Uhm, WTF Britain?

[dannubis]

[Sava]

FWIW.

as much as the turds i just flushed

[Lorizael]

Not any more than I care about your opinion or approval for any number of other civil rights. That's what you ****-eating morons don't get. Women's civil rights aren't up for debate. Get with the program and shut the **** up.

See, this is the problem of not allowing "debate" about a particular subject. I'm a crazy amoral liberal who thinks it's okay to eat unborn children--but I think adoption is often a better choice than abortion. By shutting down the debate, however, you lose out on the opportunity to hear viewpoints that differ from, but do not necessarily oppose, your own.

[kentonio]

What's it got to do with you though? Why do you have any right to tell women they should be carrying children they don't want to term?

[DinoDoc]

Why do you have any right to tell women they should be carrying children they don't want to term?

High Court Orders 13-Year-Old Girl To Have Abortion

[Lorizael]

What's it got to do with you though? Why do you have any right to tell women they should be carrying children they don't want to term?

I don't. But I can still have an opinion, and it's possible my opinion could change people's minds.

[kentonio]

I don't. But I can still have an opinion, and it's possible my opinion could change people's minds.

People are welcome to their own opinions, but when we talk about stuff being open for debate the implication is usually that it's still something that's still open for legal change if people are vocal enough. This particular civil right is too fundamental to women to be overruled. Even if 51% of women and all men wanted to ban abortion, that still means you'd be talking about forcing 49% of women into losing control over their bodies. Not going to happen.

[Lorizael]

I'm not arguing that we should ban abortion. I'm arguing that it would cool, in most cases, if people chose adoption instead of abortion.

[kentonio]

Fair enough.

[Imran Siddiqui]

People are welcome to their own opinions, but when we talk about stuff being open for debate the implication is usually that it's still something that's still open for legal change if people are vocal enough.

**** democracy?

This particular civil right is too fundamental to women to be overruled.

What about the particular civil right of a right to life. I'd imagine that'd be quite a fundamental right for the unborn (at the very least late term unborn that even you lot in heathen Europe protect more than the US does) that may be considered too fundamental to be overruled too.

Trying to make this all cut and dry just makes you look foolish.

Besides, only severe libertarians believe 'people have no business is what I do with my body' type of arguments - what if the pregnant woman was taking crack and saying that you had no right to question what she does with her body? I'm not entirely sure you'd respect her "civil right".

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Quote Originally Posted by DinoDoc View Post
High Court Orders 13-Year-Old Girl Who Wants To Have Abortion To Have Abortion

Quote corrected for accuracy.

[dannubis]

Why are you letting facts get in the way of a good discussion (or troll fest ?)

Why do you hate apolyton ?

[kentonio]

**** democracy?

Very much so. Unless you also think democracy should allow a majority to reinstate slavery, decide we're going to allow people to randomly murder minorities at will, or any of the numerous other things we consider beyond the reach of majority rule.

What about the particular civil right of a right to life. I'd imagine that'd be quite a fundamental right for the unborn (at the very least late term unborn that even you lot in heathen Europe protect more than the US does) that may be considered too fundamental to be overruled too.

Except it isn't too fundamental to overrule because we don't. Setting aside the late term thing (because it's not really relevant, and we both oppose it anyway), abortion fits into a special category because banning it would involve another living human being being told what they can and cannot do with their own body, a group no less that spent several thousand years being treated like property. If you think for one second that women are going to allow their rights to be stripped away again then you're deluding yourself.

Trying to make this all cut and dry just makes you look foolish.

Well aren't you the snippy little ****er at the moment. Sorry that me disagreeing with you about religion means that you have to try and tell me I'm stupid in every other discussion we have. Feel free to shove that up your ass.

Besides, only severe libertarians believe 'people have no business is what I do with my body' type of arguments - what if the pregnant woman was taking crack and saying that you had no right to question what she does with her body? I'm not entirely sure you'd respect her "civil right".

No I probably wouldn't. Because despite you trying to claim I'm pretending this is clear cut, it's actually a very nuanced and complicated discussion. You can probably find all sorts of instances where a females body choice can be overridden (hell this thread is about one such instance), but at the root of it there's a pretty clear and hard fast principle: Women's bodies are their own except under the most exceptional circumstances.

[Dr Strangelove]

Did anyone catch the part about the girl having an I.Q. of 54? As far as I'm concerned having sex with someone with that degree of mental challenge is simply child rape. She has the mind of a 7 year old, she's not able to give consent one way or another.

[C0ckney]

Did anyone catch the part about the girl having an I.Q. of 54? As far as I'm concerned having sex with someone with that degree of mental challenge is simply child rape. She has the mind of a 7 year old, she's not able to give consent one way or another.

it might be, but i think it depends on the circumstances. it was a 14 year-old boy who impregnated her and, although this isn't made clear in the article, it's possible that he also has special educational needs.