- 20 Jun 2018 09:34
#14926233
I think it will take a very long time for other countries to follow Canada's lead, but I'm confident it will happen eventually. Just a few years ago, the idea that same sex marriage would ever be lawful anywhere in the world was unthinkable. Yet , here we are. One by one their enemies have fallen.
The problem with Boycey's point of view, which is a very common one, is that it is taking control of a woman's body out of her hands and giving it to lawyers, for no real reason other than what I call the yuk factor, though I'm not sure why he's brought men into it. Pregnancy doesn't affect men's bodies and abortion is just about bodily sovereignty.
It's as if the foetus exists independently of her. It's assuming she cannot be trusted to make decisions for herself. Its a sad leftover from the old days of complete patriarchy, when women owned nothing, not even themselves.
Back in the day, it was thought to be the right thing to do. Women weren't considered capable of looking after themselves. They needed men to do it. They didn't have the right sort of brains to become doctors or lawyers, for instance. Dammit, it's only been recently they've been considered able enough to become vicars!
Patriarchy still rules in much of the world. There's a long way to go. They often mean well, but it needs kicking into touch. We all know that, really.
Abortion should be considered a private health matter in the same way as any other medical procedure. Nothing ese is right.
What we, as individuals, feel about abortion is our own business.
What we feel changes the more we learn about it, anyway. Late stage abortions sound horrendous, until you look at the reasons the woman or girl is having it done.
Then we can approve, so we give the okay for it go ahead. How disgustingly patronising is that?
Why do we feel it's our business to approve?
A good start would be to stop equating an unborn entity with a cute little baby kicking and giggling on a rug in a TV advert, or a born child requiring financial support. It isn't.
Whatever the hopes and dreams, or resentments and dread of the potential parents, it isn't.
It's inside a woman's body and her organs sustain its life to the detriment of her health and physical well being. If she dies, the foetus dies.
Oh, yes it does, despite some people claiming it can be saved. Not if it's inside the woman, it can't. It has to be delivered when it becomes a person who can be treated independently as a patient - if it has gestated long enough and has been delivered soon enough after the woman's death for that to be a possibility.
Lecture over. I've shot my bolt on the subject, unless somebody has a question to ask or wants clarification.
The problem with Boycey's point of view, which is a very common one, is that it is taking control of a woman's body out of her hands and giving it to lawyers, for no real reason other than what I call the yuk factor, though I'm not sure why he's brought men into it. Pregnancy doesn't affect men's bodies and abortion is just about bodily sovereignty.
It's as if the foetus exists independently of her. It's assuming she cannot be trusted to make decisions for herself. Its a sad leftover from the old days of complete patriarchy, when women owned nothing, not even themselves.
Back in the day, it was thought to be the right thing to do. Women weren't considered capable of looking after themselves. They needed men to do it. They didn't have the right sort of brains to become doctors or lawyers, for instance. Dammit, it's only been recently they've been considered able enough to become vicars!
Patriarchy still rules in much of the world. There's a long way to go. They often mean well, but it needs kicking into touch. We all know that, really.
Abortion should be considered a private health matter in the same way as any other medical procedure. Nothing ese is right.
What we, as individuals, feel about abortion is our own business.
What we feel changes the more we learn about it, anyway. Late stage abortions sound horrendous, until you look at the reasons the woman or girl is having it done.
Then we can approve, so we give the okay for it go ahead. How disgustingly patronising is that?
Why do we feel it's our business to approve?
A good start would be to stop equating an unborn entity with a cute little baby kicking and giggling on a rug in a TV advert, or a born child requiring financial support. It isn't.
Whatever the hopes and dreams, or resentments and dread of the potential parents, it isn't.
It's inside a woman's body and her organs sustain its life to the detriment of her health and physical well being. If she dies, the foetus dies.
Oh, yes it does, despite some people claiming it can be saved. Not if it's inside the woman, it can't. It has to be delivered when it becomes a person who can be treated independently as a patient - if it has gestated long enough and has been delivered soon enough after the woman's death for that to be a possibility.
Lecture over. I've shot my bolt on the subject, unless somebody has a question to ask or wants clarification.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” -Socrates.