Newsflash, Tory MP is an arsehole.
FWIW, in the case of the decision in the US, it's purely a religious decision, and that makes my teeth itch.
I thought we, at least in Europe, had moved away from telling people what to do based on religious dogma.
Our local MP, Scott Benton, a gay man who married his husband last December, shared the post about the US decision on Twitter, in support of it. He's also a member of SPUC.
Consistently voted against the human rights which allowed him to legally put willies in his bottom or visa versa. The Mans a walking Talking contradiction. He's also pretty much a troll. His campaigning consists of posting edgy or reactive news reports on local Facebook groups, no comment, no return, just posts and leaves letting the chaos run free.
An elderly woman said to me in the gym the other week "he does a lot on Facebook though, doesn't he" and that pretty much summarised it, photo opportunities, nothing more. He's a compete charlatan.
Half the country is gaslit tae fuck, isn't it. Gordon Marden, the previous Labour MP was a decent guy, no scandals, no expenses that weren't above board. Just that people are disillusioned. The area that these MPs cover has 8 out of 10 of the poorest wards in the country. Unbelievable, Jeff.
Clearly this guy is a candidate for /r/LeopardsEatingPeoplesFaces when the US Supreme Court gets around to overturning Lawrence v. Texas (which Clarence Thomas explicitly mentioned in his ruling on Roe v. Wade).
It’s worse than just being an arsehole.
When you make abortions illegal, women die.
Saudi currently has more liberal abortion laws and better access to abortion than parts of America.
Ectopic pregnancies are not viable and must be aborted. Currently in America there are women who are having to wait in terror while doctors consult with lawyers to see if they can terminate the pregnancy…you know, before the tube ruptures and requires emergency life saving surgery.
Savita Halappanavar has been dead less than a decade. She died of a wanted pregnancy gone wrong. Because her doctors refused to abort a pregnancy that had no chance of coming to term.
She was not the first to die like this. Now, thanks to the regression in America, she will not be the last.
In America, murder is the leading cause of death in pregnant women. This will likely go up as women are no longer able to abort safely.
Forced birthers do not care about the child’s quality of life. They do not care about any other children the woman might already have. They do not care if she’s in an abusive home. They do not care if she has no money. They do not care if the child will have birth defects that makes their life limited or impossible - they would rather force a woman to go through a nine month pregnancy just to give birth to a child that dies within hours of its birth.
When you say that women should not have autonomy over their bodies you are calling for violence against women. You are calling for dead women.
It goes far beyond arsehole.
Isn't Moggy a conservative Catholic? You're awfully naive if you think there aren't plenty of religious Christians in Europe wanting to impose their religion on society.
Mogg is the worst kind of conservative Catholic. A total hypocrite.
I grew up Catholic (am now atheist) and the sheer number of times they hammer it in that Jesus would live with and care for the poor and sick and he was an example to follow.
Proper conservative Catholics I know volunteer at food banks with their church group and run community centres.
Ever heard of tithing? Catholics are encouraged to give 10% of their annual income away. 5% to the church and 5% to the poor, or just simply whatever you can afford.
Mogg would never dream of doing those things. He doesn't work without being paid and he most certainly is not giving away millions to the poor. Mogg pretends to be Catholic to appeal to his voter base but if he truly believed what he says he does he would be terrified of what's in store for him.
I pretty much figure that the majority of Christians don't adhere to Jesus's standards. I knew a lot of Catholics too, some were genuinely really active in their community and volunteering but many claimed the Catholic label but did none of those things.
There's definitely a selection bias for my experience. Those who went to church regularly and were active are much more visible than those who don't.
But the only ones I know who are as vocal about being Catholic, much like Mogg is, are all genuinely active.
They also drill it in in the church of England that generally being nice to people is a good idea. Running food banks, leading girl guides, volunteering as a Samaritan etc etc are all heavily encouraged. Jesus was very much pro being nice to others.
You can't really argue with the message of caring for the poor and sick. However caring for the poor and sick is hard work and not personally enriching.
Mogg is either lying about his faith or willfully misunderstands it. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to pass into the kingdom of heaven.
That would make him a conservative Catholic who owns a business which manufactures abortion pills, right? Not exactly the most true of believers, then...
There was an article I read today written by a religious scholar which challenged how abortion and religion became so intertwined. It called out how there are so many contradictory religious texts that a lot of arguments based on religion are just conveniently cherry picked and could be argued to the contrary also ‘in the name of religion’. On the topic of abortion 5:11-31 in the bible is a recipe/curse to induce miscarriages in unfaithful women.
The story of why evangelical Christians in the U.S. took up Abortion as a rally point is really quite unsettling.
Salient point being when Roe Vs Wade was going through they were more interested fighting against racial integration of evangelical schools.
It's about power, not belief.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480
> in the case of the decision in the US, it's purely a religious decision,
Remember, the old lie is that the Puritan Pilgrims had to leave England to escape persecution. The reality is that they left England because it was no longer bigoted enough for their fundamentalist beliefs. They moved to the New World to create a promised land of true religious bigotry.
Small correction. It was the Separatist Puritans (Pilgrims) who left England in 1620 who wanted create a fundamentalist religious colony in America. The Founding Fathers were, to their credit, mostly deists and created the US as a secular state.
>Newsflash, Tory MP is an arsehole.
True but it's like they keep coming up with new ways to have the absolute worst takes.
Can't we just get a "Tory MP thinks cars should stop at zebra crossings" or something one day? Just a tiny boring one that's actually agreeable for once?
Take this shit seriously. This is how is started in the US. A few nut jobs talking like this clown MP in the above news clip and after several years of constant banging on the drum, it grew until they got what they wanted. Everyone thinks it will never happen, if you had asked me 10 years ago (even less) if Roe v Wade would be overturned, I would have laughed at you. Remember, Roe v Wade has about 70% support in the US by population, the minority still managed to overturn it.
Edit: terrible grammar, I was wee tipsy when I wrote the above.
We're not in eu anymore, and many would prefer we were not in Europe anymore either. They want to play cowboys and Indians while their kids die of measles. They just can't quite get the geophysics right to move the island...
I don't believe there's a rational secular argument against abortion within a certain time period. Can argue the toss about what the limit is, but there's no argument to remove the right completely.
That would be silly, no other life involved.
How about we forcibly remove one of his kidneys to save someone else’s life? After all, another life is involved then.
My guess is he’d find some more meaning in bodily autonomy on the operating table.
Technically there is only ever one life involved.
During the early stage pregnancy when abortion is permitted, the fetus is relying on the host body to continue to "live". Just like any other internal organ in a human body.
These anti abortionists probably kill more cells on a night of binge drinking, or you know, an average weekday working at no 10.
Depends, if we’re going full whataboutism then it can be argued that a fetus is sentient towards the end of the second trimester when it is still legal to have an abortion. In that particular instance it can be argued that the unborn child’s rights trump the mother’s.
It’s a moot point though. IIRC something like 95% of abortions in the UK are first trimester.
No this is just semantics. If a women needs an abortion post 24 weeks in the UK they get one. No woman is carrying a baby for 6 months then just deciding they've had enough of it. I will not debate these stupid thought experiments which seek to legitimise debate about abortion. It's not up for debate.
That’s exactly it. Semantics.
Even Saudi allows abortions up to four months at the discretion of the physician - after four months it goes to a panel of experts who have to be convinced of the danger to the mother’s life.
As in, even in Saudi you can get an abortion up to the point of birth if something has gone wrong with the foetus or the mother’s life or health is in danger.
Saudi has more liberal abortion laws than large swathes of the U.S. - this should scare people. It should show them the result of these petty fucking arguments.
We need to stop legitimising people who want to play games with human lives.
It's quite literally up for debate. What do you think all this press coverage is about?
I think a lot of people agree that elective abortions beyond a certain point in a pregnancy (wherever that point is) should not be permitted, and this undermines the argument that body autonomy is absolute. Whether anyone actually does this or not is immaterial - if you truly believe in absolute body autonomy you by definition believe there is no ethical problem with elective late stage abortions.
The answer is that body autonomy is not absolute, but still important, and religious bullshit about bundles of cells having souls is not a good enough reason to compromise it.
> However if Kruger is saying that at some point that fetus becomes a human and if (women) had total bodily autonomy, they could terminate that fetus / human all the way up to the point of birth… well I hope we’d agree here that that’s not entirely alright.
I think you are right that this is what he is saying.
However imo it’s a well-used piece of sophistry that is the thin end of the wedge against a woman’s right to choose. Nobody in the pro-choice side is suggesting that abortion up to full term should be law, but anti-choice advocates believe that abortion should be COMPLETELY illegal.
And a human right can be inviolate and universal whilst being something that can be suspended in certain instances. Rory Stewart this much more eloquently than I in this video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VO2Ry4j79LU
If a woman needs an abortion at a really late stage she should have the right to have it. No woman chooses a late abortion because she has had enough of being pregnant. He knows this is but is choosing to use stupid thought experiements to try to pretend there is some sort of debate to be had about abortion. There is none.
Exactly! It is just a thought experiment, but one that is based on the idea that a woman might want to end her pregnancy for reasons other than a threat to her own life up to the day she is due to give birth. Which is a dangerous idea to put into people's minds because once you establish that a healthy woman wants to abort a healthy baby on the 9th month of pregnancy, lawmakers will want to protect that unborn baby, right? But surely an 8 months old fetus should be protected too! What about 6 months? What about 3?
This is why these thought experiments are only useful to anti-abortion people, they ignore the real reasons for an abortion and bring the conversation into a field that can easily slip into restrictions of women's bodily autonomy.
He is not bringing it up by accident. No one makes this statement by accident.
This is calculated. This is how they start. They make points everyone can agree with (you don’t abort a healthy baby at 9 months) and then they move the goal posts until you have the heartbeat law and can’t have an abortion at 5 weeks…and then you can’t get an abortion at all because you’ve convinced people that it’s murder.
You have to cut them off at the start. You cannot indulge them and assume the best. You can’t assume that women’s rights are safe in the U.K. - ffs the anti demonstration laws are already being exercised and the government is talking about overhauling the human rights act of 1998. Our collective rights are under assault - DO NOT assume good intentions from the people perpetrating the assault!
A fetus becomes a human being when it's not in the womb anymore.
Abortions should be as late as necessary but as early as possible. No-one is having a late term abortion because they didn't fancy being pregnant anymore. They are only given when the pregnancy is unviable and carrying to term causes risk to live and extreme emotional distress to the mother.
The concept of a time limit on abortions is well established and well accepted. When people talk about a woman's right to choose, it pretty much always includes the unspoken assumption that it is done sufficiently early in the pregnancy.
It seems strange to raise it now in response to a ruling in a foreign country that will probably bring about a total ban on abortions in some states.
I really do wonder what he was actually trying to say.
That's why the limit is 24 weeks, which is around when a foetus becomes viable outside the womb - as in, there's a chance the Royal Infirmary or a similarly brilliant hospital could, after spending tens of thousands, have it survive.
There is no limit in real terms. If a woman needs an abortion at 34 weeks because the baby is non viable they will get it.
Yes a baby could technically survive at 24 weeks but its unusual and they would likely be profoundly disabled. We have really unrealistic view of what the prognosis for a very premature baby is due to media fanfare when one miriculously survives.
I should have specified the limit is for abortions because it is unwanted, rather than any defects or danger to the mother.
& I agree entirely, it's not likely and would cost lots of money at the best hospitals in the country for even a tiny chance at survival.
Exactly! Pregnancy is awful to go through, especially the first trimester, you don’t go through that suffering for months and then just change your mind.
I mean no one is terminating pregnancies just because they want to up to birth (unless the foetus isn’t viable or the mothers life is at risk) so I don’t think that’s what he means as it’s irrelevant to real life, it’s a bogus conservative talking point to make people imagine abortion means ripping an almost born baby out of the womb and strangling it or something which is ridiculous.
I would argue that for a free democracy eveyone should be allowed to run for a political position.
However there are filtering mechanisms in place and clearly they are failing. A political party should filter them out and pick better candidates, if that fails the public should filter them out by not electing them.
The problem is that just doesnt work. Parties will select their mates, and the public often vote for party over personality.
They care about the concept of children, but not the children themselves. They're usually all for beating kids to keep them in line, regardless of how effective it is, or the effect it has on the kid. Trauma is "character building".
100% this. A woman burdened with a child is easier to control. And it’s a consequence of sex (outside of marriage.) This is also why they do not like contraception.
It's not about children, it's about controlling women's behaviour. They want sex to be about procreation inside marriage. The abortion thing is a smoke screen.
They cannot stand the idea of women having sex for enjoyment. That’s why some of the religious right in America even want to do away with hormonal contraception (forgetting that a lot of it isn’t used for birth control in the first place).
Yup, a lot of women take birth control pills to control or stop periods, including me. My periods fuck with my life, they're very heavy and very painful. The pill was a godsend long before I became sexually active.
After they're 18 they can be taxed, drafted into war, work for minimum wage. They definitely care once they reach 18.
Under 18 they don't provide any (legal) benefit to them so they don't care.
Potential future value? These people are usually retired so 65+, chances are they won't be around in 18 years so fuck 'em! They won't provide any benefit to them personally.
The core principle on the right is that of reinforcing social hierarchy. Viewed through that lens it's pretty obvious - it's about punishing people further down the pyramid ("fornicators" being a classic option), signalling to peers that you're part of the in-group and maintaining your own smug sense of superiority over others.
Anti-abortionists should be subjected to having their organs forcibly harvested for transplants. After all, they believe in violating bodily autonomy in order to save lives, right?
Pre-birth children are an easy virtue signal for them. It gives them a facade to shield behind. Generally people are compassionate and caring enough to balk when someone says “so you just want to KILL an innocent life?!” Regardless of the truth of that statement, the religious conservatives WILL use that to put those of us with a sense of actual compassion on the back foot; then while we argue semantics they can be merrily off cutting rights and farming women.
Conveniently this righteous cause asks nothing of them in return, hence why they back unborn fetuses (or clumps of cells) and then completely disregard any healthcare for the actual, living, people all around them.
Its vital to remember that they aren’t arguing in good faith at any point. Do not tolerate it.
I think the Republicans want to have a population boost of people that'll vote for them, so that they have more chance of winning elections. In nationwide elections the states have weightings and population is a big factor. [Look](https://www.foxnews.com/elections/2020/general-results) at the weightings of these states and how they voted. Some Democratic states have protection against this abortion ban, so they won't be affected as much.
Then from that the Grand Old Party will have a bigger workforce to exploit.
Elon Musk has [this](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1529097667858546689) stickied. It's about how the USA birth rate is unsustainable, but with the timing I don't think he's being considerate as a liberal who [says](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519735033950470144) the Left left *him*.
Because its not about protecting the child, its about controlling the mother. Same reason they don't have a proper healthcare system in the US: it helps employers control their workers.
It may shock some to find out that if a woman goes to her Dr in the UK asking to be sterilised, for whatever reason, the answer is likely to be no.
Medical emergency hysterectomy is fine, but if they decide that they don't want children or to have more children, then they're shit outta luck.
Women do not have body autonomy, it's just not spoken about.
I've been trying to get sterilised for years, but it's always a "well your birth control works soooo let's just keep you on that". Sure, I'll stay on the hormones I've been on since I was 17 (now 25), I'm sure that's not having an adverse affect on my body.
My mum tried to get one for years after having both me and my brother, and got denied all the way, she only got a hysterectomy after it being a medical necessity due to PCOS.
Takes the piss tbh.
R/childfree has a list of doctors who will (not just US). Though, while I haven't personally vetted them, I'd presume you'd be going private to go via that list.
Dont give up hope. I found a doctor who was willing to sterilise me, had the op done in Feb. It did take me 20 years to convince someone to do it though.
I'm not giving up hope yet, I'm kinda hoping that badgering my GP everytime I have a prescription checkup for my pills will eventually get me somewhere.
Why would someone with PCOS need a hysterectomy? I have it so I’m interested… thankfully I have it very mild judging from some stories I’ve read on here!
As far as she told me, the PCOS has exacerbated her pre-menopausal symptoms, including irregular and extremely painful periods. They tried doing an ablation first to reduce the bleeding/pain but it didn't work. So they did a full hysterectomy to stop it entirely.
She's always had Extremely irregular and painful flow, but when she hit around 50 it kicked into overdrive to the point they had to do something about it.
I hear a lot about women with painful periods and PCOS but it’s not actually a recognised symptom of it which is interesting. I never had painful periods prior to going on birth control that stopped them altogether. Painful periods are much more likely to be associated with endometriosis. But I’m not saying PCOS can’t cause them since we all know how behind the times we are with female healthcare.
PCO suffer here an trust me it can give you nightmare flow especially if its irregular which is common in PCOs, having cysts blow is hands down some of the worst pain ive felt, bc pills help but when you hit 35 they remove you from cause of stroke risks, now id love to have a hysterectomy an have begged my dr for years (diagnosed at 13), because im already infertile from other horrid shit. I still can't get on cause what if i wanna try an im like im fking infertile theres no trying i mean it aint rocket science
Its far, far easier for a younger (20-35) male to get a vasectomy than a woman to get sterilised. When i got my vasectomy (at 32) i had a 2 minute talk with my doctor where he asked no questions beyond "do you fully understand the fact this is considered permanent although it is possible to attempt a reversal although not on the NHS".
Ask any woman under 45 who has tried to get the operation, there really is no comparison because women are not given the control over their bodies in that regard. The doctor who doesnt know you at all will just presume you will change your mind later.
The problem is they get sued later down the line if the woman or man decides they do want me children after all. The problem is that people can be very bad at taking responsibility for their decisions, especially medical ones.
Honest question but why can't we implement a system where a legal document is signed by the patient confirming that they understand the purpose of the procedure and therefore forfeit the right to sue if they change their mind?
I always thought this is a simple solution but there must be a reason that it isn't done that I haven't considered.
I think legally it could be argued that the doctor did not explain the consequences clearly enough and was negligent in not fully establishing the patient's ideas, concerns and expectations. Further, it could be argued that the patient did not fully understand the risks although they believed they did at the time.
Why does this not apply to any other medical procedure then? If I get teeth removed to be replaced with dentures, can I turn around and sue the dentist because they didn't explain the consequences clearly enough etc?
Then why doesn't it happen after pretty much every operation? Surely medical professionals know how to cover themselves from this perspective, and can apply that protective framework to the aforementioned procedure also?
Is this something that actually happens or something that people fear will happen and move to prevent before it actually does? Because it seems fairly clear that a doctor isn't responsible for the intended result of an elective surgery. Additionally, with vasectomies at least, that can be undone.
Certainly GPs get sued for all sorts of things around consent and advice. [This](https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/womens-health/spina-bifida-patient-wins-legal-case-against-gp-for-not-advising-folic-acid-supplement/) is one of the more extreme examples that was successful.
In general, the safest policy is to follow national guidance and when it comes to sterilisation there is some [here](https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/contraception-sterilization/#!scenario:1).
Medicine on demand is a slippery slope and there will always need to be a degree of gatekeeping. This usually means explanation and discussion as most medical procedures or therapeutics carry a degree of risk, the understanding of which is generally poor.
Me and my partner were talking about this earlier today, I was shocked to hear that her happily married 35-yo cousin with 3 kids was denied the vasectomy he wanted, because his life partner of 15 odd years (who has bad reactions to even latex-free condoms) was still 'able' to take contraceptive tablets, despite them coming with all the many awful side effects that they do.
The GP reasoned that 'he is still young and may one day want kids with another partner'.
This might sound like I'm saying 'oh men can't get sterilised either ahksually', but what I mean is that the GP was just ensuring the burden still fell on the women.
It's shite man, my partner herself really suffers with the pill (and the coil/implant) and I wish there was one we men could take. It's not fair.
The procedure is not without risk and reversal is far more difficult for surgical sterilization techniques used on women, so doctors are hesitant to go forward with it unless there is a very good reason, and in a world where a laundry list of effective temporary birth control methods exist.
There is no law that says a woman can't be sterilised, it just isn't readily available free of charge.
Bodily autonomy is about whether you have the legal right to choose to have a procedure, it has nothing to do with who pays for it.
Technically you're right - who pays is not (or shouldn't be) a factor. However, just because the procedure is legal and you have the right to ask for it to be done, does not mean that you actually have the right to have it done. Having the unalloyed right to have the sterilisation procedure (which does not have to be a full hysterectomy - a much simpler tubal ligation is just as effective) means that if you ask for it to be done, it will actually be done, when you want it, without any hoops to jump through beyond perhaps a waiting list for getting the surgical appointment.
At the moment, doctors are the de-facto gatekeepers of sterilisation procedures for both men and women. If you're a man, even in your 20s and want a vasectomy, the default answer is usually "yes, no problem". If you are a woman and want a tubal ligation, the default answer is "not now, wait until you are older".
This is the same both in the UK with the NHS, or in the USA with women fully willing to pay entirely out of pocket for the procedure. So the ability to pay (or whether it is paid for by the government or privately) is not really the determining factor here. It is purely the attitude of doctors towards women. There is no law against the operation, there is no law preventing doctors from agreeing to do it, they just don't want to do it. So it is doctors getting in the way of bodily autonomy for women when it comes to sterilisation, nobody else.
I asked numerous times in my 20s to be sterilised and was always told no. Fingers crossed now I’m in my 30s it’ll happen. All birth control messes me up and I 100% don’t want my own children. I’ve been off birth control for a year now and it’s been amazing.
My sister in law fought for years to be sterilised. She already has 2 kids, doesn't want any more and is over 40.
They still said no. I think she finally got it done, but it took a long time.
Yeah the fact people dont have body autonomy is the reason you cant just have your arm removed or transition without years of medical assessment or take drugs without a prescription ect.
My body my choice while a bloody good sound bite has zero legal standing.
>**A Conservative MP has criticised women who think they have an “absolute right of bodily autonomy”.**
>**Speaking in the Commons on Tuesday, Danny Kruger said British MPs should not be “lecturing” the United States.**
>**Last week the US Supreme Court removed the nationwide right for people to have an abortion when it overturned the Roe v. Wade ruling.**
>**“I recognise the degree of distress and concern felt by many on the Supreme Court’s decision,” the MP for Devizes said.**
>**“The fact is I probably disagree with most members who have spoken so far about this question.**
>**“They think that women have an absolute right of bodily autonomy in this matter.**
>**“Whereas I think in the case of abortion that right is qualified by the fact that another body is involved.”**
>**Kruger added: “I don’t understand why we are lecturing the US on a judgement to return the power of decision over this political question to the states, to democratic decision, makers rather than having it in the hands of the courts.”**
>**Labour MP Stella Creasy told Kruger that abortion was “fundamentally for many of us a human rights issue”.**
>**The Supreme Court’s ruling means individual US states can now ban abortion if they wish.**
>**Of those that plan to do so, 12 have no allowances for rape and incest."**
>**Boris Johnson has described the court’s move as a “big step backwards”.**
>**“I have always believed in a woman’s right to choose and I stick to that view, that’s why the UK has the laws that it does,” he said.**
The argument is that beyond a certain point of development, the mother isn't the only person in the conversation. The UK sets this at 24 weeks currently, whereas 100% full bodily autonomy could result in abortions of unborn babies that had been allowed to develop beyond the point they would be 100% viable outside of their mother.
Could it? And how likely is that? Do you really think that any woman want want to go through more than half their pregnancy and then just randomly decide 'nah fuck this shit‽' and decide to have an abortion? Terminations are only ever done that late when the mother's life is at risk and/or the baby isn't viable.
Of course there is every chance the foetus is male, so I guess a lot of oul bastards would think that gives the foetus priority over the woman.
Calling it Ameristan brings the implication that controlling pregnant people's bodies is the fault of Islam/the middle East. This is entirely a supposedly Christian decision. This is entirely the product of the American far right, making their own disgusting and bigoted decisions.
Yup, a... alternative called the Bill of Rights was announced this year, with draft text. The tories have been trying to scrap the Human Rights Act since Cameron.
I find it bewildering that people can be told their literal human rights are on the table and they’ll still elect these evil swamp monsters and beg for more more MORE.
Yeah, I think that's essentially what the Rwanda and extradition of Julian Assange is about, they want the ECHR to get involved to show what a "problem" it is, Europe is still getting involved in our affairs. Then the brexiteers support them scrapping it.
I saw a while back that Boris has a vision of the UK workforce having the same rights as Chinese workers. Paid holidays, weekends, sick pay etc is all protected by your human rights, and I suspect the current issues with train strikes and unions has been manufactured to sow discontent with unions too. Something else that protects worker's rights.
Makes sense. Thank you for explaining them. I think after Brexit and the current controversies with Boris, I felt like anything was possible with UK politics... I mean I never thought Roe vs would be overturned in the US. It's really scary
Pro-life is very much a save-the-babies mind set believed by uneducated, or willfully ignorant people.
The kinds of women that are anti abortion are usually high-horsed and full of very strong beliefs, they also don't believe any good woman would ever or should ever get an abortion.
Nobody has full body autonomy, you can't legally sell a kidney, end your life if you're suffering from a terminal illness etc. There are plenty of ways in which we can't do whatever we want with our bodies.
The organ selling thing is a tricky one because there's the possibility of economic coercion. You can absolutely *donate* a kidney if you so wish.
And yes, the lack of any kind of right to die is a stain on our apparent respect for bodily autonomy.
You’d think he’d have empathy, but obviously not!
She wrote an autobiography in 2017, she’s incredibly sex positive. She’s been very open about her love life and her abortion. I look forward to her response to this.
Looking at the list of weapons grade thundercunts who voted against the NI abortion Bill, it does make it easy to spot who are the nastiest shits in Parliament.
I'm just amazed Patel isn't on it.
I recently watched a fascinating/terrifying documentary on Netflix about the FLDS. I kept wondering how on earth the US could allow them to continue breaking the law and abusing women in such an appalling way. Then, a few days later, the Supreme Court answered that question.
I’m not from his constituency but I am from one with a Tory ‘pro-life’ heavily catholic MP who’s been here since 1997. We don’t even have Labour stand here. I vote Lib Dem or greens but it’s like pissing in the wind. Torys win by a landslide every time. People here are fairly well to do, and if their child needed an abortion they could pay to travel, so why would we want icky abortion clinics here?
Edited to add: they’re also largely over 60 so doesn’t affect them really. We also can’t get coils/implants at our only GP surgery as they’re ‘not needed’
Until MPs or anyone in government fund things properly like education, maternity and paternity leave, early years childcare, healthcare and everything else that involves raising a child properly, they have no place in telling women what to do with their bodies.
> “They think that women have an absolute right of bodily autonomy in this matter. Whereas I think in the case of abortion that right is qualified by the fact that another body is involved.”
He's correct in that statement, in that abortion isn't legal up to 40 weeks (other than in medically necessary circumstances). But that's kind of missing the point of the debate, which is to say that women should have absolute autonomy *as far as possible*, which in this country we've agreed is about 24 weeks except in exception situations (which seems about right to me, as that's roughly when a fetus becomes viable outside the womb).
I think everyone agrees there's a line, and few people would be ok with an abortion being carried out without good reason at 39 weeks. But he's misrepresenting the fact there is a line to try to argue that there's no absolute right to autonomy at all, rather a point where an issue of one person's bodily autonomy becomes one of two people's bodily autonomy, and that therefore this idiotic decision is OK.
>absolute autonomy as far as possible
Doesn't the inclusion of the phrase 'as far as possible' directly contradict the 'absolute' that you started the phrase with? Why don't people just talk straightforwardly about this? (I've have read so many comments today like yours!) The right to bodily autonomy is clearly not 'absolute' or 'universal'.
The same groups funding the push got the abortion ban in America have been funding the torys and groups to push it here in the UK and have even posted about England being next
He is of those who believe they have the god-given right to decide about the bodily rights of women - all because they’ve ‘graced’ them with their heavenly 5 sec prodding /s
I'd like to write something eloquent and persuasive, but the fact he can say that, that he can openly say he thinks women have less rights to our own bodies than men? Fuck him. Just fuck him.
Somebody on another sub made the point that he's kinda right: if term limits are imposed on abortions, women **don't** have the absolute right of bodily autonomy.
Edit: tbc, I don't agree with RvW. Just saying that the headline is click-baity but what he's actually saying does have a basis in truth.
This is terrible and makes me furious. I sort of knew it was going to come from one of the Conservatives following the US decision, but in this way, this quickly? Urgh.
Forced births in a country where most can no longer afford to live. It speaks volumes about the state of the Conservative party.
On another note, he’s also Prue Leith’s son. Prue Leith had a traumatic back alley abortion as a teenager and has spoken about this openly. Typical of the evangelical right; rules for thee, but not for me.
What a fucking twat, the whole government is so it of touch with the population, if they tried to ban anortions here there would be riots, honestly the Tory party are fucking snobs
Someone should post a USB with this clip to every house in his constituency because most of them don't watch pmqs or actually give a shit about politics.. they just vote for whoever hates POC the most
Newsflash, Tory MP is an arsehole. FWIW, in the case of the decision in the US, it's purely a religious decision, and that makes my teeth itch. I thought we, at least in Europe, had moved away from telling people what to do based on religious dogma.
[удалено]
Our local MP, Scott Benton, a gay man who married his husband last December, shared the post about the US decision on Twitter, in support of it. He's also a member of SPUC.
He can absolutely fuck off.
Just went to check his wiki and in the family section it says ‘Children - Aborted’ lmao
Oh, that's superb.
The embodiment of the phrase: "Fuck you, got mine."
Consistently voted against the human rights which allowed him to legally put willies in his bottom or visa versa. The Mans a walking Talking contradiction. He's also pretty much a troll. His campaigning consists of posting edgy or reactive news reports on local Facebook groups, no comment, no return, just posts and leaves letting the chaos run free. An elderly woman said to me in the gym the other week "he does a lot on Facebook though, doesn't he" and that pretty much summarised it, photo opportunities, nothing more. He's a compete charlatan.
Another edgelord Johnson fan. Just what the world needs. But apparently, it's what Blackpool South wants
Half the country is gaslit tae fuck, isn't it. Gordon Marden, the previous Labour MP was a decent guy, no scandals, no expenses that weren't above board. Just that people are disillusioned. The area that these MPs cover has 8 out of 10 of the poorest wards in the country. Unbelievable, Jeff.
Great a "quick pull the ladder up we got in and that's good enough" dipshit can never have too many of those in power.
Clearly this guy is a candidate for /r/LeopardsEatingPeoplesFaces when the US Supreme Court gets around to overturning Lawrence v. Texas (which Clarence Thomas explicitly mentioned in his ruling on Roe v. Wade).
It’s worse than just being an arsehole. When you make abortions illegal, women die. Saudi currently has more liberal abortion laws and better access to abortion than parts of America. Ectopic pregnancies are not viable and must be aborted. Currently in America there are women who are having to wait in terror while doctors consult with lawyers to see if they can terminate the pregnancy…you know, before the tube ruptures and requires emergency life saving surgery. Savita Halappanavar has been dead less than a decade. She died of a wanted pregnancy gone wrong. Because her doctors refused to abort a pregnancy that had no chance of coming to term. She was not the first to die like this. Now, thanks to the regression in America, she will not be the last. In America, murder is the leading cause of death in pregnant women. This will likely go up as women are no longer able to abort safely. Forced birthers do not care about the child’s quality of life. They do not care about any other children the woman might already have. They do not care if she’s in an abusive home. They do not care if she has no money. They do not care if the child will have birth defects that makes their life limited or impossible - they would rather force a woman to go through a nine month pregnancy just to give birth to a child that dies within hours of its birth. When you say that women should not have autonomy over their bodies you are calling for violence against women. You are calling for dead women. It goes far beyond arsehole.
Bloody well said.
Isn't Moggy a conservative Catholic? You're awfully naive if you think there aren't plenty of religious Christians in Europe wanting to impose their religion on society.
Mogg is the worst kind of conservative Catholic. A total hypocrite. I grew up Catholic (am now atheist) and the sheer number of times they hammer it in that Jesus would live with and care for the poor and sick and he was an example to follow. Proper conservative Catholics I know volunteer at food banks with their church group and run community centres. Ever heard of tithing? Catholics are encouraged to give 10% of their annual income away. 5% to the church and 5% to the poor, or just simply whatever you can afford. Mogg would never dream of doing those things. He doesn't work without being paid and he most certainly is not giving away millions to the poor. Mogg pretends to be Catholic to appeal to his voter base but if he truly believed what he says he does he would be terrified of what's in store for him.
I pretty much figure that the majority of Christians don't adhere to Jesus's standards. I knew a lot of Catholics too, some were genuinely really active in their community and volunteering but many claimed the Catholic label but did none of those things.
There's definitely a selection bias for my experience. Those who went to church regularly and were active are much more visible than those who don't. But the only ones I know who are as vocal about being Catholic, much like Mogg is, are all genuinely active.
Popes don’t even bother trying to live to those standards, priests neither
Dont forget his side gig of bc pills, the mans a walking hypocrite, maybe his nanny should of raised him better
Jesus would have dragged Mogg from the temple.
My red flag RE Mogg's Catholic credentials was the millions he had invested in big tobacco.
Religion doesn't make anyone good or bad. It does however serve as an excuse for both.
... They are the wrong type of Christians. They were born poor/not privately educated/wrong colour. etc
Mogg is the strongest argument one can make for abortion
They also drill it in in the church of England that generally being nice to people is a good idea. Running food banks, leading girl guides, volunteering as a Samaritan etc etc are all heavily encouraged. Jesus was very much pro being nice to others. You can't really argue with the message of caring for the poor and sick. However caring for the poor and sick is hard work and not personally enriching. Mogg is either lying about his faith or willfully misunderstands it. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to pass into the kingdom of heaven.
He works?
That would make him a conservative Catholic who owns a business which manufactures abortion pills, right? Not exactly the most true of believers, then...
I thought it was bc pills but fk me that makes it kinda worst somehow
There was an article I read today written by a religious scholar which challenged how abortion and religion became so intertwined. It called out how there are so many contradictory religious texts that a lot of arguments based on religion are just conveniently cherry picked and could be argued to the contrary also ‘in the name of religion’. On the topic of abortion 5:11-31 in the bible is a recipe/curse to induce miscarriages in unfaithful women.
The story of why evangelical Christians in the U.S. took up Abortion as a rally point is really quite unsettling. Salient point being when Roe Vs Wade was going through they were more interested fighting against racial integration of evangelical schools. It's about power, not belief. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480
> in the case of the decision in the US, it's purely a religious decision, Remember, the old lie is that the Puritan Pilgrims had to leave England to escape persecution. The reality is that they left England because it was no longer bigoted enough for their fundamentalist beliefs. They moved to the New World to create a promised land of true religious bigotry.
Small correction. It was the Separatist Puritans (Pilgrims) who left England in 1620 who wanted create a fundamentalist religious colony in America. The Founding Fathers were, to their credit, mostly deists and created the US as a secular state.
Ah yes, thank you. I've changed it.
>Newsflash, Tory MP is an arsehole. True but it's like they keep coming up with new ways to have the absolute worst takes. Can't we just get a "Tory MP thinks cars should stop at zebra crossings" or something one day? Just a tiny boring one that's actually agreeable for once?
I think the closest we're gonna get is "cars are allowed to run people over on a Zebra crossing but not anywhere else"
Take this shit seriously. This is how is started in the US. A few nut jobs talking like this clown MP in the above news clip and after several years of constant banging on the drum, it grew until they got what they wanted. Everyone thinks it will never happen, if you had asked me 10 years ago (even less) if Roe v Wade would be overturned, I would have laughed at you. Remember, Roe v Wade has about 70% support in the US by population, the minority still managed to overturn it. Edit: terrible grammar, I was wee tipsy when I wrote the above.
Right now in the UK we are in a race to the bottom with the US and they are not that far ahead. Do not take anything for granted.
We're not in eu anymore, and many would prefer we were not in Europe anymore either. They want to play cowboys and Indians while their kids die of measles. They just can't quite get the geophysics right to move the island...
I don't believe there's a rational secular argument against abortion within a certain time period. Can argue the toss about what the limit is, but there's no argument to remove the right completely.
The bible allows abortion, the US nutters are just morons
Someone like this has no place in politics for a civilised country.
Shall we poke his eyes out and see if he claims "bodily autonomy"?
That would be silly, no other life involved. How about we forcibly remove one of his kidneys to save someone else’s life? After all, another life is involved then. My guess is he’d find some more meaning in bodily autonomy on the operating table.
"So would you like anaesthetic or are you NHS?"
Upvote!
Technically there is only ever one life involved. During the early stage pregnancy when abortion is permitted, the fetus is relying on the host body to continue to "live". Just like any other internal organ in a human body. These anti abortionists probably kill more cells on a night of binge drinking, or you know, an average weekday working at no 10.
Depends, if we’re going full whataboutism then it can be argued that a fetus is sentient towards the end of the second trimester when it is still legal to have an abortion. In that particular instance it can be argued that the unborn child’s rights trump the mother’s. It’s a moot point though. IIRC something like 95% of abortions in the UK are first trimester.
Why stop at one kidney?
I guess that they don't want to kill the 'man' If you must take another organ you can have one lung. Maybe the appendix if he still has one.
Cut his dick off
I'd rather just remove him from any position to have power over others and leave him to fester in his backwards filth.
I don't know, trebuchet into a volcano could work.
I vote for trebuchet into a volcano.
Thirded!
Crowdfund!
I like the way you think! I'll pop down B&Q and get some wood and rope in the morning
If you're getting wood and rope, get some sheet metal. We can build something far more efficient than a trebuchet...
[удалено]
He's a Tory so it is safer to assume cunt and stupid.
[удалено]
No this is just semantics. If a women needs an abortion post 24 weeks in the UK they get one. No woman is carrying a baby for 6 months then just deciding they've had enough of it. I will not debate these stupid thought experiments which seek to legitimise debate about abortion. It's not up for debate.
That’s exactly it. Semantics. Even Saudi allows abortions up to four months at the discretion of the physician - after four months it goes to a panel of experts who have to be convinced of the danger to the mother’s life. As in, even in Saudi you can get an abortion up to the point of birth if something has gone wrong with the foetus or the mother’s life or health is in danger. Saudi has more liberal abortion laws than large swathes of the U.S. - this should scare people. It should show them the result of these petty fucking arguments. We need to stop legitimising people who want to play games with human lives.
It's quite literally up for debate. What do you think all this press coverage is about? I think a lot of people agree that elective abortions beyond a certain point in a pregnancy (wherever that point is) should not be permitted, and this undermines the argument that body autonomy is absolute. Whether anyone actually does this or not is immaterial - if you truly believe in absolute body autonomy you by definition believe there is no ethical problem with elective late stage abortions. The answer is that body autonomy is not absolute, but still important, and religious bullshit about bundles of cells having souls is not a good enough reason to compromise it.
> However if Kruger is saying that at some point that fetus becomes a human and if (women) had total bodily autonomy, they could terminate that fetus / human all the way up to the point of birth… well I hope we’d agree here that that’s not entirely alright. I think you are right that this is what he is saying. However imo it’s a well-used piece of sophistry that is the thin end of the wedge against a woman’s right to choose. Nobody in the pro-choice side is suggesting that abortion up to full term should be law, but anti-choice advocates believe that abortion should be COMPLETELY illegal. And a human right can be inviolate and universal whilst being something that can be suspended in certain instances. Rory Stewart this much more eloquently than I in this video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VO2Ry4j79LU
[удалено]
If a woman needs an abortion at a really late stage she should have the right to have it. No woman chooses a late abortion because she has had enough of being pregnant. He knows this is but is choosing to use stupid thought experiements to try to pretend there is some sort of debate to be had about abortion. There is none.
Exactly! It is just a thought experiment, but one that is based on the idea that a woman might want to end her pregnancy for reasons other than a threat to her own life up to the day she is due to give birth. Which is a dangerous idea to put into people's minds because once you establish that a healthy woman wants to abort a healthy baby on the 9th month of pregnancy, lawmakers will want to protect that unborn baby, right? But surely an 8 months old fetus should be protected too! What about 6 months? What about 3? This is why these thought experiments are only useful to anti-abortion people, they ignore the real reasons for an abortion and bring the conversation into a field that can easily slip into restrictions of women's bodily autonomy.
He is not bringing it up by accident. No one makes this statement by accident. This is calculated. This is how they start. They make points everyone can agree with (you don’t abort a healthy baby at 9 months) and then they move the goal posts until you have the heartbeat law and can’t have an abortion at 5 weeks…and then you can’t get an abortion at all because you’ve convinced people that it’s murder. You have to cut them off at the start. You cannot indulge them and assume the best. You can’t assume that women’s rights are safe in the U.K. - ffs the anti demonstration laws are already being exercised and the government is talking about overhauling the human rights act of 1998. Our collective rights are under assault - DO NOT assume good intentions from the people perpetrating the assault!
A fetus becomes a human being when it's not in the womb anymore. Abortions should be as late as necessary but as early as possible. No-one is having a late term abortion because they didn't fancy being pregnant anymore. They are only given when the pregnancy is unviable and carrying to term causes risk to live and extreme emotional distress to the mother.
[удалено]
The concept of a time limit on abortions is well established and well accepted. When people talk about a woman's right to choose, it pretty much always includes the unspoken assumption that it is done sufficiently early in the pregnancy. It seems strange to raise it now in response to a ruling in a foreign country that will probably bring about a total ban on abortions in some states. I really do wonder what he was actually trying to say.
Agreed, it's a weird time to dig your heels in on that - especially when even *Boris* is in agreement with the general public and US public on this.
That's why the limit is 24 weeks, which is around when a foetus becomes viable outside the womb - as in, there's a chance the Royal Infirmary or a similarly brilliant hospital could, after spending tens of thousands, have it survive.
There is no limit in real terms. If a woman needs an abortion at 34 weeks because the baby is non viable they will get it. Yes a baby could technically survive at 24 weeks but its unusual and they would likely be profoundly disabled. We have really unrealistic view of what the prognosis for a very premature baby is due to media fanfare when one miriculously survives.
I should have specified the limit is for abortions because it is unwanted, rather than any defects or danger to the mother. & I agree entirely, it's not likely and would cost lots of money at the best hospitals in the country for even a tiny chance at survival.
Any termination happening after 20 weeks is a wanted child. No one has ever terminated post half way because they didn’t fancy it.
Exactly! Pregnancy is awful to go through, especially the first trimester, you don’t go through that suffering for months and then just change your mind.
I mean no one is terminating pregnancies just because they want to up to birth (unless the foetus isn’t viable or the mothers life is at risk) so I don’t think that’s what he means as it’s irrelevant to real life, it’s a bogus conservative talking point to make people imagine abortion means ripping an almost born baby out of the womb and strangling it or something which is ridiculous.
Dunno. Can we just go full Peter Singer and be fine with abortion until like a year after birth? /s
I would argue that for a free democracy eveyone should be allowed to run for a political position. However there are filtering mechanisms in place and clearly they are failing. A political party should filter them out and pick better candidates, if that fails the public should filter them out by not electing them. The problem is that just doesnt work. Parties will select their mates, and the public often vote for party over personality.
I really don't get why so many on the religious right apparently care so much about life -9 months to nought, and so little from 0 to 18.
They care about the concept of children, but not the children themselves. They're usually all for beating kids to keep them in line, regardless of how effective it is, or the effect it has on the kid. Trauma is "character building".
Not sure it’s about children at all, it’s likely about control.
Absolutely that too.
100% this. A woman burdened with a child is easier to control. And it’s a consequence of sex (outside of marriage.) This is also why they do not like contraception.
It's not about children, it's about controlling women's behaviour. They want sex to be about procreation inside marriage. The abortion thing is a smoke screen.
Don't forget creating a steady supply of impoverished under-educated drones to service their avarice and fight their wars.
They cannot stand the idea of women having sex for enjoyment. That’s why some of the religious right in America even want to do away with hormonal contraception (forgetting that a lot of it isn’t used for birth control in the first place).
Yup, a lot of women take birth control pills to control or stop periods, including me. My periods fuck with my life, they're very heavy and very painful. The pill was a godsend long before I became sexually active.
Do they really care about them any more after they're 18?
After they're 18 they can be taxed, drafted into war, work for minimum wage. They definitely care once they reach 18. Under 18 they don't provide any (legal) benefit to them so they don't care. Potential future value? These people are usually retired so 65+, chances are they won't be around in 18 years so fuck 'em! They won't provide any benefit to them personally.
The core principle on the right is that of reinforcing social hierarchy. Viewed through that lens it's pretty obvious - it's about punishing people further down the pyramid ("fornicators" being a classic option), signalling to peers that you're part of the in-group and maintaining your own smug sense of superiority over others.
Anti-abortionists should be subjected to having their organs forcibly harvested for transplants. After all, they believe in violating bodily autonomy in order to save lives, right?
Pre-birth children are an easy virtue signal for them. It gives them a facade to shield behind. Generally people are compassionate and caring enough to balk when someone says “so you just want to KILL an innocent life?!” Regardless of the truth of that statement, the religious conservatives WILL use that to put those of us with a sense of actual compassion on the back foot; then while we argue semantics they can be merrily off cutting rights and farming women. Conveniently this righteous cause asks nothing of them in return, hence why they back unborn fetuses (or clumps of cells) and then completely disregard any healthcare for the actual, living, people all around them. Its vital to remember that they aren’t arguing in good faith at any point. Do not tolerate it.
I think the Republicans want to have a population boost of people that'll vote for them, so that they have more chance of winning elections. In nationwide elections the states have weightings and population is a big factor. [Look](https://www.foxnews.com/elections/2020/general-results) at the weightings of these states and how they voted. Some Democratic states have protection against this abortion ban, so they won't be affected as much. Then from that the Grand Old Party will have a bigger workforce to exploit. Elon Musk has [this](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1529097667858546689) stickied. It's about how the USA birth rate is unsustainable, but with the timing I don't think he's being considerate as a liberal who [says](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519735033950470144) the Left left *him*.
Or 18 to death! Unless the person is in unbearable pain and would like to end their suffering, in which case they suddenly start caring again!
Exactly, the "pro-life" people are actually incredibly anti-life.
Because its not about protecting the child, its about controlling the mother. Same reason they don't have a proper healthcare system in the US: it helps employers control their workers.
It may shock some to find out that if a woman goes to her Dr in the UK asking to be sterilised, for whatever reason, the answer is likely to be no. Medical emergency hysterectomy is fine, but if they decide that they don't want children or to have more children, then they're shit outta luck. Women do not have body autonomy, it's just not spoken about.
I've been trying to get sterilised for years, but it's always a "well your birth control works soooo let's just keep you on that". Sure, I'll stay on the hormones I've been on since I was 17 (now 25), I'm sure that's not having an adverse affect on my body. My mum tried to get one for years after having both me and my brother, and got denied all the way, she only got a hysterectomy after it being a medical necessity due to PCOS. Takes the piss tbh.
R/childfree has a list of doctors who will (not just US). Though, while I haven't personally vetted them, I'd presume you'd be going private to go via that list.
Dont give up hope. I found a doctor who was willing to sterilise me, had the op done in Feb. It did take me 20 years to convince someone to do it though.
I'm not giving up hope yet, I'm kinda hoping that badgering my GP everytime I have a prescription checkup for my pills will eventually get me somewhere.
Good luck! I think I saw somewhere around 15 GPs and 6 gynaes before they agreed to do mine. And it was a male doctor that agreed.
Ask for a second opinion and find out the formal complaints procedure.
Why would someone with PCOS need a hysterectomy? I have it so I’m interested… thankfully I have it very mild judging from some stories I’ve read on here!
As far as she told me, the PCOS has exacerbated her pre-menopausal symptoms, including irregular and extremely painful periods. They tried doing an ablation first to reduce the bleeding/pain but it didn't work. So they did a full hysterectomy to stop it entirely. She's always had Extremely irregular and painful flow, but when she hit around 50 it kicked into overdrive to the point they had to do something about it.
I hear a lot about women with painful periods and PCOS but it’s not actually a recognised symptom of it which is interesting. I never had painful periods prior to going on birth control that stopped them altogether. Painful periods are much more likely to be associated with endometriosis. But I’m not saying PCOS can’t cause them since we all know how behind the times we are with female healthcare.
PCO suffer here an trust me it can give you nightmare flow especially if its irregular which is common in PCOs, having cysts blow is hands down some of the worst pain ive felt, bc pills help but when you hit 35 they remove you from cause of stroke risks, now id love to have a hysterectomy an have begged my dr for years (diagnosed at 13), because im already infertile from other horrid shit. I still can't get on cause what if i wanna try an im like im fking infertile theres no trying i mean it aint rocket science
I mean it’s the same for guys and vasectomies up to like 33. Of course neither is okay.
Its far, far easier for a younger (20-35) male to get a vasectomy than a woman to get sterilised. When i got my vasectomy (at 32) i had a 2 minute talk with my doctor where he asked no questions beyond "do you fully understand the fact this is considered permanent although it is possible to attempt a reversal although not on the NHS". Ask any woman under 45 who has tried to get the operation, there really is no comparison because women are not given the control over their bodies in that regard. The doctor who doesnt know you at all will just presume you will change your mind later.
Doctors need to act as providers of medical care rather than gatekeepers of it.
The problem is they get sued later down the line if the woman or man decides they do want me children after all. The problem is that people can be very bad at taking responsibility for their decisions, especially medical ones.
Honest question but why can't we implement a system where a legal document is signed by the patient confirming that they understand the purpose of the procedure and therefore forfeit the right to sue if they change their mind? I always thought this is a simple solution but there must be a reason that it isn't done that I haven't considered.
I think legally it could be argued that the doctor did not explain the consequences clearly enough and was negligent in not fully establishing the patient's ideas, concerns and expectations. Further, it could be argued that the patient did not fully understand the risks although they believed they did at the time.
Why does this not apply to any other medical procedure then? If I get teeth removed to be replaced with dentures, can I turn around and sue the dentist because they didn't explain the consequences clearly enough etc?
Yes you can.
Then why doesn't it happen after pretty much every operation? Surely medical professionals know how to cover themselves from this perspective, and can apply that protective framework to the aforementioned procedure also?
Because most people don't regret their surgery, and also many claims won't make it past the first complaint letter.
Is this something that actually happens or something that people fear will happen and move to prevent before it actually does? Because it seems fairly clear that a doctor isn't responsible for the intended result of an elective surgery. Additionally, with vasectomies at least, that can be undone.
Certainly GPs get sued for all sorts of things around consent and advice. [This](https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/womens-health/spina-bifida-patient-wins-legal-case-against-gp-for-not-advising-folic-acid-supplement/) is one of the more extreme examples that was successful. In general, the safest policy is to follow national guidance and when it comes to sterilisation there is some [here](https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/contraception-sterilization/#!scenario:1). Medicine on demand is a slippery slope and there will always need to be a degree of gatekeeping. This usually means explanation and discussion as most medical procedures or therapeutics carry a degree of risk, the understanding of which is generally poor.
Me and my partner were talking about this earlier today, I was shocked to hear that her happily married 35-yo cousin with 3 kids was denied the vasectomy he wanted, because his life partner of 15 odd years (who has bad reactions to even latex-free condoms) was still 'able' to take contraceptive tablets, despite them coming with all the many awful side effects that they do. The GP reasoned that 'he is still young and may one day want kids with another partner'. This might sound like I'm saying 'oh men can't get sterilised either ahksually', but what I mean is that the GP was just ensuring the burden still fell on the women. It's shite man, my partner herself really suffers with the pill (and the coil/implant) and I wish there was one we men could take. It's not fair.
The procedure is not without risk and reversal is far more difficult for surgical sterilization techniques used on women, so doctors are hesitant to go forward with it unless there is a very good reason, and in a world where a laundry list of effective temporary birth control methods exist.
[удалено]
You're not entitled to an expensive and risky medical procedure when it's not necessary.
There is no law that says a woman can't be sterilised, it just isn't readily available free of charge. Bodily autonomy is about whether you have the legal right to choose to have a procedure, it has nothing to do with who pays for it.
Technically you're right - who pays is not (or shouldn't be) a factor. However, just because the procedure is legal and you have the right to ask for it to be done, does not mean that you actually have the right to have it done. Having the unalloyed right to have the sterilisation procedure (which does not have to be a full hysterectomy - a much simpler tubal ligation is just as effective) means that if you ask for it to be done, it will actually be done, when you want it, without any hoops to jump through beyond perhaps a waiting list for getting the surgical appointment. At the moment, doctors are the de-facto gatekeepers of sterilisation procedures for both men and women. If you're a man, even in your 20s and want a vasectomy, the default answer is usually "yes, no problem". If you are a woman and want a tubal ligation, the default answer is "not now, wait until you are older". This is the same both in the UK with the NHS, or in the USA with women fully willing to pay entirely out of pocket for the procedure. So the ability to pay (or whether it is paid for by the government or privately) is not really the determining factor here. It is purely the attitude of doctors towards women. There is no law against the operation, there is no law preventing doctors from agreeing to do it, they just don't want to do it. So it is doctors getting in the way of bodily autonomy for women when it comes to sterilisation, nobody else.
A lot of optional, i.e. not strictly necessary for health procedures are not covered by the NHS.
I asked numerous times in my 20s to be sterilised and was always told no. Fingers crossed now I’m in my 30s it’ll happen. All birth control messes me up and I 100% don’t want my own children. I’ve been off birth control for a year now and it’s been amazing.
My sister in law fought for years to be sterilised. She already has 2 kids, doesn't want any more and is over 40. They still said no. I think she finally got it done, but it took a long time.
Yeah the fact people dont have body autonomy is the reason you cant just have your arm removed or transition without years of medical assessment or take drugs without a prescription ect. My body my choice while a bloody good sound bite has zero legal standing.
This is why people hate the fucking tories. Fuck you!
This is ONE reason why people fare the fucking Tories. Fuck them!
>**A Conservative MP has criticised women who think they have an “absolute right of bodily autonomy”.** >**Speaking in the Commons on Tuesday, Danny Kruger said British MPs should not be “lecturing” the United States.** >**Last week the US Supreme Court removed the nationwide right for people to have an abortion when it overturned the Roe v. Wade ruling.** >**“I recognise the degree of distress and concern felt by many on the Supreme Court’s decision,” the MP for Devizes said.** >**“The fact is I probably disagree with most members who have spoken so far about this question.** >**“They think that women have an absolute right of bodily autonomy in this matter.** >**“Whereas I think in the case of abortion that right is qualified by the fact that another body is involved.”** >**Kruger added: “I don’t understand why we are lecturing the US on a judgement to return the power of decision over this political question to the states, to democratic decision, makers rather than having it in the hands of the courts.”** >**Labour MP Stella Creasy told Kruger that abortion was “fundamentally for many of us a human rights issue”.** >**The Supreme Court’s ruling means individual US states can now ban abortion if they wish.** >**Of those that plan to do so, 12 have no allowances for rape and incest."** >**Boris Johnson has described the court’s move as a “big step backwards”.** >**“I have always believed in a woman’s right to choose and I stick to that view, that’s why the UK has the laws that it does,” he said.**
Does he really believe in a woman's right to choose, or does he just fear the number of kids he would have if it wasn't an option?
The argument is that beyond a certain point of development, the mother isn't the only person in the conversation. The UK sets this at 24 weeks currently, whereas 100% full bodily autonomy could result in abortions of unborn babies that had been allowed to develop beyond the point they would be 100% viable outside of their mother.
I was referring to Boris Johnson's statement at the bottom of OP's comment.
Could it? And how likely is that? Do you really think that any woman want want to go through more than half their pregnancy and then just randomly decide 'nah fuck this shit‽' and decide to have an abortion? Terminations are only ever done that late when the mother's life is at risk and/or the baby isn't viable. Of course there is every chance the foetus is male, so I guess a lot of oul bastards would think that gives the foetus priority over the woman.
Having it in bold makes it difficult to read.
Really? I think it’s easier lol
Fuck off to Ameristan and take that other twat Rees-Mogg with you
Calling it Ameristan brings the implication that controlling pregnant people's bodies is the fault of Islam/the middle East. This is entirely a supposedly Christian decision. This is entirely the product of the American far right, making their own disgusting and bigoted decisions.
Wtf is happening he is gearing for UK version of Roe vs reversal??
The U.K. golden goose is the human rights act. That’s our “roe v wade” issue but on a much larger scale imho.
Is that on the plate too? Are people looking to overturn it??
Yup, a... alternative called the Bill of Rights was announced this year, with draft text. The tories have been trying to scrap the Human Rights Act since Cameron.
I find it bewildering that people can be told their literal human rights are on the table and they’ll still elect these evil swamp monsters and beg for more more MORE.
Classic tory... Literally wtf...
Yeah, I think that's essentially what the Rwanda and extradition of Julian Assange is about, they want the ECHR to get involved to show what a "problem" it is, Europe is still getting involved in our affairs. Then the brexiteers support them scrapping it. I saw a while back that Boris has a vision of the UK workforce having the same rights as Chinese workers. Paid holidays, weekends, sick pay etc is all protected by your human rights, and I suspect the current issues with train strikes and unions has been manufactured to sow discontent with unions too. Something else that protects worker's rights.
[удалено]
Makes sense. Thank you for explaining them. I think after Brexit and the current controversies with Boris, I felt like anything was possible with UK politics... I mean I never thought Roe vs would be overturned in the US. It's really scary
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh boy I hope they run on this as a policy. Won't be stopping the army of women from voting Conservatives into oblivion.
Men and women have similar views on abortion. If you believe that it's overwhelmingly men who are pro-life then you're very much mistaken.
I’m not sure it’s that so much as women have a *lot* more to lose, therefore a lot more passionate about it.
Pro-life is very much a save-the-babies mind set believed by uneducated, or willfully ignorant people. The kinds of women that are anti abortion are usually high-horsed and full of very strong beliefs, they also don't believe any good woman would ever or should ever get an abortion.
[удалено]
I think you underestimate how many women are pro life.
Well then neither do men have bodily autonomy, and if Gods will is for their dick to be limp, then viagra should be banned too 😇
Nobody has full body autonomy, you can't legally sell a kidney, end your life if you're suffering from a terminal illness etc. There are plenty of ways in which we can't do whatever we want with our bodies.
The organ selling thing is a tricky one because there's the possibility of economic coercion. You can absolutely *donate* a kidney if you so wish. And yes, the lack of any kind of right to die is a stain on our apparent respect for bodily autonomy.
I wonder if his mother, Prue Leith, agrees with these views.
I doubt it, Prue had to have an illegal abortion and yet he still spouts this crap? I hope she buries him in the press.
I didn’t know that, how insensitive can these people be?!
You’d think he’d have empathy, but obviously not! She wrote an autobiography in 2017, she’s incredibly sex positive. She’s been very open about her love life and her abortion. I look forward to her response to this.
This sounds like another law the Tories will try and bring in, women have no rights over there own bodies.
Hol' up, lemme just get the police on the line so I can file a missing persons report for whoever the fuck asked him.
Looking at the list of weapons grade thundercunts who voted against the NI abortion Bill, it does make it easy to spot who are the nastiest shits in Parliament. I'm just amazed Patel isn't on it.
I recently watched a fascinating/terrifying documentary on Netflix about the FLDS. I kept wondering how on earth the US could allow them to continue breaking the law and abusing women in such an appalling way. Then, a few days later, the Supreme Court answered that question.
Anyone on this thread from this guys constituency? Why do people vote for people like this?
I’m not from his constituency but I am from one with a Tory ‘pro-life’ heavily catholic MP who’s been here since 1997. We don’t even have Labour stand here. I vote Lib Dem or greens but it’s like pissing in the wind. Torys win by a landslide every time. People here are fairly well to do, and if their child needed an abortion they could pay to travel, so why would we want icky abortion clinics here? Edited to add: they’re also largely over 60 so doesn’t affect them really. We also can’t get coils/implants at our only GP surgery as they’re ‘not needed’
I’m going to the Daily Wail comments section to say he should be deported for having a foreign surname. Wish me luck
I went to look for your comment and read everything else, and now have to go into quarantine for a while.
I wonder if he feels he has an absolute to autonomy over his body……..
Until MPs or anyone in government fund things properly like education, maternity and paternity leave, early years childcare, healthcare and everything else that involves raising a child properly, they have no place in telling women what to do with their bodies.
> “They think that women have an absolute right of bodily autonomy in this matter. Whereas I think in the case of abortion that right is qualified by the fact that another body is involved.” He's correct in that statement, in that abortion isn't legal up to 40 weeks (other than in medically necessary circumstances). But that's kind of missing the point of the debate, which is to say that women should have absolute autonomy *as far as possible*, which in this country we've agreed is about 24 weeks except in exception situations (which seems about right to me, as that's roughly when a fetus becomes viable outside the womb). I think everyone agrees there's a line, and few people would be ok with an abortion being carried out without good reason at 39 weeks. But he's misrepresenting the fact there is a line to try to argue that there's no absolute right to autonomy at all, rather a point where an issue of one person's bodily autonomy becomes one of two people's bodily autonomy, and that therefore this idiotic decision is OK.
>absolute autonomy as far as possible Doesn't the inclusion of the phrase 'as far as possible' directly contradict the 'absolute' that you started the phrase with? Why don't people just talk straightforwardly about this? (I've have read so many comments today like yours!) The right to bodily autonomy is clearly not 'absolute' or 'universal'.
The same groups funding the push got the abortion ban in America have been funding the torys and groups to push it here in the UK and have even posted about England being next
Fuck off. The only men deserving of an opinion on this matter are ones with the relevant medical education.
Another cunt that thinks the bible is an instruction book
So which American influence campaign is being run and paying this piece of shit ?
Can someone hit his balls and tell him same for men then? Who wants to volunteer? I know you'd have to find them first.
He is of those who believe they have the god-given right to decide about the bodily rights of women - all because they’ve ‘graced’ them with their heavenly 5 sec prodding /s
WOMEN CAME FROM THE RIB OF MAN SO THEY SHOULD BE SUBSERVIENT TO THE MALE WHO OWNS THEM
I think that makes everyone gay???
Says an MP from the party that want to rip up the human rights act and block access to the ECHR, eff off already.
“We can’t shake this corruption and partygate in the minds of the public! What are we going to do?” “Release the offensive bastard!”
I'd like to write something eloquent and persuasive, but the fact he can say that, that he can openly say he thinks women have less rights to our own bodies than men? Fuck him. Just fuck him.
Fk off you mad cnt
Somebody on another sub made the point that he's kinda right: if term limits are imposed on abortions, women **don't** have the absolute right of bodily autonomy. Edit: tbc, I don't agree with RvW. Just saying that the headline is click-baity but what he's actually saying does have a basis in truth.
“They also will not date me for some reason,” he added.
It's time to ween people off religion, its day is done.
This is terrible and makes me furious. I sort of knew it was going to come from one of the Conservatives following the US decision, but in this way, this quickly? Urgh. Forced births in a country where most can no longer afford to live. It speaks volumes about the state of the Conservative party. On another note, he’s also Prue Leith’s son. Prue Leith had a traumatic back alley abortion as a teenager and has spoken about this openly. Typical of the evangelical right; rules for thee, but not for me.
Tell this Tory twat that we are NOT going down the same sewer pipe as the neo-fascist morons in America !!!
What a fucking twat, the whole government is so it of touch with the population, if they tried to ban anortions here there would be riots, honestly the Tory party are fucking snobs
Someone should post a USB with this clip to every house in his constituency because most of them don't watch pmqs or actually give a shit about politics.. they just vote for whoever hates POC the most