• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

USA news & politics

It is only for the person whose body it is to decide.
Anyone else may have opinion but the weight of that opinion should only be on the person who is pregnant who is the decision maker.
Men also participate in the "process". They can't give a birth but it's not their fault. If there are no life-threatening or health-threatening factors for a woman and a baby then it should be a mutual decision and man should also have a voice in such a situation,imo. Also it's complicated I agree...
 
Should state my personal views on abortion is I would only advise it in the cases of threatened severe mental or physical effect on my partner or the child would have severe mental or physical problem (in this case I'd be unsure).
But I don't consider it my place to enforce my views on others.
Men also participate in the "process". They can't give a birth but it's not their fault. If there are no life-threatening or health-threatening factors for a woman and a child then it should be a mutual decision and man should also have a voice in such a situation,imo. Also it's complicated I agree...
If the woman does not want to be pregnant the male is forcing her to be pregnant in your scenario. This will likely cause severe mental and physical effect on them. A mutual decision is ideal but sometimes it can not be obtained.
 
It is only for the person whose body it is to decide.
Anyone else may have opinion but the weight of that opinion should only be on the person who is pregnant who is the decision maker.

Medically what is easiest at that point? That's the only determining factor, at 8 months I'm betting cesarian section/adoption is actually the best option.
Its more 6/7 months where I'd agree its complex but I don't question a person reasonings to wanting to terminate a pregnancy only because it feels like I'm policing someone else's mental health.
Forget about what’s medically easiest, let’s pretend that a child is a day away from being born and the mum decides she wants an abortion and the dr has the technology that can terminate the pregnancy with no harm to the mother, would you support that?

I’m not even saying it’s morally wrong to support that by the way. Just very tricky situation.

You can take it even further, what if you woke up one morning and you were hooked up to your 2 year old child and a dr said that you need to stay hooked up to your kid for 10 weeks otherwise he’ll die. Tricky one.
 
Forget about what's medically easiest, let's pretend that a child is a day away from being born and the mum decides she wants an abortion and the dr has the technology that can terminate the pregnancy with no harm to the mother, would you support that?

I'm not even saying it's morally wrong to support that by the way. Just very tricky situation.

You can take it even further, what if you woke up one morning and you were hooked up to your 2 year old child and a dr said that you need to stay hooked up to your kid for 10 weeks otherwise he'll die. Tricky one.
For me its about feasibility of fetus, plenty of people have induced labours or planned caesarian this is still "terminating a pregnancy" with a perfectly healthy child. The crossover for me is when at terminating the pregnancy should the state put effort in allowing the fetus/child having viability of life outside the womb without putting of where the womb came from to have any responsibility for it.

On third point I'm not required to be a organ/blood donor for anyone why should that scenario be any diffrent? (Not a decision I'd make, I give blood and a registered organ donor)
 
It's difficult. Especially if it's a relationship where the male wants to have the child but the female for career reasons or what ever doesn't. Just because the mother might not want or love the child it doesn't necessarily mean the father would as well.

The government deem a father would be financially responsible for a child with maintenance as he has to accept some form of responsibility for the pregnancy. Yet can't have any choice or responsibility on having the child or not.

Still I side on ultimately it's the females decision.
 
Last edited:
The government deem a father would be financially responsible for a child with maintenance as he has to accept some form of responsibility.
Separate issue but a father that has always been absent (by choice or not) should be absolved of all financial responsibility. If they have been involved they should.
 
Separate issue but a father that has always been absent (by choice or not) should be absolved of all financial responsibility. If they have been involved they should.

I dont thinknthays separate, a man should have the option pre birth or abortion to disregard his duties. This would give the woman a far more informed choice.

Ultimately, these conversations are always convoluted, and people fail to recognise the difference between an abortion, and abortion legislation, these are 2 very different things.

A man cannot tell a woman to kill or force her to keep a child, men do and of course need to be part of the conversation about abortion legislation.
 
Anas Al-Sharif became the face of the war in Gaza for millions. Then Israel killed him


Deliberately targeting journalists? Not surprised
 
CPI numbers stable. Cities getting cleaned up. Border closings at all time lows. Big beautiful bill helping my tax bill. Ukraine war seems near a conclusion. Vance warning UK to straighten up or face his wrath in 3 years. Football about to start. Fall is nearly here.

Historically good first 8 months.
 
CPI numbers stable. Cities getting cleaned up. Border closings at all time lows. Big beautiful bill helping my tax bill. Ukraine war seems near a conclusion. Vance warning UK to straighten up or face his wrath in 3 years. Football about to start. Fall is nearly here.

Historically good first 8 months.
The same Vance loving life in the Cotswolds on holibobs. Glad to get away from the rampant violence on the streets of America.

You guys can't even worry Greeland and Canada. What's he going to do send us a strongly worded Email.

Even your assassin's are ****. A nation of gun owners, who couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo.


 
Last edited:
The same Vance loving life in the Cotswolds on holibobs. Glad to get away from the rampant violence on the streets of America.

You guys can't even worry Greeland and Canada. What's he going to do send us a strongly worded Email.

Even your assassin's are ****. A nation of gun owners, who couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo.


I don't know who that is. I've never heard her name.

Another shǐt BBC article paid by an increasingly poor society.

Sad
 
Only uncensored ones🤦‍♀️

Its an interesting one isnt it...

A woman's right to kill a fetus is her right to choose, and her body her choice, but if she takes drugs that could damage or kill the fetus she can be criminalised.

Im not sure why the article seems to go to bat for the mother, THC ingestion in utero can be problematic, not just short term but longer term in learning difficulties and behaviours.

There is a lack of concensus in long term studies, and some of the studies with regard to cannabis is outdated is probably the best way to look at it.

I found the phrase: 'The idea that fetuses should be treated as people is the foundation of pregnancy criminalization' super interesting.

Where the article really loses me, is when discussing drug use during pregnancy 'these statutes surveil and criminalize women like Rossow, making pregnant people second-class citizens to the very fetuses they carry.'

Pregnant people (lol) should be classed 2nd class when they actively choose to do harm to the baby inside of them, in that scenario safeguarding a baby is more important than the mothers want to get high.
 

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top