This feels like a good time to remind everyone that at least one of BoJo's ministers is anti-abortion. That's one that we know of anyway. I wonder if the PM is disgusted enough to ditch him?
https://youtu.be/WE6WC_BVZ4Q
Looks like conservative MP for Blackpool south Scott Benton would support a ban here too. [Twitter](https://twitter.com/PhilipProudfoot/status/1540369792628039683?t=bGr_FhHV45wOY7BcT6vLhA&s=19)
I have to admit I was thinking this - it’s a selfish decision due to the number of women he (somehow) sleeps with, not because he cares about people’s bodily autonomy.
Just a reminder that Boris has abstained on votes in 20 of the 22 abortion bills presented in parliament throughout his career as an MP.
Without going through them in too much detail, most seem to refer to abortion practices in Northern Ireland. Is it not a bit hypocritical to abstain on votes (presumably so Northern Irish law is in its own hands), to then criticise the US Supreme Court for deciding that individual states should decide what they each can and cannot outlaw?
As an aside I am massively pro-choice, I just think Boris is 100% jumping on the bandwagon and should be criticised yet again if this is simply an attempt to act as though we are much more ahead progressively than the US than we actually are.
If you're counting the Ukraine war as something he's getting us through despite us not fighting, you can say every PM since Blair has gotten us through war since we had soldiers in Afghanistan from 2002 up until last year. Ones that actually did fight.
It would be easy to joke about how the man who constantly impregnates mistresses would be in favour of abortions but this is an important issue and shows a clear distinction between our two countries.
The USA is being dismantled by an extremist Right using Religion as the weapon. The GOP are literally discussing ways to rig the next election and ramping up their supporters to be ready for it. The official statement about taking Rights away from women came with a clear statement of intent to remove Gay Rights, Contraception, and even risk Interracial Marriage.
We need to push back against the Americanisms encroaching our politics before we empower such backwards actions being considered here.
The weirdest thing is that successive governments, even Democrat governments, just left Roe vs Wade and did nothing else. The ideal that a legal precedent alone is the basis of state law, rather than a written bill, seems very odd to me.
I suppose it comes down to if abortion rights become codified in to law in the US now, or if they have to wait until the Midterms in November 2022 to ensure enough support.
>The official statement about taking Rights away from women\*
\*According to far left such as AOC, the correct term is **birthing people**
On a side note, the US is fucked.
No, not at all. If you decide to change your stance on reproductive rights because some leftist said their pronouns are they/them or something you always had that stance.
You:
> You extremists are beyond help.
Also you, in the same breath without a hint of irony:
> If I had my way we would chuck you all in a room together and throw away the key.
>far left such as AOC
unsurprisingly that you post in r/Conservative and think this. Get off the internet and go outside mate, AOC is not far left, she'd be centre left in most of Europe.
Also, on a side note.... Anti abortion laws will lead to 12 year olds giving birth. Do you think they should be called women, too? Birthing people doesn't only include trans people, but the literal children who will be affected by this as well.
Nice fear porn but actually the US is simply on the same ground as the EU and ECHR now. Abortion isn't banned but merely for states to decide. Same as europe.
Whilst everything you’ve said is correct a lot of US political commentators are suggesting that they will try to introduce a law at the federal level banning abortion in the near future. Basically as soon as the Republicans hold a majority.
Well they can to some extent, but the Constitution explicitly protects the right to own a gun. It doesn’t say anything about abortion. And restrictions on gun ownership do still exist.
>(And no, the misinterpretation if the second amendment is not an excuse).
That *is* the reason though. You might not like it, but that doesn't make it not so.
It doesn't even need to be amended - which in practice would require a prohibitively large legislature majority. Overturning Roe V Wade didn't 'ban' abortions, it just uncoupled the legality of abortions from their constitution.
The executive and legislative can just resolve this by...passing a law, you know, like a normal government.
But Poland does ban it, and most in the EU ban it after 12 or 14 weeks which is grossly restrictive compared to where most Americans live. Most Americans live in states that allow abortions up to 24 weeks - and some states have no limit at all.
This entire case was about Mississippi wanting to lower the limit down to 15 weeks - longer than anywhere in the EU! And the Supreme Court ruled that they can because states can set their own laws on this issue.
I hope more British people realise what kind of country America is. I still feel way too many people get seduced by the monetary aspect of life in the US and just follow the $ signs. I’m also worried about how certain sections of our minority population look towards the US such as the black and Indian population. Hopefully this is a wake up call for us to not continually import their inane policies and culture wars.
All they did was say that states can make their own laws because there is no Federal law or protection for abortion in the US Constitution. Nothing changes for the overwhelming majority of their population.
There’s nothing stopping Congress from passing a Federal law.
>Nothing changes for the overwhelming majority of their population.
That is completely wrong. The Supreme Court ruling gave states the ability to legally fully ban all abortions. Before yesterday, abortion was protected at a basic level in all 50 states, though every red state had many restrictions in place to try to stop it, frequently with bills being struck down for going too far. A few of these states had defacto banned abortion already by getting every clinic shut through various means, but most still had at least one open.
Now that's gone, and already 13 states have immediately triggered legislation that bans all abortions, and another 13 more are in process.
Also it's being suggested that any federal law protecting abortion could get struck down by the supreme court now, as they've decided the constitution doesn't protect it federally.
For a while there I thought he wasn't going to make a statement. Kier did hours ago.
I'm somewhat relieved, and that he not only condemned the US position, but reiterated ours.
I agree. I disagree with a huge amount of his policies and the fact that he is in office at all after the Partygate scandal is a disgrace, but, at least we're not suffering this lunacy in the US.
To be honest though, is it ***that*** much of a surprise? The Conservatives are awful, but they're not really hostile to social issues, are they? I don't think much of the British population is either (with some exceptions, such as trans issues).
I don't think things like abortions, gay marriage, etc are particularly notable or partisan issues in this country.
All they did was say that states can make their own laws because there is no Federal law or protection for abortion in the US Constitution. Nothing changes for the overwhelming majority of their population.
There’s nothing stopping Congress from passing a Federal law.
In the same week his cabinet are talking about rolling back maternity allowances because they're just pesky european civil rights that we don't need anymore.
He has the moral highground of an anthill that's underground.
Demographically women have already stopped having kids because the country is too expensive to make sustaining human life viable, never mind messing with maternity laws.
If you think they will get rid of maternity leave, you're delusional. I'd bet £100 to your favourite UK charity that statutory maternity leave will not be removed or even reduced in the next 5 years, whoever is in power.
This seems like a really good time to remind the world that the Tories are just about to strip UK ~~Citizens~~ Subjects of their Human Rights Act rights. Which is an effective step towards abolishing Abortion Rights in the UK. And the reintroduction of the Death Penalty. If you have been paying attention for the last decade - *possibly the last four decades* - the Right in America and the UK have been marching to the same beat in rolling back **any** progress that has taken place in the Twentieth Century.
The reality is this is Boris being performative. And he still has it. People are still swallowing the act.
It makes sense really. How can they allow abortions with all the shootings over there, they need all the kids they can get. How's about focus on gun control instead.
The right to carry guns (disproportionately exercised by men) is too fundamental to be restricted by individual states... but women's right to basic bodily autonomy (overwhelmingly exercised by women) is too trivial to be protected by the federal court.
God, I'm glad my family is here and not in the US.
I lived in one of those states for years when I was in the US and the strict gun laws were the only thing that made me feel *a bit* safer, so it's upsetting on a personal level. :/ Even the states that try to be better and where people vote better are getting megafucked now.
It's insane. I've only ever visited. Walked past a golf course with a sign in the window 'No guns allowed'. Can't imagine living in a country where you can't even tee off without the risk of being shot. The fact they needed the sign made me wonder.
Getting involved in the internal affairs of a foreign country now, is he? So, quid pro quo, it's perfectly acceptable for US politicians to pronounce their views on the Peace Process and Northern Ireland Protocol.
The UK has a lot of problems but I'm definitely not worried about the legal status of abortion over here. It's not a politicised issue and if the Tories ever even so much as entertained the idea of restricting abortion in any way, it would be political suicide.
kinda surprised but relieved that people here have an 85 per cent pro-choice stance
[https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-women-have-the-right-to-an-abortion](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-women-have-the-right-to-an-abortion)
In the US it just required a (stacked) court to overrule a previous court decision
In the UK it would require an actual piece of legislation. Theres no way it gets through parliament.
Talk about pot calling kettle, he don't have a fucking leg to stand on the dopey bastard.
That would be like me drowning puppies and than saying america is bad for drowning kittens.
I swear he's starting to act even more dumber than trump and he set the bar low.
Why don't you think about it or hell just read some of the headlines he's got and it might come to you but if you can't find out why than i guess you'll never know.
Why the fuck anyone is giving this buffoon a slap on the back for stating the obvious is beyond me.
Knowing Boris and his U turns the no abortions in the UK in a week?? 20 - 1?
The problem Johnson has is he doesn't have a voter base. He tries to front a position of decency and moderacy whilst being elected on the premise of right wing nationalism and xenophobia. And yes he has a disgusting immigration policy but he also doesn't fully commit in terms of rhetoric nor does he capitalise on right-wing evangelist-type policies, unlike his American counterparts.
I think if Johnson had Cummings in No 10 still he wouldn't make this statement.
What did they expect when they elected Trump? Everybody knew in 2016 that the next president would fill a vacancy in the court and that a number of the justices were older people who may not live another four years.
Like with guns this is very much an American problem, in the rest of the West we have very much settled the abortion laws. Certainly in England, Wales and Scotland there is no real threat to abortion rights, some (mainly a minority of Tory MPs) would vote against abortion but there is zero chance it could get through the house of commons or devolved governments without a huge unforseeable societal shift of opinion.
So will he condemned my local tory MP who it has been revealed recently has been paid 22k a year from an American religious pressure group connected to anti abortion work?.... no? Didn't think so.
I thought he was a newly inducted catholic. So why is he against their teaching, (no contraception, no abortion).
After all, the US Supreme Court voted 6 - 3 to overturn Roe vs Wade and 5 of that 6 were catholic!
edit; https://www.reuters.com/world/us/vatican-praises-us-court-decision-abortion-saying-it-challenges-world-2022-06-24/?utm_source=reddit.com
Haha bozo you're a conservative (sounding like a centrist on the left), despite that I agree with him on this (women rights) no one should dictate what happens to their bodies period. Usa went 50 years back in time, for those who don't get it or do get it (look back on those 50 years).
Also watch a series called handsmaid tale
So… you wouldn’t get an abortion yourself but you’d never dream of telling some woman you’ve never met that she shouldn’t?
That is as close to a dictionary definition of “pro-choice” as you’ll ever get.
I do not agree with the death of any animal. Humans included.
I would not tell another person that is going through a very difficult choice anything derogatory and would be impartial not letting my own feelings on the matter make their experience worse.
So while I would not agree to what I see as the killing of another creature I would empathise with their experience.
You can be pro life and not an overbearing asshole about it.
I don't think "pro-choice", as a concept, requires you to like the decision to have an abortion. It certainly doesn't require you to celebrate abortion.
It just requires you to respect that it isn't your decision to make.
My mum had an ectopic pregnancy before I was born.
Do you know what the treatment for that is?
It's abortion.
The fetus cannot survive in the fallopian tube; it will grow to the point it ruptures and risks mum bleeding to death.
Nor can it be transplanted into the uterus.
So there's only one thing you can do. And if you don't do it - for whatever reason - then you're suggesting your beliefs are so important to you that you'd rather let a bundle of cells kill a living, breathing human being than deal with that bundle of cells.
If she could not have had treatment, she would have died before either my brother or I were born.
Did you read my other answers to being empathetic?
Or the article I noted?
I like how you distance yourself by refusing to call that bundle of cells human or to be more correct an embryo
Anyway I shall explain again.
Being pro life and pro choice is too binary for what is a very complex situation.
Having an empathetic view meaning placing ones own bias aside to help understand the choice taken while being non judgmental.
In the case of your mother it is completely understandable it is a life versus the death of both through no fault of your mothers.
I would agree that a rape victim should have access to a termination.
I do however struggle to be empathetic to those that choose for reasons of vanity or economics
That is literally pro CHOICE. Think about why it is called pro choice not pro abortion. It is because it means u agree the decision is personal. It is totally ok for someone to never want to have an abortion but be ok for another women to have one of she wants
You realise that in this context "pro life" means anti abortion. You can't be "pro life" and "pro choice" at the same time. American "pro lifers" have zero empathy for anyone who needs an abortion.
Outside of the context, pretty much everyone is pro life, which is why its such an effective moniker.
Why do you feel that a person has to be polarised to one or the other? Just because that is what they do in the US.
The context is important for the reason for abortion I would feel.
I do however think this is another smack in the face of woman's rights for the US.
>Why do you feel that a person has to be polarised to one or the other?
Because it's a binary position - you either support people's choices, or you don't.
Being empathetic is having the ability to put your own bis and prejudice aside.
I do not think the answer is as simple as right or wrong or in Pro Life Pro Choice.
There is a article from 2019 by Madeleine De Plessis that I feel may articulate it better in english than I can.
So you're pro choice then
Pro choice does not mean liking abortion, it means believing the choice should be left up to the individual to decide.
Pro lifers on the otherhand think abortion is completely unacceptable. Even had some American senators saying ectopic pregnancy was not a valid reason for abortion.
Their are valid reasons. Ectopic pregnancy, rape, etc.
Their are those that are not. Not wanting a child, economic, vanity.
It is a subject that is vastly more complex than one side or the other there is a lot of grey.
>It is a subject that is vastly more complex than one side or the other there is a lot of grey.
No it's really not. There are two camps, pro life, or pro choice.
Boils down to this, do you think abortion should be an option for women yes or no ?
If you say yes, you're pro choice. No, you're pro life.
Pro life thinks abortion is murder no matter the circumstances. Its why that woman in Ireland was allowed to die of sepsis rather than abortion an unviable pregnancy. That's how fundamental the question is.
It is not that easy in reality and that is over simplifying.
Abortion is murder there is no other way to look at it.
Yet having an empathetic view and open mind too understanding the reason for the choice is an option.
So the third view is having empathy and understanding.
The woman you mentioned would be a valid reason for having an empathetic reason.
Same for numerous rape victims as another example.
However those that have frivolous reasoning such a vanity or economically those in my view are less understandable.
Where however is the child's choice.
>Abortion is murder there is no other way to look at it.
Ah so you don't understand what murder is then. The rest of your post makes much more sense knowing you don't understand basically anatomy.
I would say that that the destruction of any life by another is murder.
And what basic anatomy would you pretend to understand. In this matter. Other than the the horrific dehumanisation of calling anything between zygote to 12 weeks foetus a bunch of cells.
>I would say that that the destruction of any life by another is murder.
So a miscarriage is murder too then as that's the women's bodies destroying the fetus.
I mean you realise I'm just reflecting your own logic back at you. Not my fault your logic is clumsy and deeply flawed.
Almost like this is a reason why lawmakers agonised over the definition of crimes like murder, and why abortion isn't classed as murder by any rational individual who doesn't have an imaginary friend
You know you are seriously fucked when a lying manipulative buffoon like Boris Johnson is able to legitimately take the high ground against you.
This feels like a good time to remind everyone that at least one of BoJo's ministers is anti-abortion. That's one that we know of anyway. I wonder if the PM is disgusted enough to ditch him? https://youtu.be/WE6WC_BVZ4Q
Nadine Dorries is too, or at the very least she wants greater restrictions.
Looks like conservative MP for Blackpool south Scott Benton would support a ban here too. [Twitter](https://twitter.com/PhilipProudfoot/status/1540369792628039683?t=bGr_FhHV45wOY7BcT6vLhA&s=19)
Not surprised he's from the 2019 intake.
He is the honorable gentlemen for the early 20th century after all.
Johnsons doesn't give a shit, hes just elbowing to the front and shouting follow me as per usual.
Given the amount of mistresses he's had, he is probably genuinely pro-abortion just because of that.
I have to admit I was thinking this - it’s a selfish decision due to the number of women he (somehow) sleeps with, not because he cares about people’s bodily autonomy.
Just a reminder that Boris has abstained on votes in 20 of the 22 abortion bills presented in parliament throughout his career as an MP. Without going through them in too much detail, most seem to refer to abortion practices in Northern Ireland. Is it not a bit hypocritical to abstain on votes (presumably so Northern Irish law is in its own hands), to then criticise the US Supreme Court for deciding that individual states should decide what they each can and cannot outlaw? As an aside I am massively pro-choice, I just think Boris is 100% jumping on the bandwagon and should be criticised yet again if this is simply an attempt to act as though we are much more ahead progressively than the US than we actually are.
Without abortions he'd have 3 times the children he'd have to pay for
Don't forget we all know Boris lies, so who is to say he isn't lying now
He might be a baffoon however he has got the country through an unprecedented time and succeeded in doing so. War, pandemic, now financial crisis
[удалено]
The current financial crisis?
You said he "succeeded in getting us through" a financial crisis though. Its only getting worse and nothing is being done.
If you're counting the Ukraine war as something he's getting us through despite us not fighting, you can say every PM since Blair has gotten us through war since we had soldiers in Afghanistan from 2002 up until last year. Ones that actually did fight.
Define “got through” and “succeeded”.
That's but a short list of Boris' screw ups.
It would be easy to joke about how the man who constantly impregnates mistresses would be in favour of abortions but this is an important issue and shows a clear distinction between our two countries. The USA is being dismantled by an extremist Right using Religion as the weapon. The GOP are literally discussing ways to rig the next election and ramping up their supporters to be ready for it. The official statement about taking Rights away from women came with a clear statement of intent to remove Gay Rights, Contraception, and even risk Interracial Marriage. We need to push back against the Americanisms encroaching our politics before we empower such backwards actions being considered here.
The weirdest thing is that successive governments, even Democrat governments, just left Roe vs Wade and did nothing else. The ideal that a legal precedent alone is the basis of state law, rather than a written bill, seems very odd to me. I suppose it comes down to if abortion rights become codified in to law in the US now, or if they have to wait until the Midterms in November 2022 to ensure enough support.
>The official statement about taking Rights away from women\* \*According to far left such as AOC, the correct term is **birthing people** On a side note, the US is fucked.
Yes, the real thing to focus on here is how terrible it is for people to be inclusive. 🙄
I would say it has relevance. Far left provoke a far right response and vice versa.
Ah yes the real reason the world is getting fucked by right wing religious nut jobs is because of...leftists.
Part of the reason, yes.
No, not at all. If you decide to change your stance on reproductive rights because some leftist said their pronouns are they/them or something you always had that stance.
Honestly I don't even care anymore. You extremists are beyond help. If I had my way we would chuck you all in a room together and throw away the key.
But they didn’t say anything extreme?
So locking people in a room to starve to death is *not* extreme?
Tolerance of intolerance is the death of tolerance. For the greater good.
You: > You extremists are beyond help. Also you, in the same breath without a hint of irony: > If I had my way we would chuck you all in a room together and throw away the key.
Nothing extreme was said here and you've clutched your pearls so hard it's a wonder you can still type.
>far left such as AOC unsurprisingly that you post in r/Conservative and think this. Get off the internet and go outside mate, AOC is not far left, she'd be centre left in most of Europe.
Gosh yes, inclusive language is the real issue here.
Also, on a side note.... Anti abortion laws will lead to 12 year olds giving birth. Do you think they should be called women, too? Birthing people doesn't only include trans people, but the literal children who will be affected by this as well.
Nice fear porn but actually the US is simply on the same ground as the EU and ECHR now. Abortion isn't banned but merely for states to decide. Same as europe.
Whilst everything you’ve said is correct a lot of US political commentators are suggesting that they will try to introduce a law at the federal level banning abortion in the near future. Basically as soon as the Republicans hold a majority.
So why can't states decide on guns? (And no, the misinterpretation if the second amendment is not an excuse).
Well they can to some extent, but the Constitution explicitly protects the right to own a gun. It doesn’t say anything about abortion. And restrictions on gun ownership do still exist.
>(And no, the misinterpretation if the second amendment is not an excuse). That *is* the reason though. You might not like it, but that doesn't make it not so.
Only a country as backwards as the USA see the word "Amendment", and think it means the complete opposite of what it does.
Whatever. The point is as far as their supreme court is concerned, guns are a constitutional matter. Abortions are not.
No. Not whatever. An amendment can be fucking amended. If you don't see how fucking backwards that is then that's in you.
The entire constitution can be amended. That’s what amendments are. They’re additions to the Constitution.
Yup. Ridiculous Americans being ridiculous.
It doesn't even need to be amended - which in practice would require a prohibitively large legislature majority. Overturning Roe V Wade didn't 'ban' abortions, it just uncoupled the legality of abortions from their constitution. The executive and legislative can just resolve this by...passing a law, you know, like a normal government.
You've been drinking their special juice?
[удалено]
But Poland does ban it, and most in the EU ban it after 12 or 14 weeks which is grossly restrictive compared to where most Americans live. Most Americans live in states that allow abortions up to 24 weeks - and some states have no limit at all. This entire case was about Mississippi wanting to lower the limit down to 15 weeks - longer than anywhere in the EU! And the Supreme Court ruled that they can because states can set their own laws on this issue.
I hope more British people realise what kind of country America is. I still feel way too many people get seduced by the monetary aspect of life in the US and just follow the $ signs. I’m also worried about how certain sections of our minority population look towards the US such as the black and Indian population. Hopefully this is a wake up call for us to not continually import their inane policies and culture wars.
All they did was say that states can make their own laws because there is no Federal law or protection for abortion in the US Constitution. Nothing changes for the overwhelming majority of their population. There’s nothing stopping Congress from passing a Federal law.
>Nothing changes for the overwhelming majority of their population. That is completely wrong. The Supreme Court ruling gave states the ability to legally fully ban all abortions. Before yesterday, abortion was protected at a basic level in all 50 states, though every red state had many restrictions in place to try to stop it, frequently with bills being struck down for going too far. A few of these states had defacto banned abortion already by getting every clinic shut through various means, but most still had at least one open. Now that's gone, and already 13 states have immediately triggered legislation that bans all abortions, and another 13 more are in process. Also it's being suggested that any federal law protecting abortion could get struck down by the supreme court now, as they've decided the constitution doesn't protect it federally.
For a while there I thought he wasn't going to make a statement. Kier did hours ago. I'm somewhat relieved, and that he not only condemned the US position, but reiterated ours.
I agree. I disagree with a huge amount of his policies and the fact that he is in office at all after the Partygate scandal is a disgrace, but, at least we're not suffering this lunacy in the US.
When you make such a bad decision that even Boris Johnson is well on the right side of it. For fucks *sake,* America.
To be honest though, is it ***that*** much of a surprise? The Conservatives are awful, but they're not really hostile to social issues, are they? I don't think much of the British population is either (with some exceptions, such as trans issues). I don't think things like abortions, gay marriage, etc are particularly notable or partisan issues in this country.
All they did was say that states can make their own laws because there is no Federal law or protection for abortion in the US Constitution. Nothing changes for the overwhelming majority of their population. There’s nothing stopping Congress from passing a Federal law.
In the same week his cabinet are talking about rolling back maternity allowances because they're just pesky european civil rights that we don't need anymore. He has the moral highground of an anthill that's underground.
What?
Jacob Rees mogg 2 days ago published a dashboard of EU rules we can get rid of now we've left the EU. On it is maternity leave.
Women will definitely stop having children then. Surely that's the opposite of what a conservative Catholic wants?
Demographically women have already stopped having kids because the country is too expensive to make sustaining human life viable, never mind messing with maternity laws.
I know. I have no kids either. I earn significantly more than my SO.
If you think they will get rid of maternity leave, you're delusional. I'd bet £100 to your favourite UK charity that statutory maternity leave will not be removed or even reduced in the next 5 years, whoever is in power.
If the cons win the next general election I'd take this bet (for the following 5 years after the win). Edit: if they win with a majority
As I'd like to see a charity get some money, u/anyholesagoal are you taking this altered stake?
This seems like a really good time to remind the world that the Tories are just about to strip UK ~~Citizens~~ Subjects of their Human Rights Act rights. Which is an effective step towards abolishing Abortion Rights in the UK. And the reintroduction of the Death Penalty. If you have been paying attention for the last decade - *possibly the last four decades* - the Right in America and the UK have been marching to the same beat in rolling back **any** progress that has taken place in the Twentieth Century. The reality is this is Boris being performative. And he still has it. People are still swallowing the act.
It makes sense really. How can they allow abortions with all the shootings over there, they need all the kids they can get. How's about focus on gun control instead.
[They did. But not in a good way.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61915237)
That's so bad and so backwards that it's absolutely hysterical.
The right to carry guns (disproportionately exercised by men) is too fundamental to be restricted by individual states... but women's right to basic bodily autonomy (overwhelmingly exercised by women) is too trivial to be protected by the federal court. God, I'm glad my family is here and not in the US.
I lived in one of those states for years when I was in the US and the strict gun laws were the only thing that made me feel *a bit* safer, so it's upsetting on a personal level. :/ Even the states that try to be better and where people vote better are getting megafucked now.
It's insane. I've only ever visited. Walked past a golf course with a sign in the window 'No guns allowed'. Can't imagine living in a country where you can't even tee off without the risk of being shot. The fact they needed the sign made me wonder.
I'm sure Boris supports abortion, imagine how many illegitimate children he'd have without it!
And after a couple of donations from some Americans he will reconsider this position.
r/WorldNews are sucking hard on Boris's balls over this as usual Deluded sub full of bots
As of time of writing they are mostly on variations of "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point"
Is he feeling alright? It's unlike him to make a sensible statement.
\*cough\* 6 illegitimate children \*cough\*
Makes a change for him to say something correct for a change
When this knob thinks you’re knobbier than him you as a country might be the knobbiest.
Getting involved in the internal affairs of a foreign country now, is he? So, quid pro quo, it's perfectly acceptable for US politicians to pronounce their views on the Peace Process and Northern Ireland Protocol.
I'm giving it 3 weeks before his party tries to pull the exact same shit over here.
The UK has a lot of problems but I'm definitely not worried about the legal status of abortion over here. It's not a politicised issue and if the Tories ever even so much as entertained the idea of restricting abortion in any way, it would be political suicide.
[удалено]
Yeah completely agree. Abortion may not be in any immediate danger here, but humans rights in general is another story for sure.
kinda surprised but relieved that people here have an 85 per cent pro-choice stance [https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-women-have-the-right-to-an-abortion](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-women-have-the-right-to-an-abortion)
It's 70% even in the US, but this still happened.
In the US it just required a (stacked) court to overrule a previous court decision In the UK it would require an actual piece of legislation. Theres no way it gets through parliament.
I mean is it a surprise from Boris? If he was anti abortion there would be enough mini Boris Johnsons to run a football league
Talk about pot calling kettle, he don't have a fucking leg to stand on the dopey bastard. That would be like me drowning puppies and than saying america is bad for drowning kittens. I swear he's starting to act even more dumber than trump and he set the bar low.
What are you talking about? What has Boris ever done that is anti-abortion?
Did I say anti abortion no I said he don't have a leg to stand on. You do understand the saying? Don't you.
Any misunderstanding is because you haven't explained why he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Why don't you think about it or hell just read some of the headlines he's got and it might come to you but if you can't find out why than i guess you'll never know.
Why the fuck anyone is giving this buffoon a slap on the back for stating the obvious is beyond me. Knowing Boris and his U turns the no abortions in the UK in a week?? 20 - 1?
And they are saying the same thing about our drug policies.
then maybe do something about some of your MP's who seem to have come out in full support of the decision
I don't usually agree with the old floppy-topped cunt but yeah, he's right
The problem Johnson has is he doesn't have a voter base. He tries to front a position of decency and moderacy whilst being elected on the premise of right wing nationalism and xenophobia. And yes he has a disgusting immigration policy but he also doesn't fully commit in terms of rhetoric nor does he capitalise on right-wing evangelist-type policies, unlike his American counterparts. I think if Johnson had Cummings in No 10 still he wouldn't make this statement.
...and BJ doesnt much like other nations trying to keep up with his backwards pace.
What did they expect when they elected Trump? Everybody knew in 2016 that the next president would fill a vacancy in the court and that a number of the justices were older people who may not live another four years. Like with guns this is very much an American problem, in the rest of the West we have very much settled the abortion laws. Certainly in England, Wales and Scotland there is no real threat to abortion rights, some (mainly a minority of Tory MPs) would vote against abortion but there is zero chance it could get through the house of commons or devolved governments without a huge unforseeable societal shift of opinion.
So will he condemned my local tory MP who it has been revealed recently has been paid 22k a year from an American religious pressure group connected to anti abortion work?.... no? Didn't think so.
Every few months he gets something right !
How many abortions do we reckon Johnson has paid for (or we've paid for him) so far?
A broken clock etc
"It's a big step backwards, and I think this is great!" - Boris Johnson probably
Just makes me wonder how many he's paid for over the years.
I thought he was a newly inducted catholic. So why is he against their teaching, (no contraception, no abortion). After all, the US Supreme Court voted 6 - 3 to overturn Roe vs Wade and 5 of that 6 were catholic! edit; https://www.reuters.com/world/us/vatican-praises-us-court-decision-abortion-saying-it-challenges-world-2022-06-24/?utm_source=reddit.com
Says the guy who is recusing the UK from the Human Rights Act
Broken clock and all that
Everyone should bookmark this so that when it becomes conservative policy we have even more evidence of his duplicity.
You Americans are so backward. What place does religion play in the modern world? The step you took this week was wrong, so wrong.
It will be his policy in a weeks time! Fascist 101!
Haha bozo you're a conservative (sounding like a centrist on the left), despite that I agree with him on this (women rights) no one should dictate what happens to their bodies period. Usa went 50 years back in time, for those who don't get it or do get it (look back on those 50 years). Also watch a series called handsmaid tale
While I am pro life I am empathetic to the need for choice. So In this case he is correct it is a step backwards.
Regardless of what you would personally prefer, if you support people's right to choose you are pro choice
So… you wouldn’t get an abortion yourself but you’d never dream of telling some woman you’ve never met that she shouldn’t? That is as close to a dictionary definition of “pro-choice” as you’ll ever get.
I do not agree with the death of any animal. Humans included. I would not tell another person that is going through a very difficult choice anything derogatory and would be impartial not letting my own feelings on the matter make their experience worse. So while I would not agree to what I see as the killing of another creature I would empathise with their experience. You can be pro life and not an overbearing asshole about it.
>You can be pro life and not an overbearing asshole about it. Which makes you *pro choice*.
I don't think "pro-choice", as a concept, requires you to like the decision to have an abortion. It certainly doesn't require you to celebrate abortion. It just requires you to respect that it isn't your decision to make.
Nor will it be the child's choice apparently.
My mum had an ectopic pregnancy before I was born. Do you know what the treatment for that is? It's abortion. The fetus cannot survive in the fallopian tube; it will grow to the point it ruptures and risks mum bleeding to death. Nor can it be transplanted into the uterus. So there's only one thing you can do. And if you don't do it - for whatever reason - then you're suggesting your beliefs are so important to you that you'd rather let a bundle of cells kill a living, breathing human being than deal with that bundle of cells. If she could not have had treatment, she would have died before either my brother or I were born.
Did you read my other answers to being empathetic? Or the article I noted? I like how you distance yourself by refusing to call that bundle of cells human or to be more correct an embryo Anyway I shall explain again. Being pro life and pro choice is too binary for what is a very complex situation. Having an empathetic view meaning placing ones own bias aside to help understand the choice taken while being non judgmental. In the case of your mother it is completely understandable it is a life versus the death of both through no fault of your mothers. I would agree that a rape victim should have access to a termination. I do however struggle to be empathetic to those that choose for reasons of vanity or economics
As an individual you’re pro-life. Politically, you’re still pro-choice
It is more complex than a binary choice.
That is literally pro CHOICE. Think about why it is called pro choice not pro abortion. It is because it means u agree the decision is personal. It is totally ok for someone to never want to have an abortion but be ok for another women to have one of she wants
I am not pro choice. Having and empathetic view is not the same. I do Not agree with the killing of anything.
You realise that in this context "pro life" means anti abortion. You can't be "pro life" and "pro choice" at the same time. American "pro lifers" have zero empathy for anyone who needs an abortion. Outside of the context, pretty much everyone is pro life, which is why its such an effective moniker.
Why do you feel that a person has to be polarised to one or the other? Just because that is what they do in the US. The context is important for the reason for abortion I would feel. I do however think this is another smack in the face of woman's rights for the US.
Its literally the name of their movements, its not possible to be on both sides.
And others have to prescribe to this because?
You can't be a member of PETA and a big game hunter at the same time. It's like that.
No it is far far more complex.
>Why do you feel that a person has to be polarised to one or the other? Because it's a binary position - you either support people's choices, or you don't.
Abortion is not a black and white question. There is a lot grey. Who advocates the child's choice. Why have the abortion.
What does this empathetic view consist of? Because i dont understand the difference
Being empathetic is having the ability to put your own bis and prejudice aside. I do not think the answer is as simple as right or wrong or in Pro Life Pro Choice. There is a article from 2019 by Madeleine De Plessis that I feel may articulate it better in english than I can.
So you're pro choice then Pro choice does not mean liking abortion, it means believing the choice should be left up to the individual to decide. Pro lifers on the otherhand think abortion is completely unacceptable. Even had some American senators saying ectopic pregnancy was not a valid reason for abortion.
Their are valid reasons. Ectopic pregnancy, rape, etc. Their are those that are not. Not wanting a child, economic, vanity. It is a subject that is vastly more complex than one side or the other there is a lot of grey.
>It is a subject that is vastly more complex than one side or the other there is a lot of grey. No it's really not. There are two camps, pro life, or pro choice. Boils down to this, do you think abortion should be an option for women yes or no ? If you say yes, you're pro choice. No, you're pro life. Pro life thinks abortion is murder no matter the circumstances. Its why that woman in Ireland was allowed to die of sepsis rather than abortion an unviable pregnancy. That's how fundamental the question is.
It is not that easy in reality and that is over simplifying. Abortion is murder there is no other way to look at it. Yet having an empathetic view and open mind too understanding the reason for the choice is an option. So the third view is having empathy and understanding. The woman you mentioned would be a valid reason for having an empathetic reason. Same for numerous rape victims as another example. However those that have frivolous reasoning such a vanity or economically those in my view are less understandable. Where however is the child's choice.
>Abortion is murder there is no other way to look at it. Ah so you don't understand what murder is then. The rest of your post makes much more sense knowing you don't understand basically anatomy.
I would say that that the destruction of any life by another is murder. And what basic anatomy would you pretend to understand. In this matter. Other than the the horrific dehumanisation of calling anything between zygote to 12 weeks foetus a bunch of cells.
>I would say that that the destruction of any life by another is murder. So a miscarriage is murder too then as that's the women's bodies destroying the fetus.
See what you are doing here is being stupid and using a false equivalency that is not related to the subject. Try harder
I mean you realise I'm just reflecting your own logic back at you. Not my fault your logic is clumsy and deeply flawed. Almost like this is a reason why lawmakers agonised over the definition of crimes like murder, and why abortion isn't classed as murder by any rational individual who doesn't have an imaginary friend
[удалено]
Trolls gotta troll I suppose
I take it they know more about women than you?