I'd be interested to hear you comments on the new US legislation to which this article refers
gestate of the nation
Printable View
I'd be interested to hear you comments on the new US legislation to which this article refers
gestate of the nation
Just to provide a bit of balance...beware, though; there is much more reading to do if you click.
It is always more labor-intensive to understand views one rejects outright.
http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/index.html
Are these things mentioned in the above posts malignant outgrowths of the Act, or is the Act an intentional pretext for the "abuse"?
I don't see the point of getting hip-deep in the entire argument all over again; a quick forum search will reveal all we have ever said on this subject.
If I think life begins at conception, somebody else thinks otherwise.
"A freshly fertilized egg is not viable life."
???
A newborn baby, left unattended, is precisely as viable as the fertilized egg in the womb.
Really, that is the question, isn't it?
If it's life, you're fucking with it.
If it is not life, c'est le guerre.
BTW-
What does The Guardian have to say about women's rights as practiced in other countries?
I'm sure there must be an entire archive about women's rights issues in the middle east, or Africa, or possibly about government dictating childbirth regulations in China, huh?
I read half of that article and couldn't finish it because it was drivel.
To start with a woman who took crack whilst she was pregnant, resulting in a dead baby. Then say that this means every woman capable of bearing children must now not drink, or smoke and must take vitamin supplements is just pish.
Sorry if it became more sensible later on, but ffs. It's like saying a man was recently jailed for killing someone to death with a claw hammer, so Joiners are not allowed to have them any more.
Specious pish.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrajag
The "slippery slope" tack is often misused, and is almost always encumbered by the same useless rhetoric.
Take out the klutzy attempts to inflame, and it amounts to a sentence or two at best.
Oh, well. :huh:
It's the pre-pregnant bit that really facinated me, the article posted by MagicNakor was the one that I read originally and found details such as the following quite shocking.
"New federal guidelines issued this year ask any woman capable of conceiving to treat themselves - and to be treated by their health-care provider - as "pre-pregnant" at all times. Women between their first menstrual period and the menopause are told to take folic acid supplements, stop smoking, stop drinking regularly".........
I won't bore the pants of those of you who can't be arsed to read it all, but it goes on to suggest that...
"it's not entirely Orwellian to suspect that women might, in future, be criminalised for any indulgent behaviour before a pregnancy - as well as during - that ends up harming their child.
"
Maybe it touches a nerve becasue I am female but I actually find the prospect of this sort of control quite scary. The Guardian has plenty to say on the rights of females in other cultures such as those highlighted by j2k4(i.e Africa, Middle East & China) but the thing that personalise the issue for me is that the U.S. as a Western civilisation (and regardless of our differences) has a very close symbiotic and mutually reflective relationship with the U.K.
Hmmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by brenda
I wonder, Brenda-are you disposed to conclude as the articles do that oppressive and onerous legal abuse of women cannot be far behind?
If you find yourself a bit angst-ridden at the moment, then the authors of those pieces have succeeded marvelously.
You might be assuaged by meandering through the link I provided, which enumerates the law and it's precepts in rather comprehensive fashion.
I also find there is a disconnect of socio-legal logic as between the U.S. and the U.K.
Prevalent U.K. opinion seems to be (on one hand) your socialist system (with it's attendent liberal societal views and supports) is far superior to our capitalist system.
All well and good, as far as that goes.
On the other hand is expressed a fear that the U.S. sets trends that the U.K. will someday surely be fated to follow...how can that be, if you are (and have been) trotting merrily down the socialist path for many years, while we are lagging so far behind?
You are correct, I think, in noting the quasi-empathy which exists between us, but I wonder at your statement, when, apart from some unfortunate and unwelcome "cultural" influences (think McDonald's), neither the U.K. nor any other nation has dogged our tracks for decades.
The U.S. is currently suffering a convulsive political seizure of no minor proportion...you would do well to observe it, as with a movie, perhaps, rather than fear you will lose any freedom of reproductive rights.
This Act is being touted as an over-arching threat to women; it would be more accurate to say it will have the effect of putting certain things on the public agenda for purposes of referenda, since the much-denied fact of judicial activism has precluded more conventional strategy.
The fact no such outcry exists over conditions in other countries (as I have mentioned) should not be discounted, either; the reason these go unmentioned is telling, don't you think?
There are, after all, far worse places to be a woman then the United States of America, hard though that may be to believe.
As ever, we want action now, you see, and we're used to indulging ourselves that way.
ffs. why do you consider everything that anyone ever says to be a personal attack on the conservative side of america? the outcry is because a free country is taking a step backwards from the freedom it's supposed to uphold. a country which such an outcry could possibly influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Hmmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by brenda
I wonder, Brenda-are you disposed to conclude as the articles do that oppressive and onerous legal abuse of women cannot far behind?
If you find yourself a bit angst-ridden at the moment, then the authors of those pieces have succeeded marvelously.
You might be assuaged by meandering through the link I provided, which enumerates the law and it's precepts in rather comprehensive fashion.
I also find there is a disconnect of socio-legal logic as between the U.S. and the U.K.
Prevalent U.K. opinion seems to be (on one hand) your socialist system (with it's attendent liberal societal views and supports) is far superior to our capitalist system.
All well and good, as far as that goes.
On the other hand is expressed a fear that the U.S. sets trends that the U.K. will someday surely be fated to follow...how can that be, if you are (and have been) trotting merrily down the socialist path for many years, while we are lagging so far behind?
You are correct, I think, in noting the quasi-empathy which exists between us, but I wonder at your statement, when, apart from some unfortunate and unwelcome "cultural" influences (think McDonald's), neither the U.K. nor any other nation has dogged our tracks for decades.
The U.S. is currently suffering a convulsive political seizure of no minor proportion...you would do well to observe it, as with a movie, perhaps, rather than fear you will lose any freedom of reproductive rights.
This Act is being touted as an over-arching threat to women; it would be more accurate to say it will have the effect of putting certain things on the public agenda for purposes of referenda, since the much-denied fact of judicial activism has precluded more conventional strategy.
The fact no such outcry exists over conditions in other countries (as I have mentioned) should not be discounted, either; the reason these go unmentioned is telling, don't you think?
There are, after all, far worse places to be a woman then the United States of America, hard though that may be to believe.
As ever, we want action now, you see, and we're used to indulging ourselves that way.
my personal oppinion is that pregnant women should have to act responsibly. if this means when they don't, they get punished. cool.
ffs, yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
If you actually read the postage, you'd see I was trying to allay any felt anxiety over events Brenda assumes might eventually reach her.
There was no perception of, nor reaction to, any attack.
As an aside, I'd love to have you explain how "the conservative side of america" can suffer "a personal attack"?
Please allow me to translate, sans rabble rousing.Quote:
Originally Posted by brenda
1, It's a good idea to take care of yourself, particularly if you want to make a baby, but it's a matter for you.
2, .... Sorry I can't actually translate that sans rabble rousing, because that's all it is. Might, one day, maybe, perhaps
FFS one day they might outlaw downloading software. I'll worry about that if, when, maybe, perhaps someone talks about thinking about considering it.
Did that sound a bit facetious, sometimes I can't tell.