achievement of Human Beings.
There has been an abundance of food and resources over that time, so much so that one of the greatest challenges we face today is because of the abundance of food making us fat and unhealthy, so that completely debunks the old trope that there is not enough resources to feed a growing population - there is plenty and modern farming practices and technologies have improved yields massively and can continue to do so.
We've seen the greatest technological improvements and scientific discoveries than ever before over that time. This is totally a product of a larger population - only 0.2% of the population are geniuses and scientific and technological improvements come from geniuses, so the greater the population the greater the number of geniuses, which can't be a bad thing especially when we have a number of very important global problems that only 0.2% of the global population will be able to solve.
And even if you are concerned about global population rise depsite all this then relax...it's a problem that is sorting itself out. The global population is going to top out at 10-11 billion or so, that is absolutely inevitable and unavoidable certainty, and 11 billion is not 'too many'. And it will start to decline shortly after hitting that peak. In fact most western countries are facing a population crisis rather than facing an issue of over population. Almost all of the UK's population growth in the last 20 years is from immigration...our own indigenous birthrate dropped below the level to sustain our own population, let alone grow it, decades ago. It's the same in the US and across Western European nations. In fact things are already beyond recovery in Germany that is facing the extinction of the German ethnicity in only a handful of decades time - it's now impossible to reverse. You want to stop a growing global population? then tackle global poverty...as people come out of poverty they have fewer kids....It's been happening in the US and Western Europe for the last 70 years, is now happening in China and all the other developing nations are following suit as they develop and come out of poverty.
There has been an abundance of food and resources over that time, so much so that one of the greatest challenges we face today is because of the abundance of food making us fat and unhealthy, so that completely debunks the old trope that there is not enough resources to feed a growing population - there is plenty and modern farming practices and technologies have improved yields massively and can continue to do so.
We've seen the greatest technological improvements and scientific discoveries than ever before over that time. This is totally a product of a larger population - only 0.2% of the population are geniuses and scientific and technological improvements come from geniuses, so the greater the population the greater the number of geniuses, which can't be a bad thing especially when we have a number of very important global problems that only 0.2% of the global population will be able to solve.
And even if you are concerned about global population rise depsite all this then relax...it's a problem that is sorting itself out. The global population is going to top out at 10-11 billion or so, that is absolutely inevitable and unavoidable certainty, and 11 billion is not 'too many'. And it will start to decline shortly after hitting that peak. In fact most western countries are facing a population crisis rather than facing an issue of over population. Almost all of the UK's population growth in the last 20 years is from immigration...our own indigenous birthrate dropped below the level to sustain our own population, let alone grow it, decades ago. It's the same in the US and across Western European nations. In fact things are already beyond recovery in Germany that is facing the extinction of the German ethnicity in only a handful of decades time - it's now impossible to reverse. You want to stop a growing global population? then tackle global poverty...as people come out of poverty they have fewer kids....It's been happening in the US and Western Europe for the last 70 years, is now happening in China and all the other developing nations are following suit as they develop and come out of poverty.
An Ankoù
Landlord.
Not to put too fine a point on it: Complete nonsense!
Isn't there a contradiction here?
Isn't there a contradiction here?
Last edited:
Similar threads
