UKC

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free (unless you have an unwanted pregnancy, even though rape or incest) and the home of the brave (apart from the old white male republican state senate members who supported this).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/14/abortion-bill-alabama-passe...

Neglecting to mention the legislation was introduced by a female and will only be law if signed by the female governor.

So similar to Northern Ireland then?

People can be conditioned into all kinds of weird, irrespective of sexuality or gender etc. 

Edit: Without getting into the merits or otherwise of abortion, that is. Conditioning happens to us all to shape our views.

Firstly, I'm curious, when did it become "weird" to care about unborn babies?

Secondly, isn't it a little unfair to tar someone as "conditioned" when they disagree with the position you think they should take because of their gender?

It seems to me that the focus of the argument has been on the gender of the legislators rather than the issues they have legislated on.

See my edit after you posted.  

When we started to think of an unwanted foetus as a malignant growth?

When we stopped thinking that every sperm is sacred?

When we stopped thinking of women as God's baby-making machines.

When we started thinking about the rights of the woman to decide whether she wants to bear children or not.

There's a difference between caring about unborn babies, and forcing women who get pregnant to carry the child to term. You can't separate caring about an unborn baby form caring about the rights of the woman carrying that unborn baby.

Is that a good thing?!

Do either of those mean that we don't have to care about the child?

When did they take primacy? Again what in that means that we have to stop caring about the unborn child?

But yet we seem to...

Isn't it a bit weird and deeply intrusive to want to legislate on what strangers do with their bodies? As far as possible, any decisions that are both very personal and extremely subjective, I'd much rather leave up to the people directly involved.

All very emotive but it's not even a foetus until the 8th week and the correct term remains foetus until birth. Even at week 9 the foetus more closely resembles something that'd shoot out of John Hurt's stomach, than a child.

Not really. The government does it all the time.

Call it whatever you want, it is still a human life.

So, just to be clear, you’re all for a woman who has been raped (even by a family member) having to carry, give birth and then presumably care for that child for the next eighteen years minimum? Or it be put into the care of the state? What about the right of the woman to make choices about her life and body? Didn’t women already have to fight for this right in the 1950s, 60s and 70s? 

Lots of things happen all the time. Me agreeing with something is entirely independent of the frequency that it occurs.

I imagine this thread is going to deteriorate fast, given the topic.

Before the bunfight, it might be helpful to consider why so many decent ordinary people disagree with your position (whichever position you hold).

Cards on the table, I'm very much pro-choice, at least for the first half or so of a pregnancy; I think it gets a lot murkier after that.

But I think I can very much see where most of the pro-lifers are coming from.

The crux of the matter is this: killing babies is wrong, and letting someone else kill a baby is wrong, even if not killing it has serious implications for them.

I suspect most people on both sides can agree almost completely on this, and the problem arises because they have different ideas of what actually is a baby.

For me, it's fairly easy - I don't believe in souls or the like - so it becomes a baby gradually, as it gets closer to being able to think, to have some sort of awareness, and to being a separate being. I don't know when all of this happens, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't all happen at once, but I'm comfortable that something that doesn't have much of a brain isn't there yet.

If, on the other hand, you do believe in souls and believe foetuses have them, or if you have another reason for believing that they are a baby, an actual miniature person, right from the start - then an abortion really isn't any different from killing a newborn, so you're probably going to react to it with similar horror.

As a pro-choicer isn't going to be able to convince a pro-lifer that it's OK to kill babies (and let's face it, it isn't!), you might as well not have that argument. Go straight to the real disagreement and don't get upset that they might think you're advocating the right to murder - if they're right about when it becomes a baby, then we actually are.

And as a pro-lifer, don't get upset that someone pro-choice is accusing you of effectively enslaving pregnant women to have them do your bidding - if you're wrong about when a foetus becomes an actual baby, that really is what you're advocating.

Pretty much whatever happens - even with a moderate, middle-ground solution - one set of people are forcing something terrible on another. And it all hinges on something that is very hard to prove, and that for many is a matter of faith. I know which side I fall on, but I think it's very important to keep this in mind and treat the other side with respect, as most of them are arguing in good conscience, for what they really think is right.

Debatable. Can't see myself asking a collection of cells how life was treating them. 

Well said. 

You asked: 

Isn't it a bit weird and deeply intrusive to want to legislate on what strangers do with their bodies?

And I replied to that. My point being that actually it isn't weird because it is something that happens all the time and is something that most people would agree is usually a good thing. 

I’m pro-choice, but I can see why people have opposing views on it. I also think it’s a topic that should be debated by everyone, female and male. 

Thinking off the top of my head, what about things like the kind of life an unwanted child might have? I know a lady who was the result of an affair, and she definitely has psychological problems as a result of not feeling valued like her 'legitimate' sisters were.  Or the number of children living in care in need of adoption and loving homes? Having everybody growing up as well loved and happy children ( and later adults) would seem to be the ideal to aim for. There's something of a dearth of loving homes for children.

You really haven't got the hang of an abortion debate, have you?  The other side (whichever that is) are of course the Devil incarnate, with nothing at all to be said for their position, which is held for entirely unreasonable and reprehensible reasons. 

No, seriously, well done on a sensible post!  The ability to see both sides of an argument is too rare these days. 

You think it's usually a good thing to legislate on what people do with their bodies? Any examples apart from abortion? I think matters of personal choice are better left up to the persons involved. Suicide was legalised 60 years ago, public opinion (if not legislators) supports assisted dying and you can indulge in any number of high risk activities without fear of sanction. 

To be clear I said nothing of the sort. 

Truth be told I don't know what the answer is. I detest the idea that a woman is subjected to arguably the worst crime that could be inflicted on someone and then has to deal with the consequences and have a constant reminder for at least 9 months after. 

On the other hand I am deeply uncomfortable with the notion that you are imposing a death sentence on someone because of the crimes of their father. A sentence that can't be imposed on the perpetrator of the crime.

To me there is a clear distinction between a pregnancy as a result of rape and one that is simply unwanted. The issue of choice is an interesting one and throws up all kinds of problems.

I think that where your choice impacts on another person then yes (although I appreciate we will probably disagree on what constitutes a person).  If you are talking about simply what you can do to yourself I don't think that the government should legislate. I can also see an argument in relation to protecting the vulnerable (for example on assisted suicide). 

At least we have some common ground. I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the moral dilemma posed by abortion. Where we differ is that I'm so conflicted as to the rights and wrongs of the matter that the only sensible conclusion I can reach is that any decision should be left in the hands of the Mother until the foetus approaches viability.

Very true. Unfortunately the ability to do so is probably correlated with a lack of strong feelings one way or the other. If only we were all impartial and objective!

And to be honest I totally get that. I think I just come down on the other side.

Though like every debate at the moment it seems like people are so convinced that they are right that they then end up demonising those on the other side. My main issue with the coverage of this law is that it is being portrayed in a manner which isn't accurate (it's just old white men telling women what to do) in order to discredit the other side without having to deal with the actual moral arguments in issue.

Fair enough, I apologise if my reaction was hyperbolic. It is a very emotive and difficult topic. Having kids myself I can totally understand why people would want to protect the unborn: they seem to be born with such different temperaments and are responsive while in the womb that it’s clear to me they develop a degree of sentience before birth.

My problem here is removing the right of women to have any say whatsoever in their body and the carrying of a child. I don’t actually necessarily see a distinction between rape and unwanted pregnancy: in both cases you have a woman with a baby she does not want. I believe it should ultimately be left up to the woman, within reasonable medical boundaries. Whether that is 24 weeks or less I believe should be based on medical evidence and specific circumstances. Taking away the right with plenum anti-abortion powers seems to be wrong and reactionary. 

Edit: the demonising/ polarisation you refer to would seem to a logical consequence of removing a hard fought for right from women with little pretext except that ‘a collection of cells has equal rights to a fully formed sentient human being’, which is a fundamentalist view. I find it hard to believe that a newly fertilised egg has awareness.

OK, so let's go with the doctrine that a women should have total autonomy over what she does with her body.

So now let's consider a 10-day-old baby, which of course is totally dependent on others.  So, according to your doctrine, a mother should be able to walk away from the baby and neglect it, with no obligation to provide for it, since that would involve demands on what she does with her body.  So we should not have laws about child neglect, agreed? 

If, however, she does have obligations to the 10-day-old baby, why wouldn't she also have obligations to it 20 days earlier?

The limit for most terminations is 24 weeks I believe, so not a 40 week full term baby as you seem to be referring to. Do you think a newly fertilised egg has awareness?

I was referring to Stichplate's fairly absolutest:

"You think it's usually a good thing to legislate on what people do with their bodies?"

... which implies no limit.

I suspect, like many pro lifers, the people that voted for this bill are also in favour of capital punishment and own a gun in the expectation that they'd kill anyone who tried to break into their house.

So much for the sanctity of life.

Personally I think that at six weeks the foetus doesn't even have a brain and that the limit should be set at the point where it becomes significantly sentient.

Must admit i don’t understand that comment as the state retains the right to tell us what we do with our bodies in some circumstances: drug and drink laws, seatbelt laws etc. Maybe i’m opening another can of worms there though..! 

That isn't my doctrine at all.

It's a ridiculous argument. A foetus has increasing legal rights after the age of 24 weeks. This is evidenced by the increasing restrictions placed on abortion after this time. Further to this, if a clinician is presented with a full term woman with life threatening injuries, all efforts must be made to save the mother, regardless of impact on the foetus. The minute the foetus is delivered, focus of care reverts to most pressing clinical need.

A 10 day old, 10 year old or 100 year old, doesn't matter all have legal protection from neglect.

Drug and drink laws have a significant impact on wider society. Seatbelt and helmet laws less so, and though I can see clear arguments for making them mandatory, I think their use should be a matter of choice. You want to see use of climbing helmets and ropes made mandatory?

Abortion is a very emotive issue, and a classic case where the majority of people on both sides of the debate are just trying to make a decision that they believe is correct from a moral, ethical and practical point of view.  FWIW I'm very much pro-choice, but know decent, intelligent people who have an opposing view

What's sad in the US is that the subject has been deliberately and cynically politicised to the point where it seems impossible to have balanced debate about how the law should protect both the medical and personal needs of its citizens.

They can, can't they? It's called adoption. 

Slightly off topic but it’s very difficult to have an objective view on this. Arguably, drug laws have a big impact on society precisely because they are illegal, so the argument for autonomy over body is stronger. In contrast, the impact of seatbelts is on the individual but the evidence is so clear that they save lives I think it is justifiable for the state to mandate their use. Helmets when climbing: seems sensible but very hard to enforce (where/when are you considered to be actively engaged in climbing and thus needing a helmet?) and is the evidence clear that it would make a vast difference to accidents?

The problem with this proposed law, is it's not pushed by scientists, doctors, medical research etc.. it's driven by pro life religious happy clappers, who also just by chance are core trump voters. Just another backward step in the good ole us of a.

This ‘law’ isn’t anything yet. No-one will be denied an abortion yet.

This is a republican tactic to bring an action to the Supreme Court in order to overturn Roe vs Wade. A ruling that allows women to decide what to do with their own pregnancies. The Supreme Court might just weaken the Roe vs Wade decision since the pisshead wide boy possible rapist Kavanaugh made up the numbers for the conservative right.

This is just a tactic in the battle the right are fighting against humanity.

While I agree with you - that there is a problem with this law - I would question any line of reasoning that is critical of an idea simply on the basis of who is proposing it, rather than on the basis of reasoned merit.

The evidence is also clear that a ban on mountaineering would save lives, Yet few would see such a ban as justifiable. Where the argument lies between personal freedom to accept personal risk versus a society's right to arbitrarily restrict, I'd almost always go with personal freedom, including drug legalisation. But everybody draws lines somewhere, mine would include ownership of assault rifles, storing open containers of petrol in the front room of your semi and attaching 2 foot blades to the front of your Tesco shopping trolley.

It's a wonderful thing where a baby is wanted.

It can be a disaster where a baby isn't wanted.

That's the thing, isn't it? It's all about whether the child is wanted.

You know how a lot of fundamentalists in USA think there will be some biblical end times and a second coming of Jesus? Well perhaps they are thinking what if he gets aborted?! 

Agreed and its the fundmentalist Christians driving this.

The big issue is that all it does is drive abortions underground or women going to Mexico /Canada etc ( and there will be organsiations arranging this, thank goodness).

The most frightening thing was that one of the proposals affected women who went to another State to get the abortion done.They were basically still threatened with imprisonment etc when they returned.

Handmaiden's Tale in all its glory.Attwood was ahead of her time.

It probably wouldn't have been proposed if the last retiree on the supreme court wasn't replaced(by trump) with a strong Trump supporter, giving the republicans a majority. 

So now even if this bill is challenged at the highest court it will almost certainly still pass. The politics of the bill's proposers and supporters is more powerful than any science or the individual person's freedom to decide for themselves. 

Pretty extreme example.  Obviously that occurs, but it would be interesting to know what most grounds for abortion are.  

At what point is an unborn child "not a life"?  At what point is it ok to kill that life?  Its very easy to take a liberal, "mother's choice" argument on this as a default position.  But to use an example about as extreme as your own, if you don't believe it acceptable to kill a baby 1 minute after birth, why would it be ok 1 minute before birth?  And how far back towards conception do you go before it becomes acceptable?

Regardless of what loudmouths on the Left and Right would like us to think on this issue, the answer doesn't appear to be so clear cut.  You can't turn this into a reproductive rights issue without considering that an unborn child must also have rights too.  Anyone arguing one side of that argument without mentioning the other is being utterly dishonest.

Great, its a huge step back in women's rights usually imposed by males or religions when we do not have to nurture the unborn child. Where do womens rights fit into your argument?

I think you’ve got it rather back to front, if you think a foetus has rights then make the case for it. What rights are you contending that a foetus has? Does it have those rights from the point of conception? Or does the foetus acquire these rights at some specific point.

We’re left with two options, if abortion is legal women who do not agree with abortion are not forced to have one or perform one. Whereas if abortion is illegal women are forced to go ahead with unwanted pregnancies. So one situation removes women's autonomy over their own bodies and choices whereas the other doesn't.

Yep, which was deemed a breach of human rights laws by the UK Supreme Court but it's within the power of the devolved assembly that is currently suspended so the status quo remains. Sad state of a affairs.

The incredibly annoying and offensive point is that religion offers no rational basis at all from which one could make a judgement about when life begins, which does not stop the god botherers from interfering in other people's lives based solely on their superstitions.

They should shut the f*ck up, and leave this discussion to developmental biologists (who will also disagree about when an embryo should be considered an independent human being, but on a rational basis). 

The "heartbeat" criterium put forward in the US is probably the most useless option (except as a political tool to push the deadline forward as much as possible while retaining a pseudoscientific veneer).

CB

And also their whiteness, according to the OP.  Identity politics - foolish, sad, and wrong.

There is a simple denial by the Pro-Life advocates. Where abortion is banned, women either go for backstreet abortions or go abroad.It is now what happens in Northern Ireland. Women go to England or now Ireland. In Ireland they use to come here.

We moved away from backstreet abortions years ago, thank goodness.

All the pro life advocates  are doing is potentially forcing the issue underground. Its crazy.

Ah yeah sorry I forgot that...

Almost everybody thinks that abortion the day before birth shouldn’t be legal. How is that any less ‘legislating about what strangers do with their bodies’ than Alabama’s law is? It’s a question of degree.

People say such silly absolutist things about this. It’s obviously a messy issue which calls for a sensible compromise such as the UK has, followed by everyone moving on and getting over it.

jcm

This is the problem with the debate; you turn it into a case of correcting some historic injustice and that this dictates the direction of travel that must be taken.

I view it as an issue about where do we stand on the rights of human life - in this case two human beings, each with potentially the same rights as the other.  That is both a difficult question but also much simpler than the one you seem to be proposing (where some account of history has a bearing).

On a personal level, I suspect an amount of emotion gets injected into the debate where women, either feeling the burden of others' perceptions, or on account of their own emotional reaction to having had an abortion, may be seeking to legally and socially legitimise abortion for their own ends.  "I did it.  I was made to feel dreadful.  I don't want anyone to feel the same.  Therefore I want as much social stigma to be removed as possible".  I don't necessarily have a view on that, but I do believe this pressure exists and may distort the debate in a way that is not helpful.

I feel it does have rights.  I have no idea at what point it acquires those rights.  In my own mind though I am certain it doesn't acquire them the moment it exits the womb and therefore they are earned at some point prior to that.  In the absence an agreement on what that sliding scale looks like I can understand, from a legalistic standpoint, why that argument might claim conception is the point. 

The automatic assumption many make that those arguing "conception marks life" come from a dogmatic, religious standpoint, is an additional unhelpful aspect of the debate.  

That skips the point about whether the question is even one of a person's own body the moment another body, a unique set of cells, enters into the equation.  If the point of debate is whether it is ok to kill a living human or not, I can perfectly see why a woman's claim that it is "my body" becomes subordinate.

I have no strong view on the whole debate.  I don't really fall on one side or the other.  On balance I've generally considered myself "pro-abortion".  I have however become increasingly at odds with the way it is discussed, and the way (as with many issues that concern left V right), one side of the debate gets dismissed out-of-hand.  It should come as no surprise that the issue has suddenly polarised.

It seems to me that any sort of philosophical approach about when cells acquire rights is stupid. The dominant points to my mind are (i) banning abortions doesn’t lead to no abortions but to backstreet abortions (ii) there are far too many people already and (iii) unwanted children don’t tend to have a great time.

jcm

And this was the point I just made; arguing that it is purely religious dogma that dictates the life-begins-at-conception argument is utterly incorrect.  There may be a religious starting point or bias in that direction, but that isn't the rationale for where it ends up. 

But if you listen to the arguments that self confessed Christians or Catholics make, they are far more sophisticated than that.  Simply viewing their arguments as the rantings of some bible-bashing, sky-fairy, believers....without ever listening to exactly what their argument is, is precisely why the issue is re-igniting.  

No, they shouldn't.  They perceive that people are being wrongly killed, in the same way be believe the execution of murderers in the US is wrongly killing people.  The debate is actually one of who do we deny the right of life to

On point (i) I absolutely agree (although the same argument then gets recycled to justify not banning guns).

On point (ii) I agree.  But if "too many people" is the justification for being allowed to kill people, then Alzheimers-ridden mothers, vegetative patients and prisoners can be added to the list of ones to go.  There is an ethical issue at stake.

On point (iii) the equal case can be made that being unwanted might still be better than not being born at all.  And many mothers and children for whom abortion was being seriously considered, go on to have full and fruitful lives.

That seems to imply that a debate about when cells acquire rights is a necessary debate.

Oh, but you do. You might not be ready to fully embrace it in public but from the rest of what you wrote, you surely do 

I can accept you “feel” that a foetus has rights (although you don’t say what those rights are or when they are acquired), but your claim I replied to was “You can't turn this into a reproductive rights issue without considering that an unborn child must also have rights too.” and if you want to claim a foetus must have rights then you need to say what the rights are and when they apply from.

There isn’t another body, afaiui legally there is no person other than the mother. You can argue that the law should be changed, but then you’ll have to make your case for when you want a foetus to be legally defined as a person.

It hasn’t suddenly become polarised, I’m surprised you would think that.

You have still not addressed the simple issue that women will have back street abortions or go abroad /somewhere else to have them.

The argument about human rights is completly irrelevant to those women.They will go underground and get them done in some dodgy medical environment.

Practically the pro life argument on human rights is a complete waste of time.

I've stated it - I'm not one out there saying no-abortion.  On balance I wouldn't support anything that changes that.  But if the view is an unborn baby has no rights, and that means we end up with what appears to me to be a slightly ridiculous view that the second a baby is born it acquires rights that are denied while it is in a womb, then there are questions to be asked.  The absolutist argument seems difficult to justify, especially given the ability to care for premature babies these days.

Are you really trying to say that considering there may be more to this than simply "its my body and anything inside my body is mine and I have a right to end that life at any point up to the moment of birth is mine alone" makes me anti-abortion?

It's surely not a binary debate.

A parallel here might be the immigration debate, where expressing any kind of view that immigration may not be all good and that there is room for debate makes you "anti-immigration".  If that's going to be the case then I'll flip it the other way - "pro-immigration" means you are for open borders and no control.  Its a stupid argument, but you can't have it one way and not the other.  

No. Organized religion has for much too long been given a free pass in too many fields. Just listen to the pope declare that all cases of child abuse should be reported WITHIN THE CHURCH, without even mentioning the relevant state authorities (my argument is more general, I know that the Alabama case has little to do with Catholics).

Why should society respect some obscurantist delusions, which would clearly be classified as mental illness if they were held by an individual rather than a large group, as valid reasons for underpinning any argument about policy in the 21st century? *

Not all arguments are equally valid, and faith based arguments should have been laughed out of informed discussion since at least 500 years. In this case, there is no rational basis at all for deriving a conclusion about the beginning of life from a faith position.

Of course people should be free to believe whatever they want, but that must not entail the right to be taken seriously, and especially not the right to impose ANYTHING derived from these faith positions on anyone else.

CB

*And yes, I do get the irony of using a dating system based on the same belief in the previous sentence. I am absolutely aware and respectful about the role of Christian faith and in particular the church in shaping our cultural background, but would nevertheless deny it a special role now and for the future. 

I agree with much of your post, but not this last issue. The debate is not suddenly polarized. Instead, what we see is the backlash of religious extremists who suddenly spotted a chance to roll back the last decades of liberation and emancipation of society from religious dogma, especially but not exclusively with respect to women's rights. 

CB

I know you believe you are making a down the middle unbiased point but it's not coming across as that.

Is anyone actually saying this? I've read the thread and a far bit of commentary on the issue (not just the recent flair up) and have never heard this point of view? As a very basic example, the foetus gains different rights at 24 weeks in the UK as the criteria for abortion change. The debate has always been about at what age the rights of  a foetus change and in most countries (that allow abortion) is seems to be around the low to mid twenties (weeks), a length of time that has been decided on by various medical criteria. 

You seem to be creating an argument you have a response to, instead of engaging in the debate that is actually going on?

Ok well I'm not religious nor do I subscribe to any faith, yet I still believe that life begins at conception and thus have the benefit of human rights (particularly the right to life). I believe that because I can't get away from the fact that the cells are human cells and I have yet to hear a cogent argument advanced as to why one of the arbitrary points of development should be considered the start of life. If you can make one go ahead, I'm open to persuasion.

I accept that there is probably an inconsistency in what my view, but quite frankly there are in all views, even though that is not always conceded.

The sooner that debates like this can be undertaken without resorting to name calling and misrepresenting the other side the better.

In fairness there are campaigns in the US advocating third trimester terminations and there was an article in a medical journal a couple of years ago arguing for post-partum terminations.

I don't know the answer to that.  Abortion isn't an issue I feel strongly about.  It is like vegetarianism v meat eating.  What I do feel strongly about is the terms of the debate, the assumption of a lack of good-faith on the other side.  

I think it has.  The emergence of Trump is a sign of that.

What the rules are in the UK is of little relevance when considering the motivations and rights and wrongs of campaigners in the USA.

That's a big assumption.  Perhaps they simply see abortion as murder, in the same way we look at capital punishment as murder.  And they are not seizing on an opportunity to do anything other than correcting what they view to be a gross and terrible injustice.

The argument put forward by those supportive of abortion, claiming anti-abortionists have nefarious motives other than the ones they state, is not helpful.  And polarizing.

Third trimester terminations for what reason? You can have third trimester terminations in the UK, it's just the allowable reasons for the termination change. As a poster above said, the rights for the foetus increase with age. It's not a black and white issue but a degree of compromise has already been reached in most countries. Those holding more extreme opinions won't be satisfied but that is the nature of compromise.

Abortion isn't just about unwanted pregnancies it can be about women with much wanted pregnancies suffering horrendous pregnancy related complications, eg  hyperemesis gravida, crippling pregnancy related anxiety and depression. As well as termination for medical reason.

The critique of faith based arguments is aimed at the Alabama legislators, who either do believe in a very fundamentalist version of Christianity, or at least claim to do so for political gains. Attacking their basis is therefore fair game. 

As to your other question, I argued above that even developmental biologists (like myself) would struggle to pick a date from which on we would consider an embryo or fetus to be "alive" and thus in possession of rights, including the right to life.

You mention cells, but would you think I commit mass murder every time I have chucked a cell culture dish into the autoclave bin?

Probably not, because a single cell in a dish is not easily transformed into an individual human. It used to be completely impossible, but due to recent technical advances in stem cell biology, it seems at least feasible now. Same goes for any cell in hair follicle or sputum I cough up. Are all these little humans alive (given that now they could in principle turned into a new microCB?). They are certainly alive, in that they have a metabolism, communicate with their environment, etc...

This standpoint would be patently ridiculous, similar to the "every sperm is sacred" skit.

So if sperm or eggs or somatic cells don't make the cut, but what about conception? Again, arguing that a fertilized zygote is an individual with all rights that entails makes no sense, as it is technically easy to split an embryo at early stage and make identical clones (called twins if this happens naturally). So, let's wait a bit longer. 

Birth is clearly too late, so what about week 23ish, when the earliest premature babies could be kept alive? Too late for my tastes as well.

However, a bunch of cells around conception or preimplantation has, outside the mother, as much chance of turning into a baby as the cells in my dish, so "day after" contraception, which prevents the ball of a few dozen cells implanting into the uterus, seem fair enough. Why should these cells have a "right" to be hosted by the mother, but the cells in my culture dish do not have the "right" to converted into gametes and used for producing embryos? What about my sperm, or the 400k oocytes every woman is born with? Clearly, this is a reductio ad absurdum.

I would suggest instead that the whole question of the "beginning of life" is completely irrelevant for determining when an abortion should be legal.

Clearly, it is impossible to uncouple the increasing rights of the embryo from the rights of the mother. 

So if there is a conflict of interest, preventing a few cells from implanting seems a context where the rights of the mother should win any time, regardless of whether you consider life starting at conception.

However, once the baby would be able to survive independently (at the very latest), the rights of the baby should win almost every time (I say almost, as a friend had her pregnancy terminated close to that point because of a suddenly diagnosed leukemia that required immediate chemotherapy).

The question is then how to deal with this tradeoff fairly. My preferred option would be to allow day after pills to be sold OTC, to legalize "no questions asked" abortions until some later date, ideally linked to some stage of brain development because it is our brains that make us human, and become more and more restrictive as development progresses (e.g. in cases of rape a bit longer, in cases of lethal danger to the mother even longer, etc..).

The point of setting first heartbeat as a cutoff has no scientific basis but is patently designed to be unfair: It is the one thing which can be construed as a "sign of life" that can be detected extremely early, and thus gives the mother at best a few days to have a legal abortion after her period is late. Contraction of heart cells is also something easily triggered in cells in a dish, almost trivial, really.

Hope that makes sense,

CB

This is what they say about the region just South of my home: So catholic that the only available form of birth control is post partum abortion with the help of an Audi A4 and a few litres of beer...

CB

Not really, Roe vs Wade defined viability at 24 weeks which is normally the tipping point at which the rights of the foetus increases. Within the US, the federal/state law complications make it all a little fuzzier but the principle is the same.

You still avoid the issue of underground or backstreet abortions or women just travelling elsewhere.

You  are unwilling to recognise the reality of what actually happens. 

So what’s the answer ?

Seems to be a some very weird contradictions in the American way of thinking.

So, happy to restrict abortion as "every life is sacred", but no need to restrict gun ownership even following multiple massacres of school children, and we'll ignore all the Americans dying for lack of basic health care.....

Hmmmm...? 

It may be a good thing. This may be the final push needed to motivate voters for 2020. US elections are all about who turns out.

The problem is it may lead to Roe V Wade getting too court and with the current 9 we have no idea what will happen.

Or family leave. I find it hard to believe that women don't have to opt for abortions for financial concerns regarding leave and child care. It's brutal. Even when states have it its pretty basic. My wife gets the opportunity for family leave 30 days after her new job starts as long as she has not seen a Dr before then. Then its a pre-existing condition. And that's only 6 weeks with a reduced pay.

That's an arguable point.  At what point does a ball of cells stop being a potential human and become an actual human?  I'd be interested in your point of view (but not so interested that I'm going to read every post to see whether you've stated this already.  I may be retired and time-rich, but life's still too short for some things).

T.

Or maybe I have been dipping in and out of the debate because it has been a busy day and I haven't got round to replying.

Just because people will continue to do something "underground" if you make it illegal doesn't mean that you should just make it legal. If that was the case pretty much every law would have to be repealed.

In terms of situations involving rape, incest or risk of life to the mother I struggle to see the best way forward because I can see both sides of the argument (unlike some on here).

Where the baby has some horrendous condition, again I am conflicted, I don't want them to suffer but at the same time I feel uncomfortable about not giving them a chance.

Where it is on the basis of convenience then I am significantly less concerned about the mother's right to choose than I am about the foetus/child whatever you want to call it.

Do you think that a woman should be allowed to choose regardless of the grounds for the decision? So for example if she was carrying a female and only wanted a male child so chose to abort would that be ok? 

I don't think I have stated my position above so don't worry about wasting your time!

I think there is a distinction between being human and being a human. I think my view is that the cells are human (don't think you can really argue otherwise though I'm sure if that is not true I will be corrected) but they are not a human. 

As stated above by someone else, there doesn't appear to be an agreed position as to when a life becomes a human (or indeed when it becomes a life) in the scientific community and so it seems to me that any position on when a life becomes a human is arbitrary. For that reason I would say my view is that life starts at the point of conception. Don't get me wrong I understand there are issues with taking this stance, but there are going to be with whatever position you take on the issue.

I think that is a roundabout way of saying I'm not sure as to the answer of your question...

In reply to gravy:

Well that escalated quickly.

But sorry, I'm not going to bite. Good effort though.

It is frankly irrelevant.

What simply happens is abortions go underground and are done back street in some dodgy environment( usually those who cannot afford anything else) Or women go elsewhere where abortions are legal.( those who can afford it).

What you are advocating is a return to that cruel system.

The prolife argument is simply a sham .Bite the bullet and accept it unless you want backstreet abortions which go wrong in poor medical environments. They were done by people even posing as doctors to get the money.Talk to people who lived in that envrironemnt. open your eyes.

No it's not. I am enquiring as to whether you would put any limits on a woman's right to choose. I think that is quite an important issue.

My eyes are open, I appreciate that by taking away a legal route some people will turn to "Back alley" clinics or will travel abroad. As I stated, this is no different to any other law, if people are restricted from doing what they want by law there are always going to be some that do it anyway, that is not a basis on which to make laws.

It is one of the reasons. Whether you like it or not it is a reason and the 'abortion tourism' aspect of this is certainly an issue.

The pro-legalisation approach that normally works in favour of drug legalisation doesn't work so well here as the issue at hand is equally the life of the child.  You could easily argue that any limit on late-term abortions drives would-be mothers to back street abortions, so do away with those limits as well.

And the counter-argument is that any abortion is taking a life of its own.  The hard-nosed arithmetic, of every abortion that takes place V risks of a smaller number of back street abortions + fewer abortions overall, is always going to work out in favour of the anti-abortionists. 

Try speaking to women who lived through that era. Go over to Ireland. A paragon of the   So called pro life virtues where it was banned. Reflect on what actually happened. 

They came here .

And  there were some horrendous cases where the state in all its glory refused abortions and women died which thankfully turned the tide. 

You are fighting yesterday’s religious battles dressed up.

Argue and debate but please don't resort to cheap insults, it is such a crap way of getting your point across.

Alan

Good of you to respond, and to be so honest in your reply.

I think the question goes beyond being a matter for philosophical discourse and gets to the nub of the issue; at what point does a potential person enter the ball of rapidly dividing cells so that was once the potential for new life now becomes a potential new person, with all that that implies?

And the point at which such an argument hinges is, I think, at what point does that potential new life develop the biological apparatus required to support consciousness, for all that it may be limited whilst developing inside the womb, for without the apparatus to support consciousness, there isn't yet the possibility that a new person can enter the embryo.  And from what I recall of what I've heard about this - and I'm no expert, but someone who is may chip in with more precise information - the brain structures required to support a new personality develop at around 20 weeks or so.

So, abortion before that time kills potential, not a person; abortion thereafter will deny the world a new individual.

But to each their own view.  I have a very real issue with the fundamentalist positions on this being developed in some US states, as I always have had with the same position in many devoutly catholic countries; but that's an issue of personal liberty, and I've always been in favour of individual choice rather than fundamentalist dictat in this and many other issue.

Thanks again for the reply.  

T.

I don't think that captures all the argument and I don't think the question is about consciousness. Animals are conscious and many hospital patients are unconscious yet we kill the former and save the later.

I'm sure all of us here favour individualism over fundamentalism. The problem is, that is equally an anti-abortion argument as to take the life of someone without their consent is to defy that individuals right to life. So the question is more one of when does something become someone.

The anti abortionists argue that it is potential that mark's that point and that potential begins at conception. That doesn't seem to be an unreasonable argument, or at least no less so (unless you want an abortion) than the other arbitrary time points.

My point was about the biological framework to support consciousness.

But given the tenor of many comments - not yours here, I should add - I am disinclined to engage further with the debate. Too much heat, not enough light.

T.

He might of course meant a conscious being, as opposed to a collection of cells with no consciousness - but you knew that really.

Legally there is only one individual until birth. When are you saying there should be 2 individuals?

Why stop at conception, surely every sperm has potential? 

Have any women contributed to this thread?

I think we’re all spaffing up against a wall and should just shut the f*ck up.

As a women, may I contribute this link.  It is a eye opening thread from last month on mumsnet  " ask me anything - I'm a midwife who works in abortion care", might change a few views on abortion and what it means to women. 

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/AMA/3567506-Im-a-midwife-who-works-in-abortion...

And this to me is incredibly difficult.  I genuinely do recognise the arguments on both sides as a result.

I think the only practical way is probably to let the woman decide.  However I do think it is incumbent on people (it takes two to tango, as it were) to ensure that they are careful only to deliberately[1] consent to and have unprotected sex when they actively want a child, and doing otherwise is an incredibly irresponsible act which should be heavily looked down upon by society.  It certainly should be *seriously* looked down upon to say "oh, it's OK, I can have the morning after pill" or somesuch.  I don't think that is a common view, but it does occasionally come up, probably with the same kind of people who drive non-defensively and say "it doesn't matter if someone crashes into me as their insurance will pay" - and yes I have heard that on a number of occasions, and it completely disregards, on a similar level, the possibility of that crash causing death.

[1] Obviously rape and the likes are different, and the perpetrator holds all the moral responsibility for that in my book.  Where contraception was correctly used but went wrong somehow is just one of those things and is not really anybody's fault.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/may/16/cfam-rightwing-w...

https://www.thecomicnews.com/images/edtoons/2007/0103/birthcontrol/02.gif

Could not find the best Marlette cartoon on the topic, the one with the first panel showing  a smarmy televangelist declaring that "we only want to do it the old fashioned way"*

* The old fashioned way being a wire coat hanger, as revelaed in panel two....

Interesting that I got a thumbs down from one person on that.

Would that person like to explain why it's a good idea and should be happily accepted rather than morally deprecated for people to wilfully have unprotected sex and just have abortions or the morning after pill as they wish with no moral concern about that?  As that's the opposite of my view, basically...

If you have consensual unprotected sex you have made a choice to create a life - and that needs to be respected.  Don't wilfully create a life unless you intend to dedicate both your lives to the future of that life.  Use contraception.  Take your responsibility seriously, because it is the most serious, important (and wonderful) responsibility a pair of adults can ever take on in their entire lives.

Obviously abortions need to be available so they can be used where that sex was not consensual, or where a serious health issue would be caused to the mother, or where contraception failed etc.  These issues are way too complex to over-regulate it as the right-wingers want.  But it really *is not* something one should deliberately choose.  It is a way out of a potentially very bad situation as a last resort.

And if you can't control where your appendage goes when you're drunk (or can't say no to a bloke who wishes to), don't get drunk.  Your responsibility.  If a specific thing isn't OK when you're sober, it's equally not OK when you're drunk either.

I don’t get this that men shouldn’t comment.

its like saying it’s ok for white guys to stand by and watch racism happening.

As a father in the US and having a 3 year old daughter this is a key reason why I will get my citizenship so I can vote and get these bastards out.

luckily we live in NH and soon MA so somewhat buffered unless Roe V Wade gets overturned. 

Yes, I find this strange as well.  It takes two to tango.

Thanks for that link. That was actually enlightening and I think has changed my view. I was always of the opinion abortions are acceptable up to 23-4 weeks and after that only for serious medical reasons. That thread has opened my eyes to some of the other reasons women may want a late abortion, but are currently not allowed to.

As a woman (I've changed username to post this), to add something to the thread:

I have never had an abortion, but have used the morning after pill. I'd rather deal with a potential unwanted pregnancy one day after conception than waiting to see if I were pregnant and then needing to have a more invasive procedure. I think there are valid practical/medical arguments against using the MAP regularly (for example it being less effective than other forms of contraception), but aside from that I don't really understand the ethical objections people (including ones on this thread) have against it or why it should be stigmatised? By preventing rather than ending unwanted pregnancies, it seems to me the MAP is more similar to other forms of contraception than it is to abortion.

I am seriously uncomfortable with the argument abortions (either at any time or after a certain time) should only be allowed or are only justifiable under certain circumstances (rape, incest etc). First, I don't think anyone has the right to, or should be placed in a position where they, make that kind of ethical decision regarding a woman's life. Women who go through such events are often in a tremendously difficult position already, especially if the perpetrator is known to them, and asking women to justify/make the case for their abortion is incredibly difficult, if not impossible considering 1. the emotional impact of having to do so, and 2. the possible power relations at play that might prevent a woman from doing so. Secondly, there could be a small but potential risk of women falsely accusing someone of rape, if that is the only circumstance under which they are allowed an abortion.

On the topic of men speaking up about abortion: yes, I think they should. But they should also recognise how their circumstances will always be different. I imagine it must be horrible for men who would welcome a child but whose partner decides they want an abortion. On the other hand, men will always have the option to leave their partner and unborn child, women don't have that choice. Also, I think the link SAF posted provides some really useful insights into the complex reasons why some women may choose to have multiple abortions, especially when they are in abusive or controlling relationships. Such women should not be looked down upon, but given all the support they need. I think the view presented in these discussions can often be rather black/white as to what is (ir)responsible sex and therefore what is a justifiable reason for an abortion or not, but it's a complex world out there.

What needs stigmatising is having unprotected sex without the intention to produce and raise a child.  I wouldn't specifically stigmatise the MAP (indeed, as you say it's better than having a more invasive procedure later) of course.

Maybe we also need to stigmatise drunken sex?  It's the time when most bad decisions are made about it, whether that be ones that produce unwanted children, or rape, or incorrectly-used contraception failing, or whatever?  "You wouldn't drive your car drunk, so don't accidentally create a life drunk?"

This is why I don't think it's viable to have such controls and so the woman's decision being final is probably the only practicable approach.

This is also very true - again hence why I would not apply controls because it's just too complex to do them fairly.

But as I said above - I still think wilfully having unprotected sex without the intention to create a child should be seriously stigmatised - and in many circles it still isn't.  Nor is it to me right to have an abortion because you did want a baby at that point and have had "buyer's remorse" about how it might affect your life.  You make the decision before the act, and if you are not *absolutely sure*, use a condom.

The purpose of abortions is to deal with when things have gone badly wrong in my book.  They don't exist to allow people to choose to put less weight on the decision of whether to have unprotected sex or not, and that needs a serious moral shift in some areas of society.

Yes, I don’t think people who want to carve out rape exceptions have thought about how that’s supposed to work in practice.

jcm

Indeed, hence my pragmatic line of letting the woman decide.  However, with great power (power of life or death, indeed) comes massive, massive responsibility.  That responsibility starts (and is indeed at its greatest) when a pair of adults decide to have consensual sex.  That is the point, medical issues aside, when you decide you actually do want to have a baby.

To me life exists as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg, and I find any other definition to simply be one of convenience.  It might make sense to take that life if it's a choice between that and serious medical complications, or in the case of rape or similar, but it is incumbent on us all to do anything we can not to get into that position - be that by being careful about use of contraception, or continuing to push the point that consent isn't "OK, then, if you must" - consent needs to be genuine enthusiasm for both the act itself, *and*, if the act is to be unprotected, for the creation and upbringing of a child.

Only where all those precautions have failed should abortion be the "fallback".  NOT because you forgot the condoms and can just use the MAP afterwards so you have sex anyway.  If you forget the condoms, tonight isn't the night, sorry.

I guess it's better than the Irish abortion laws. All abortion clinics have a nine month waiting list.

I tend to agree with you.  But the laws seem to be all over the place when it comes to parental responsibility; who gets access to children, who is expected to pay for children, so on and so forth.  Why should a mother have sole right to choose over the life of a baby when in so many other areas a male is expected to share responsibility.  When it comes to parenting, the push seems to be entirely one-way, with mother's rights put first in every possible area.

Beyond that, the anti-abortion arguement is that what comes first is the rights of the individual whose life is at risk.  That is the baby first and foremost.  All other rights are secondary to that. 

My default position is that abortion rights should be allowed.  No different from my default position being that I should be able to eat animals.  However, if actually analysing the issue beyond what my wants and needs are, and as an ethical issue, I can't help but feel my eating meat (in all but the most extreme of circumstances) is indefensible, and abortion likewise.  We make the decision to allow it because it is the most convenient option and because the other side is incapable of defending itself.  The argument is inherently unfair.  

Equally though, those justifying abortion tend to paint a very monochrome picture; where every abortion is the result of extreme conditions and hard to argue against.  What about all those abortions that occur from a change in heart where a mother simply decides the circumstances they are in are inconvenient, despite being the same or better circumstances than millions of people who chose to continue with a pregnancy? 

Both sides in the debate seem to choose the examples that best represent their cases and talk across each other.

"...fuelled by right-wing Christians emboldened under the Trump presidency.."

tells you all you need to know. when will know it all, arrogant, smug ar*eholes just f*ck off and stop trying to impose whatever drivel they think is "the truth" on everyone else. maybe they should team up with some Sharia dudes and publically stone anyone who has an abortion

And that is the type of abortion I can't help but have a problem with.

You decide whether you want a baby BEFORE you have consensual unprotected sex.  If either of you are in any way unsure or think you might be, slip on a condom and just enjoy yourselves, leaving the decision until after you've had more chance to talk about it.

You can always try again next week, after all.

That might be how you want things to be, but you surely accept that it isn't reality. And if you ban abortion for a woman who wilfully had unprotected sex without wanting a child surely all she would have to say is "the condom broke".

Yes, that's how all sex happens.

Which is why I wouldn't ban it and would leave it as the woman's choice - it is too impractical to legislate.  However, I do think there is a strong moral point there.

That's how unprotected sex should happen.  Don't have it unless you want a child.  It is that simple.  If you don't absolutely, 100%, certainly, want a child, use a condom.

You might be missing their argument somewhat.

They view an unborn child as having the same rights as any other human.  They believe it is fundamentally wrong for that right to be rescinded because a mother changes her mind.

At the extreme end, they have a truly biblical view of no abortions under any circumstances and nothing other than a religious belief as justification.  But people I know, or have heard speak, who are anti-abortion are far more sophisticated than that. 

In their view the arrogant, smug, arseholes who need to f*ck off and stop imposing drivel on people are the ones who say its ok to kill a baby.

You don't have to agree with the anti-abortion argument.  But your attitude towards it is as bad as theirs.

You seem to imply no one ever has to take responsibility.  Or is there some point where they must?

There is surely plenty of opportunity between "the condom broke" and being 5 months in, to have taken a morning-after pill?

Like, the morning after?   Yes, if you *know* your contraception has failed (or have a strong suspicion it might have done) and you don't want a child, *immediately* is the time to deal with it.  Similarly in the case of rape, though I accept the huge mental health issues involved in that decision.

Other than medical grounds (i.e. significant threat to the mother's life or ongoing health) I struggle with the moral justification for abortions a number of weeks down the line.

you are right, my post was extreme and somewhat indefensible. I just see red when I see the term "fundamental Christians." add "trump" into the mix, and I blow...

No, you've inferred that. But perhaps you're saying that arranging an abortion or taking the morning after pill isn't taking responsibility. Either way, people (who don't want kids) are going to have unprotected sex, you might want it to be different but that is the reality.

About 72 hours?

You're not going to stop it completely, but there certainly needs to be a big moral shift in society about the acceptability of that, which would significantly reduce the issue.  Particularly where alcohol is involved.

Indeed, should we actually move to a law (albeit one that would have limited enforcement possibility, but might at least help to drive that moral shift) that it is not legally possible for a woman to consent to sex if she is under the influence of alcohol, i.e. that that would be statutory rape?

What! You're mad.

Am I?  Many of these poor decisions (of having unprotected sex with no desire to conceive a child) involve alcohol.  I do strongly believe that alcohol should not be considered a "get-out" for any legal or moral situation.

Responsibilities first, rights second.  The life you are about to create is more important than your desire to have a good time.

Yes, you're crackers. How are you going enforce your law that only sober women can consent to sex? And why only women? And why am I even taking your lunacy seriously?

Or maybe in an alternate universe where overpopulation, climate change and diminishing resources are real planet/species/life threatening issues - restricting access to abortion services, removing woman's power to choose what happens with their bodies and of course people having multiple children should be stigmatized instead?

It has already happened.  As I understand it has become the norm on some US campuses that consent under the influence of alcohol can be read as not having given consent.  I think there have been cases in the UK making similar points.  Its the logical end point and consistent with how we don't allow alcohol use as a get-out clause in other circumstances.

It was an idle comment to some extent - but it would be the man who would be in the wrong by taking an obviously drunken "consent" as actual consent.  It takes two to tango, but the physiological differences make it rather difficult if not impossible for a woman to force herself on a man, so the man will always have to take that bit more responsibility for the situation being right.

Precisely.  If you wouldn't be considered fit to make the decisions involved in driving a car, why would you be considered fit to make the decisions involved in starting a family, which is most probably the most important and responsible thing any adult could ever do?

Point me to some law.

It was a stupid comment. Would it be ok if they were married, if the woman has had a glass of wine with dinner will you still graciously allow her to consent to a shag at the end of the night?

Or maybe people should take a bit of responsibility before they create children in the first place, and having unprotected sex without the intention to have and raise a child should be stigmatised?

If people acted responsibly, far fewer abortions would be necessary - and that without any change in the law at all.

I would not restrict access to the services, but I certainly think people need to take control of their actions and not get into the position through consensual unprotected sex in the first place.  (As I've said all along, rape, failed contraception and medical issues are VERY different).

You know exactly what I meant.  In effect, there would be no way of enforcing that kind of thing.  Where it would come in is a bloke taking advantage of a drunk woman where if she was sober she wouldn't have consented - and if you don't think that goes on you've got your head in a bucket of sand.

And if he was too drunk to put on a condom properly and as a result a child is created, that's worse still.

Pretty sure the point is about on-campus sex education, not law.  But it makes a lot of sense - if someone is ratted off their head, how can they possibly make a sensible moral decision?

No I don't. We already consider consent

"Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:

The complainant's assertion of force or threats;

Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent;"

It doesn't say that if a woman has had a drink she can't consent.

So what? Make the woman keep the child?

Well, if they have had the foresight to be on the pill, I think we can allow them a little latitude to enjoy themselves without you being quite so censorious.

Unplanned pregnancies are pretty much at an all-time low, in this country at least.  In fact, there's starting to be a bit of a moral panic that young people may be going off it altogether.

That's what I meant by "under the influence".  Though I think I'd go a bit further than the law presently does in terms of determining where consent may have been invalid due to alcohol - it doesn't, for example, take more than a few pints for staying out later to seem a good idea, so it probably affects other decisions too.

Clearly not (I wouldn't change the legal constraints on abortion - what I'm about is making people take more responsibility for their actions), but the bloke would effectively be not only a rapist but have created a life that nobody had any intention of allowing to continue.

Well, er, yes, that's contraception.  That's not "unprotected sex" in terms of what I meant, though it obviously doesn't protect against STDs.

Why's it a moral panic?  "Generation sensible" do seem to be outdoing their parents in having a very good moral compass.

So you want the situation we already have - where people who are incapable through alcohol can't give consent. But under the influence clearly doesn't mean incapable of giving consent. If my wife has a couple of pints she's under the influence, but she wouldn't be incapable of giving consent.

They are rapists already if the woman is incapable of giving consent. 

Jumping back at bit to defining where a ball of cells becomes a baby. In my mind it's when it can live independently of the mother. Before that, it's part of the mother's body and if you remove it then it is just a lump of cells again. I believe that's where the current UK limit is for abortion?

Of course, you could say it's a parasite and will remain to be so for at least 20 years unless you get rid of it! 😉

A woman's power to choose what happens to her body? Once you are pregnant it's a bit late to choose.

How is starting a family the most responsible thing any adult can do? You could come home from the pub pissed and make a baby, most people couldn't come home from the pub pissed and make a brew.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Is it? Two thirds of the world's countries allow abortion. Take a look at the map of where the most restrictive countries are. Perhaps you'd like to move? Perhaps we could have a whip round to help you relocate?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#/media/File:Abortion_Laws.svg

So many idiots disliking my comments again, get a grip will you. I actually typed my last message then deleted it, it was along the lines of no one wins with this argument. If you say women don't have the right to abort a child some people will disagree and others will agree. If you say a woman has every right to abort a child some people will disagree and others will agree. no matter what you say some people will agree and others will disagree which is the same as this forum really.

Wow. You're like a perfect blend of Einstein and Confucias. I'm thinking of collecting your missives into a single Tome Of Wisdom.

I must admit the "dislike" button might be a good laugh elsewhere but on a thread like this is really not helpful.  If you (generic you) dislike a comment, why not reply and elaborate as to why?

It requires the use of responsibility to do it right, it shouldn't be taken lightly.

What did this even mean? Rights are legal constructs. They are not some intrinsic property of a foetus that can be reasoned into existence. The rights of a foetus are simply what the law says in any particular jurisdiction at any particular point in time. 

Why? Can't you imagine having to revise the time limit for abortion in the light of hypothetical new research showing that foetuses are sentient sooner than we'd previously thought?

 > The points salient points to my mind are (i) banning abortions doesn’t lead to no abortions but to backstreet abortions (ii) there are far too many people already and (iii) unwanted children don’t tend to have a great time.

Pragmatic and important - well at least (i) and (iii). Any idea how many fewer births there have been as a direct result of Roe Vs Wade? I seem to remember Freakonomics suggesting that the big drop in US crime was due to a generation of unwanted children not being born.

And in all your semantics over this in Alabama it is 25 white males who passed this law. 

There are 37 seats in the senate house in Alabama. 

Do you get the message?

its not women who pushed this through. It’s white stale males. 

Appalling. And I am a white stale male. 

If you concentrate really hard, then you might be able to figure out the purpose of the delete button, thus avoiding accidentally doing this again.

Thank you for this insightful contribution to epistemology A.J.P. Taylor.

Pregnancy isn’t an event, it’s a process.

The appalling thing is you believe someone's race, age and gender disqualify them from making judgements about rights of an unborn child.

How do you expect anti-abortionists to give you even an inch of consideration when you come out with that crap?

Look at the voting patterns. Look at Ireland where it was the Catholic Church ( no women priests ) who held sway until the referendum. 

Its you who do not want to face reality.

So please come up with a better argument.

If it was women who voted it through I would  concede the point. Even 50/50 would strengthen your argument .

Your blind to the issue trotting out it does not matter. 

It looks a lot like you are letting your views on a certain demographics influence your views on a highly contentious topic.

This issue is a technical, philosophical one, and the ability to decide on that isn't unique to owning a uterus.  Likewise, the Catholic church's undoing on the issue was its dogmatic, absolutist stance - a stance the pro-abortion lobby, certainly in the US, seems keen to push in the other direction.

It isn't, however it is certainly one that requires a significant amount of female input, as there are some things that a bloke just won't "get", just as a woman won't "get" some things about being male.

It's worth noting, however, that polls in the US show very little difference between men and women over whether they oppose abortion.  It is not a case of men being largely against and women being largely for it. 

E.g. "In 2014, the Pew Research Center found that 58 percent of Alabamians believed that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. Of them, 51 percent were women." 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/us/abortion-law-women.html

Being pro/anti abortion does depend hugely, of course, on being Republican versus Democrat, or religious versus non-religious, but it doesn't depend on sex.

Thus, the fact that the Alabama senators who voted for it were all men does not mean Republican-leaning Alabaman women are against it, it means that Republican-leaning Alabaman women tend to vote for male politicians. 

However, ultimately the decision to have an abortion (legally or otherwise) will be made by the owner of a uterus. 

This is a Women's issue, a massive one, and one that is taking away the rights of millions of women to have bodily autonomy.  

Even here in the relative safety of UK this current trend towards the erosion of hard fought for Women's rights is utterly terrifying.

So it comes down to a question of whether the baby in the uterus is a unique individual or not. 

I expect those pro-abortion would say it is attached to, and therefore simply an extension of, the mother so it is, in essence, the mother' body alone that a decision is being made about - hence the argument goes as far as mother's rights and no further.  

An anti-abortionist would likely argue that the baby is a unique genetic creation and, while not physically rejected by the mother and hosted by it, it is still a unique individual and accorded rights of its own.  It is a life and the decision to take its life cannot be made by anyone else and certainly not if the grounds for doing so are not medical.  Just because only a landlord can make the decision to boot out their tenants, the landlord isn't absolved of responsibilities to them.

It's a women's issue, no one denies that.  What the pro-abortion lobby seems to ignore is that it is also much much more than just a women's issue.  That denial, and outright hostility to those who view it in this wider sense, is a concern.  It seems like an intentional narrowing of the debate to avoid an awkward elephant in the room. 

I can perfectly understand vegetarians who think I'm a cvnt for eating meat (for which I have no real answer) - even if they get in my face about it.  Shouting at them, or pretending abattoirs don't exist, doesn't lessen their arguments.

You just referred to a women's body as a "landlord", how dare you? Might as well just call us walking talking uteruses, as that's what we are to far too many men!

A women's body risks so much and uses so many resources to produce a baby, even in the UK around 90 women a year die directly from pregnancy and child birth complications, let alone all the life long birthing injuries sustained by women... one of my cousins ended up on ITU due to post partum hemorrhage, another cousin had 37 stitches to repair her vagina and rectum, followed by further surgery later, a colleague ended up on ITU for dialysis following a placental abruption and death of her baby. I got off lightly, only 8 months of constant unrelenting nausea and now a mild bladder prolapse.

Its a fringe idea ( a large ,stable majority of Americans want abortion to be legal) that plays out in political competition between republican candidates during primaries for state houses.

if Alabama’s law actually comes into force, the price will be paid by women too poor or browbeaten to travel to other states. Some of them will attempt to perform abortions themselves with drink,drugs or worse .

I mean I typed the message out and then deleted it and typed something else.

If you want me to get serious for a moment and contribute to the debate, I think (I'm not a mother so it shouldn't really concern me) there are only two cases where a woman has the right to abort a child, and even then it should be done at the appropriate time before the baby reaches full term which is what this new law is now allowing. The first case is if a woman is raped and doesn't want to spend her life raising a child that looks like and came from the man who raped her. the second is if they can tell in advance that the baby is going to be born with any kind of disability or diseases that will lead to that child having a poor quality of life.

Yes, in America as a whole the overall the majority support rights to abortion, by about 60:40 (though 40%  is hardly a "fringe"), but in some Southern states such as Alabama that's reversed and a narrow majority want abortion to be illegal. 

The bit in your maths you miss is that for a 58% average 65% of men are voting that way: a 14% different gender difference is pretty big given how polarised USA politics is. Maybe those women would like to vote for more Republican women if only the party were less gender distorted in the state. 

By all means you keep acting as an apologist for those US christians with thir pretty illiberal views, while you tell us on the other hand that mainstream Islam is evil. I'll stick to calling out ideas that are dangerous to modern liberal democracy where I see it, in whatever religion or lack of one it shows up.

What you have by widening the demographics is consent from all areas of society

instead what you have is 27 males voting it through watched the by women protestors shouting their opposition.

I do not need to say any more than that .

Yes the demographic and male/ female consensus matters.

If only the world was so easily categorised into neat parcels. What about consensual sex but where the contraception failed? What about consensual sex where the condom may have been deliberately slit? What about consensual sex where a woman is drunk and doesn't realise there's no condom being used?

There are endless possibilities and trying to predict and legislate for each individually is impossible, which is why we usually end up with a degree of responsibility on the part of the woman, not just to prevent unwanted pregnancy but also to terminate unwanted pregnancy before it becomes anywhere near independently viable, i.e. a separate entity.

Removing that choice and replacing it with rules formulated by men as to what a woman can do and in what circumstance, is what most pro-choice (note: not pro-abortion) advocates are against.

And why is that? Religion or race?

What's your cite for a 14% gender difference?  Some sources put it narrower than that, though the figures depend on what question is asked.  E.g.:

"The net result of these attitudes is that men are divided in their self-identification -- 47% pro-life and 46% pro-choice, while women tilt toward describing themselves as pro-choice, 50% to 44%."

That's more of a 4% gender difference.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235646/men-women-generally-hold-similar-aborti...

Which I have not done, by any stretch of the imagination. Though it is sadly typical of you these days to make things up as a way of attacking people. 

I'm not sure that I've ever used the word "evil" about mainstream Islam.  But, yes, I do see mainstream Islam as a harmful influence on the world.  Got a problem with that? 

(And you've previously accused me of being fixated with Islam, at the same time as being the one who -- as now -- changes the topic to Islam.)

Excellent, so you've no problem with people who see mainstream Islam as "dangerous to modern liberal democracy" saying so?     That makes a change, since you've previously called for such views to be censored. 

Sorry, can you clarify the question?  Why is what?  In my above comment the relevant factor was religion, not race.

My god you’re tiresome.

like some kind of low rent Jordan Peterson

You misread that quote:

"58 percent of Alabamians believed that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. Of them, 51 percent were women"

51% of the 58% were women.

More dislikes from the idiots. I told you that you can't please everyone so there is no point even trying. What would the smart arsed idiots who disliked my comments suggest? Instead of hiding behind the anonymous dislike button, why don't you share your opinion so we can all tear you to shreds regardless of what you say.

I'm trying to understand an argument made about "rights" which seems literally meaningless to me, so semantics are important.

To be honest, Neil, I don't. I can't really tell what you think you're replying to.

 From Coel's statistics it looks like gender is a less important factor than you or I would think, wouldn't you agree? Surely more linked to religion, political affiliation and geography than gender?

Go and flagellate yourself in a dark room if you think that will help.

My apologies to Coel this once, I did indeed.  It still doesn't take away from the other issue that women in conservative religious situations often take their duties seriously and obey their husband and they are living in power structures highly dominated by men. Freedom of speech differences come hard in such communities as you will be shunned and hated.  

Coel would be using this as one of his regular links to prove the evils of Islam if it were the conservatives in that religion involved. At least conservative muslims only usually apply sharia law to their faithful (abhorrent as that still is) and not those of other religions; the law in Alabama will apply to all women.

I see the cowards are still out in force. Why don't you tell us what you think instead of hiding.

Are you suggesting Coel is Christian...?

And do you not consider that Race is still a big issue in Alabama’s voting patterns and opinion polls  etc?

you are a very bright person, I do not expect to have to point  this out to you. 

Cannot be bothered replying as you have resorted to abuse. 

No, he just doesn't appply the same standards to all religions and so comes across as an apologist for the conservative religious right in the US. He seemingly puts ideals above humanity...the same as conservative religious people do across the world.

On the topic of abortion (the topic of this thread), I'm not aware of any big differences in opinion along racial grounds among Alabamans.  If you know of polling data pointing to that it would be an interesting addition to the thread. 

(I am aware of big differences in opinion over abortion along political and religious lines.)

Point what out to me?  You're being rather cryptic, as though you're alluding to something that you think people should be aware of. 

Again, Offwidth tries to make Islam the topic of conversation, when he has previously accused *me* of being obsessed with the topic. 

And note that the entire point of my above post was to argue that the Alabama law was not a male versus female thing, but instead a religious-right versus others split.  It was me who suggested that religion was the more relevant factor.

As for beating up on the US religious right, well I could, but it's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel or arguing that bears pooh in the woods.  Since everyone would agree and no-one would defend them it's a bit pointless!

But I can guarantee that, if I did, no-one here would call it "hate speech"  and suggest that I be censored.  No-one would start agitating for a "definition" of "Christianophobia" declaring that such criticism is "a type of racism".

Not even close to being right.  Plenty of Islam-based laws in Islamist countries apply to all.  The fact that Asia Bibi was a Christian didn't prevent the mob wanting to lynch her, did it?

You're inventing things in order to be disparaging.

OK,  I'm interested, which ideals do I put above humanity?  Care to put some substance behind your critique? 

Maybe one of the things you are ignoring is what used to be a big benefit of representative democracy. It allows science and the practical experiences of laws to better inform our representatives than the average voter. The republican US states seem to be losing this sort of proper informed decision making pretty fast. If we based UK law on democratic views the death penalty would still be here in the face of all the appalling evidence that there were way too many miscarriages of justice,  it never worked as a deterrent and that it rather bizarrely removed the christian possibility of redemption based on conservative  christian political attitides. The situation with abortion is the same; it doesnt stop,  underground practice leads to horrendous suffering and the conservative attitudes clearly go against basic christian forgiveness. These women need protecting from the sort of increasingly bad society that Alabama will become, especially the poorer women (it's already pretty bad there). 

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/aborti...

What's puzzling is why you wouldnt be standing up for such women. This isnt a debating society it's a world where people suffer because of stupid law. You rightly call out Sharia law .. why not this?

The worlds most famous hypocrit about women and sex speaks

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/19/trump-backs-abortion-in-cas...

It could be argued that the religious right versues everyone could be a male-female/equality/feminism thing but that has and should be for other thread(s)

That is changing. Supposedly, and this was in The Hill, which is pretty reliable. 

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/443879-poll-majority-of-v...

"More than half of registered voters believe that laws banning abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy are not too restrictive, according to a new Hill-HarrisX survey.

The May 10-11 poll found that 21 percent of registered voters said that such abortion bans are "too lenient" while 34 percent said they believe they are "just right."

Forty-five percent of respondents said they believe the laws are "too restrictive."

Amazingly Conservatives are using the science card, saying as the science changes Roe V Wade should change. BTW on climate change and vaccincations science is still bollox presumably...

Worrying times.

Regarding exemptions, Alabama specifically voted against any to make sure it gets challenged in court. That is what they want.

Worrying indeed... it's how totalitarian states begin.

Because I'm taking it as read that everyone here is opposed to this law -- surely?    Not much point in arguing for a position that 99% of readers would agree with!**

**I guess one could argue that the point is virtue signalling,  and that we should all flaunt our virtue to echo chambers (but that's not my style, sorry).

So is this another argument where "the left" seems to be losing ground?

Let me guess, they lose ground because, instead of trying to understand the opposition, and thence construct appropriate arguments that rebut the opposition and persuade them, they are more interested in demonising the opposition, then thence constructing counter-arguments to strawman positions that persuade no-one except the zealots on their own side?

Of course. The reason all these women are losing the right to make choices about their own body is because they were too zealous in having a nice conversation on compromise with those reasonable people who only want a total ban on abortion based on their fundamentalist principles. 

Does it hurt your brain to contort the situation like this? If you are religious - don’t get an abortion. If you are not religious - follow what seems to be a reasoned medical view that there is a point at which the foetus becomes conscious/ aware and at this point there should not be termination without incredibly pressing reasons. 

I simply fail to see how this is to do with a lack of reason on the part of ‘the left’. Watch Carlson Tucker on Fox News and tell me that is reasonable debate: abortion is bad because life is sacred and corporations want you to have an abortion so you don’t get to be a mother because they hate women and also if you don’t want gun control then you have to oppose abortion. Not my words - that’s the level of ‘debate’ from the right wing. Presumably that only appeals to their zealots too. 

I’m sure you’re a nice bloke and I like the stimulating counter points you offer but do you actually believe this is a progressive move and due failures in the centre ground? 

Is your post an example of someone doing just that...?

Ever consider you do this wrt to Islam?

Anyway, I'd suggest it is much more to do with the neo/alt right being far more adept at using social media to make their case, and also much less concerned about trivialities such as the law, and taking money from malign or unknown sources.  What you call the left, in reality a broad range of voices respecting science, human rights and rule of law, are divided and weak, but it's not because of weak arguments.  

Regarding Carlson Tucker, this chap presented him with a reasoned logical argument and didn't get very far.  Coel is staggeringly naive in this area.

youtube.com/watch?v=7XzbxxF95vM&

Don't even know where to start responding to that and the other follow ups to Coel. He hit the nail on the head, and the reaction is eyes closed, fingers in ears.

If Trump gets reelected, or even close to it, will you be willing to acknowledge the left might be a major contributing factor? Or is that thought process simply out of bounds?

So your response is that I'm deluded because the left are to blame for the vitriol on Fox News...? Still would love you to elucidate how on earth this reactionary law can be seen as anything other than the result of the agency of those with a commitment to revise Roe vs. Wade, rather than a reaction to Obamacare or whatever you're suggesting. If Trump is re-elected I would say the reasons would be complex but I would probably look to see why his rhetoric resonates rather than pointing fingers at the people campaigning against him or for alternative perspectives. I don't really know why these appeals to national decline/salvation, freedom to own weapons, aggressive isolationist nationalism, anti-science, male chauvinism and a rejection of liberal ideas is popular, do you?

If you look at polls, fewer argue for a "total ban".  But feel free to ignore those who might be persuaded.

Why, it doesn't hurt my brain to even the teeniest extent!  Because I'm totally in favour of laws allowing abortion.  Are you too clueless to have worked that out?

The fact that you fail to see that is exactly the problem! 

No, it's obviously a highly regressive move. I mean duh!

Yep, it is indeed (to quite an extent) due to failures of the centre ground and their lack of even attempts to persuade the opposition. 

"One anti-abortion person cannot be persuaded, therefore no-one who is anti-abortion can be persuaded".  No, I don't think it's me who is naive.

The attitudes of the "people campaigning against him" are often his biggest asset.   Just for example, Hillary Clinton suggesting that half the nation were "deplorables" just encourages them to vote for someone who thinks well of them, rather than someone who openly denigrates them. 

Yes; so why don't you try listening?   If you admit you don't understand the attitudes of those you oppose, you're not going to be effective in persuading them. 

Of course!

But where is the debate to be had? Regardless of your personal view the law introduced in Alabama is for no abortion. Other states = 6 weeks. Are you telling me that these 'pro-lifers' are interested in any way in having a meaningful debate or just pushing their agenda? Why their message resonates with people, again, I fail to see how that is the fault of 'the left'. Maybe because it's more emotive and easier to convey the message 'abortion is murder and life is sacred' than looking at embryonic cognitive development? You tell me.

In response to your further post: it's very difficult to debate with people who are mutually opposed and share very little ground. "We need to be ambitious with climate change targets" v "There is no such thing as global warming." (Apparently, this is my fault for not persuading them science is real). "We need gun control laws, kids are getting murdered everyday" v. "Nope, I need my gun, I'm a good guy." (My fault for not convincing them that people are getting murdered with easily accessible firearms). "Hey, abortion is a really important thing to loads of women, it's not the ideal outcome but it is necessary up to a certain point". v. "Nope, life is sacred from second zero and you're wrong." (My fault for not convincing them that zygotes are not conscious.) "It's so important to be respectful towards others" v "You just grab them by the pussy." (My fault for not convincing them that this is really disgusting language and behaviour for anyone, let alone a President.) "Civil rights was such a contentious and momentous moment in US history, it's really important to protect the rights of African-Americans by opposing Neo-Nazis" v "There's right and wrong on both sides." (My fault for not convincing them that racist, Nazi arseholes are racist, Nazi arseholes)

It's called an example.

Some of them, no, of course not; but plenty of them, why yes indeed!   This is that the left increasingly forget. There is a middle ground! Try to win it!  It's where many people are.

I've already told you. It's because to a large extent "the left" just demonises anyone who disagrees with them, insulting them and demeaning them, rather than attempting to understand them and then persuade them.  As a result, many in the middle ground find "the left" repulsive and so drift towards anyone else.

You regard anyone who isn't anti abortion as left wing? 

To illustrate the point, among many on the left in the US today, the prevailing opinion as to why the right oppose abortion is because: they are a male patriarchy, they hate and fear women, and want to control them.

This is wrong.  That's not why people oppose abortion.  They oppose abortion because they regard the unborn foetus/child as a person who deserves consideration and rights.     (Is that not obvious?) 

This means that any ritual recitation of the above tropes ("the right oppose abortion is because they are a male patriarchy, they hate and fear women, and want to control them") just alienates the middle ground, indeed alienates everyone who is not already fully converted. 

I do agree with you that labelling it a male patriarchal problem is not convincing. However, undermining your argument is that these voices have been raised in reaction to the actions of others - so how on earth are they supposed to be the motive force for these revisions of 1970s progressive legislation? The issue here is fundamentalism. How do you have a debate with someone who is so convinced that the zygote is a sacred, God-given human being that even a 12 year old who has been impregnated by rape has to keep and give birth to the baby? I really struggle to see how this is possible, nor how it is the fault of people who want to keep the right to abortion up to a reasonable time.

It's wrong to regard even evangelical fundamentalists as a uniform block who are not thoughtful people and are  unpersuadable.  Some of them are persuadable. 

An example of how this is possible is how attitudes to gay marriage have changed over the years -- even among some fraction of the  evangelical fundamentalists. E.g.: 

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Of course if you treat people as beyond the pale and as unpersuadable then that makes it a lot less likely that you will persuade them! 

But no one said it. You just made it up.

By definition, if the Democrats lose, then that's the failure of the left.

It would mean they didn't have the right candidate and didn't use the right strategies. It wouldn't mean that people with left-wing values were inherently less reasonable than those with right-wing values. That is a load of nonsense that you cling to like some kind of religious tenet and shoe-horn into any discussion of anything. It wasn't interesting or true 5 years ago, and it still isn't now.

They would have no reason to, because it wouldn't have consequences of sowing hatred and division in our society along ethnic and religious lines. 

Because it wouldn't be prejudice against all Christians, it would be specific criticism of the religious right in the US. 

As that would make no sense. 

There are perfectly good reasons for these things you see as inconsistencies - you're just unwilling to listen to the arguments, because they expose your position on Islam as lacking the nuance required to guard against negative consequences. 

And you do have to bear in mind that some of us have "in between" views - like with politics generally not everyone is at an extreme.

My view is, as I mentioned above, basically summed up as:-

 - A unique entity (that is just hosted by the mother) exists from the point the sperm enters the egg.  It isn't just part of the mother, because it couldn't exist without the father's input in some form.

 - However, there are cases where on balance it is better to end that entity's life, particularly early on when it is not recognised as being sentient, or where there is serious risk to the mother's health including mental health.  The best time to do this is as early as possible.

 - Those cases are so complex and sensitive that making the rule anything other than it being the mother's decision is just not going to work, so I don't support stronger regulation despite the first point.

 - However I do seriously question the morality of aborting a deliberately conceived baby for reasons of "buyer's remorse" (i.e. changing of mind where there has been no significant change of circumstances) - really, you need to decide before deliberately having sex without contraception whether you are going to have a baby or not, and you should not deliberately have sex without contraception if you do not intend to have a child.

But you're not saying that being a "unique entity" should bring with it any legal rights and as such it doesn't matter with respect to abortion. 

Well I question the morality of a lot of stuff other people do, and indeed a lot of what I do. It's inconsequential if you don't think it should affect policy.

Moralising over others in this way achieves nothing (except getting people's backs up).

The attitudes I just summarised are currently all over certain factions of Twitter in response to the Alabama law, and they've been prevalent for years on the blogs of the "SJW faction" of the atheistic blogosphere that I still maintain some contact with. 

On such blogs you see plenty of strident criticism of the anti-abortion position -- but you never see any attempt to critique their *actual* attitudes, as opposed to strawman versions of their supposed attitudes.

So just suppose someone argued for a ban on the niqab and burka in public. (Not something I fully support by the way.) Would that count as "Islamophobia", or would it not be that because it is not against "all Muslims" (plenty don't wear those garments), and is a "specific criticism" of (some versions of) the religion?

I'd add to that there is no established left in the US. The vast majority of Democrats are centrist social liberals or even social conservatives / christian democrats in EU terms , hardly any are socialists. Pan and Coel just make shit up to suit their warped world view and end up as apologists for this awful growing tide of religious conservative right and alt right influence in the US, with genuine extreme views (for a western democracy) backed by news channels like Fox that lie with impunity. I see it as a threat to the world... Orwell's imagination being put into place... constant war (trade for for the moment but ramping up on Iran)... propaganda with a desired state control of truth.... With Russia and China, the bigger enemies, themselves already further down the 1984 line.

Absolutely sure it's not you that's making stuff up?

By the way Jon, I'd be interested, what are your thoughts on this?

https://news.sky.com/story/calvin-klein-apologises-to-lgbtq-community-over-...

There are ways I would influence policy, such as in terms of how such matters are taught about in PSHE lessons in schools, and relevant public health campaigns.  There are plenty of things one has a right to do that one should still not do.

There are ways to handle things via counselling - for instance, if a woman is considering aborting a healthy child who was conceived through consensual sex without contraception because they are getting "cold feet" and panicking about the upbringing of the child, providing support for them to understand that they will be OK and can bring the child up.

It won't stop every case, but providing positive means to avoid as many abortions as possible is in my view absolutely the right thing to do (e.g. if a woman is considering an abortion because they just lost their job and are panicking about how to pay for the child's upbringing I'd rather chuck a load of money at the situation than see the baby aborted), while the right to have one remains if no such intervention can be feasible in that case.

I think you could probably sum up my view that abortion is a "necessary wrong", i.e. something that in an ideal world would never be necessary, but in some cases the situation caused by allowing the pregnancy to continue could be worse (mentally or physically) than the effect of terminating it, and so a difficult decision must be taken, and it's simply too complex for the person making that decision to be anyone other than the mother, with appropriate assistance and counselling to ensure the decision is right in their mind and is made rationally rather than emotionally so far as feasible.

It could perhaps be compared in a roundabout way with someone physically attacking me with a weapon - the choice may, in the fight, be between them killing me or me killing or seriously injuring them, and while I'd have difficulty with the latter it would probably be seen as reasonable force in self defence.

In my view, there would be nothing prejudiced or bigoted about making a reasoned argument for banning the niqab and burka in public; I think it would be wrong to described such arguments as "Islamophobic".

Where we differ in our views on Islam, is that when I see someone making blanket statements about Islam as a single "harmful ideology", I think it has the consequences of alienating all the normal, devout Muslims whose views aren't harmful (so clearly they don't follow a "harmful ideology"). I don't want to live in a divided society in which Muslims are seen as "other" and are feared by white Brits who think that Muslims follow a "harmful ideology" that endorses terrorism. So while I don't have any respect for really anything in any religion, I think it's best to consider the consequences of what you say in public. And if the consequences are to entrench division and to stir up distrust of one's neighbours, then it is time to think more carefully about what you're saying, because it's unhelpful, and it's probably not even true.

Not alot! Never heard of "queerbaiting" before. I think the ad looks like a really weak attempt to use fake lesbians as a way be edgy, but then, it's not really aimed at me, is it?

Thanks for such an interesting reply. You take a very different moral approach to the issue from me, because all I care about is the consequences in terms of suffering. 

So, until I think that the fetus has any potential for suffering, I don't see any reason to consider its interests. Of course we don't know when a fetus begins to have the potential to suffer, but we can make intelligent judgements (and that certainly isn't anything to do with a heartbeat). I don't see losing the potential happiness of its life as a loss (its life might be miserable, anyway).

I would try to consider the consequences as widely as possible. So if a baby is to be brought up in crappy circumstances, or will lose out on the love and stability of dedicated parents because they were unplanned, I consider those consequences to be worth avoiding. I will never know what suffering is caused to a woman having an abortion, but I think it's morally misguided (or worse) to privilege the rights of something with no capacity to suffer over those of a person who has the full breadth and depth of human consciousness with which to experience suffering.

Whether abortion is legal or illegal doesn't really effect the number of abortions that take place, only where they take place, i.e. either in a safe hospital environment or on some non-sterile kitchen table.

How about getting pregnant when you're pissed?

But it is fairly normal to think that capitalism and/or socialism (delete one to taste) are "harmful ideologies". It is entirely normal for people to think that and to criticise those ideologies. It's just accepted. 

Why would it be different if the ideology is a religion? 

As for "whose views aren't harmful", well, a person who considers capitalism and/or socialism (delete one to taste) to be "harmful" would consider that all the normal, man-in-the-street people who supports one of those to have views that are "harmful", would they not?   For example, I consider that communism had a harmful effect on the Soviet Union (and has harmful effects on China, Cuba, North Korea, etc).   So I'd consider the rank-and-file supporter of communism to have views that are harmful.

Why would it be different if the ideology is a religion? 

But anyone who thinks that capitalism or socialism is a "harmful ideology" is obviously an idiot. The world is just so much more complicated than capitalism = bad, socialism = good or vice versa, and there's no reason to listen to anyone whose views are that simplistic and stupid.

It isn't. It's almost as stupid to describe an entire religion as a "harmful ideology" - I say almost, because while you can run a perfectly good society without religion, I don't think you can run a perfectly good society without trade and taxation/public services.

If you consider that the communist system implemented in those places was harmful, then you'd be best to see how the harm was caused and what relationship that has to the ideology of communism. What is the causal chain that leads to the harmful events? How else might history have panned out had other factors been changed?

If a communist somewhere else doesn't believe in implementing the same system as the USSR, and they believe in a different form of communism and see different ways to implement it that are different those of the communist regimes you list then you have no grounds to describe their ideology as harmful. You'd have to understand it first, and then decide on the basis of the specific policies whether you think they would cause harm. Find out what it is they believe. See if they've understood the pitfalls seen in history and included ways to mitigate them in the system they believe in. If you judge a complex set of ideas and policies on the basis of a one-word label like "communism", you're just an idiot, because you've made no attempt to understand what it is you're making a judgement about.

The same applies equally to capitalism or free market ideology. We need some detail and context to make any kind of judgement about whether implementation of a system (a set of policies) based on that broad ideology would be harmful or helpful. There are very good reasons, for example, why free market ideology would (and does) cause harm in the NHS. That doesn't make the ideology "harmful" it makes it inappropriate in that context. On the other hand, free market or capitalist principles have been extremely helpful in developing computing technology which has made the world a better place. 

It's not different. You're making a strange argument along the lines of "if it's not idiotic to say communism or capitalism is harmful, then it's also not idiotic to say that Islam is harmful". I think you can see the problem with this.

And is the answer: "communist ideology is intrinsically harmful (at least when implemented on a national level)" an acceptable answer?   Or must ideologies overall always be excused?

Suppose the harmful nature is intrinsic to communist ideology itself, and not just to particular ways it is implemented.  Is that a possibility?

Suppose you do understand it very well, and fully appreciate the complex set of set of ideas and policies and how they are implemented -- and on the basis of that thorough understanding judge that the complex set of ideas collected under the one-word label "communism" are, overall, harmful.  Is that a possibility?

Why sure, you do need detail and context and a proper knowledge and understanding. I agree.  But suppose you have that and, on that basis, deem the ideology harmful.   Is that possible?

The argument is about whether such a conclusion would be, in either case, legitimate and possible. 

I'd suggest it could be hard to maintain a unified society without some kind of credible explanation for the origin of the universe, of the human race and of morality, whether that be based on religion or science.

On communism:   I consider it fundamentally incompatible with human nature, which is too individualistic.  Therefore it will never work. 

As E.O. Wilson said about communism: "nice idea; wrong species".  It might work fine in other species such as eusocial insects.

This is not a point about implementation, as though one need only implement it right and it would work fine.  It wouldn't.  There is no version of communism or way of implementing it that can possible work in humans. 

At least, not on the large scale.  It can likely work well enough on the small scale, where everyone knows each other and where social bonds can overcome the defects of the ideology.  So, for example, a monastary of monks living as a commune can likely work.  But above that scale it simply does not work.

So, if your argument is along the lines that one may only criticise specific policies within communism or specific implementations, but not the ideology itself, then, no, I disagree. I see nothing wrong with regarding the ideology itself as intrinsically flawed and harmful. 

I don't know what you mean by "acceptable". I think it's a stupid answer, because "communist ideology" is too complex to judge in such a simplistic fashion. I might agree with a statement like "it's hard to see how a system based on communist principles alone would be more successful than one that embraced trade in delivering good outcomes for a national population". But I don't see any advantages in drawing tribal boundaries and declaring those of the other tribe to be "following a harmful ideology".

Perhaps the most "harmful ideology" I see in the world is tribalism (and it's not an ideology, it's a natural pattern of human behaviour).

It might be. If the tenets of an ideology were designed with an intention to cause harm, that would provide a basis for intrinsic harmfulness. You could say that white supremicism is intrinsically harmful because you can't have supremicism without the subjugation of someone else, so causing harm is written into the ideology at the foundational level. I don't know an awful lot about Marx and communism, but I don't believe that this type of intention to cause harm is intrinsic to communism. So I suppose it's possible, but I'd need to see a convincing argument, and I never have.

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'm saying that to make a valid judgement, you need sufficient detail and context. Once you've got that, in the case of "communism" you can't collect it under the one-word label, that's the point: there's now too much information, too many interlocking concepts to be described. You could understand a specific communist's proposals about a specific thing, but then you'd no longer be talking about "communism". And then you've got to explain what you mean by "harmful" - you might say "would likely deliver worse outcomes than the alternative, x". But there's no standard by which one set of policies is "harmful" and another one not (you could use the "better or worse than the status quo", I guess, but you'd need to specify). So no, that's not a possibility.

I'm saying that they're all stupid things to say (communism, capitalism or Islam is harmful), because to make binary judgements about huge complex systems of belief demonstrates a total lack of engagement with the subject matter of concern.

I tend to agree.

That goes too far. There may well be many contexts in which the principles of communism could be helpful. You can say the same with capitalism - society built only on free market ideas without socialist elements can't possibly work, because we need ways to organise public goods like infrastructure and the market can't do that.

Giving good reasons why a system for national government is not going to work the way its proponents claim it will is not an argument that an ideology is harmful.

That's a very interesting point.

I said "you can run a perfectly good society without religion" - but I don't really have any idea if that's correct. I should have said, "I can envisage a perfectly good society without religion", but in that society, I would replace a lot of the functions of religion with secular equivalents, specifically the stuff you point out about knowing what we are, where we came from and how best we should live.

I believe that it's perfectly possible to fill the religion-shaped hole with a consistent rationalist/materialist worldview that deals with all that stuff elegantly while not "explaining away" any of the awe and wonder of the universe. I don't know whether it really ticks the box of providing the meaning humans naturally crave - but I think leaving this to the individual to work out on their own is a selling point for this philosophy rather than a failure.

When you have 9 white guys in Alabama voting to tell women this is the way it will be on abortion then how can you not think it is "male patriarchy"? 

Difficult one.  Depending how pissed it could be irrelevant, through to being statutory rape if the woman was so pissed that she couldn't possibly have properly consented.

That's certainly an interesting and logical way to look at it as well.  I wouldn't really say one was more valid than the other, we just have rather different outlooks.

I guess euthanasia sits on a similar scale of opinion.  That's also one I find very difficult, though probably a lot *less* difficult than abortion because, in principle, the person whose life is being taken has consented to it.

Cuba, Vietnam,Laos, Nepal, DPRK, USSR etc etc

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

Humans lived in primative communist societies until only recently in some places and practically everywhere in all cases before the slavery epoch. 

What is this strange disconnect which states something that clearly worked for 70 years in a massive scale supporting 1/4 of the worlds population can't work or doesn't when it clearly does very successfully. 

But surely it is possible for an ideology to be intrinsically harmful, even when the intention is benign?    As you say, Marxism is not *intended* to be harmful, but I consider that it is harmful.

One-word labels such as "communism" or "capitalism" or "Islam" do of course refer to complex sets of interlocking concepts, as you say, but I don't see that that makes it automatically wrong to refer to that set of concepts with the one-word label. 

Hmm, well I would disagree.  I would consider it possible to have a proper engagement with communist ideology, and then conclude that any system of communism implemented at the national level will be harmful. 

Are you resisting that idea purely so that you can avoid any similar conclusion about Islam? 

But some "socialist" wealth redistribution within a market economy in which there is private ownership is not the same as communism.    One either has "the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange" or one doesn't.  Communism is, by its nature, totalitarian. That is why it is harmful. There is no way of implementing communism in a non-harmful way.   Essential to its ideology are ideas that are too incompatible with the individualistic nature of humans. 

When the polls show no significant difference in support for the policy among Alabaman women compared to Alabaman men. 

This is just factually incorrect.  Social structures in hunter-gatherer societies were radically different from communism. And don't try claiming they were all peaceful and eco-sensitive either.  These are all claims made up by ideologues.

You might choose to read The Better Angels of our Nature by Pinker before looking at pre industrial societies through rose (red) tinted specs.

There never were 'noble savages'. There were young men murdering and raping at every opportunity, and as populations became settled slavery became the norm. (Dublin and Bristol were slave ports in the 10th century, and probably long before.) You need to read more.

There is no such evidence that pre-civilisation humans were 'murdering and raping at any opportunity' and most human evolutionary scientists think our cooperation was the key fact that led to our success as a species. There is evidence of conflict and killing as happens to this day in civilised society.

Islam is bad.  Communism is bad. Religious patriarchy could never influence how subservient women vote. You really are an embarrassment to social and political thought with such a rigid and simplistic world view.

Actually, there is. Read the source I quoted - and read HIS sources if you want - and refute those if you can. (I'm at work otherwise I would cite more of the evidence here.)

While "murdering and raping at any opportunity" is an exaggeration, the evidence is that today's world is *vastly* more peaceful than humans have typically been through history (with orders of magnitude lower probabilities of being killed by another human). 

Both true. 

That's not what I said, is it?   Indeed the whole point of my above post was that religious attitudes **did** influence how women vote.  I mean duh! 

There was a time when Offwidth posted thoughtful and interesting stuff; nowadays he just denigrates anyone who doesn't toe the line of his rather narrow world view.  

Is there any ideology at all that you would not accept could be fairly labelled "bad" or "harmful"? 

"Naziism is bad and harmful"

"Fascism is bad and harmful"

"Slavery is bad and harmful"

Are these ok summaries, or would you argue that they are horribly simplistic, and that one should make a much more nuanced assessment and only criticise particular parts of those ideologies or particular implementations of them? 

Ok course everyone knows that the world is complicated, so statements such as "slavery is bad" are indeed summaries of a complicated picture.  But that doesn't stop such summaries being both useful and true.  

My view is that many women in such conservative religious environments may have lost the independance to vote meaningfully. If you say 'duh' to that, why are you bringing up the claim there is no gender bias in the voting?.... as that's a meaningless claim if the voting is not uninfluenced.

I fail to see much equivalence in intent between the ideologies of facism and communism. I do see clear equivalence with past leaders of nations (supposed to have been run under those ideologies) being genocidal but then again we are back to the behaviour of those leaders.  Facism seems to me to almost have hate and control of various peoples at its centre, whereas communism is much more well meaning. We have pointed out to you before that some states and towns are run pretty well by democratically elected communists and I can imagine a utopian communist nation at some time in the future . I've never seen any examples of benign facist leadership and simply can't imagine any. So yes some ideologies are intrinsically bad and some are broadly good but too often manipulated for bad intent. Western societies can tell the difference and they proscribe the really bad ones. The Abrahamic faiths and most other major world religions have love at their centre, yet men have committed terrible hateful crimes in their name. Those people are the problem, not their religion.

Excellent!  So you accept that some ideologies can be "intrinsically bad".  Good. So from here we are merely disagreeing about whether a particular ideology is or is not in that category.  

Isn't that something on which people can legitimately disagree? 

Yes people can disagree but it has to be based on a fair analysis of that ideology. Islam is really based on love and you ignore that and chose just to see the evil done in its name. Communism is based on a desire for fair economic treatment of the proletariat and again you just look at the evils done under a communist banner (that often is really a disguise for something more akin to facism). This is precisly why I find your views so frustrating, you do the exact opposite of what you claim to philosophically represent.

That's your opinion. You are, of course, entitled to it.   

Many ex-Muslims who have lived in Muslim-majority nations regard Islam as an intrinsically harmful and indeed fascist system.  They regard the *religion* as being the problem, not the people.  (Weinberg: "for good people to do bad, that takes religion".)   Are they allowed to think that and say that?  

Agreed.  And, as I see it, many ex-Muslims *have* made a fair analysis of the system they have lived under. 

That's a highly dubious assertion; flat-out false I'd say.   

I don't ignore it, I think it is not an accurate summary of the religion.  A better one-phrase summary is that it is based not on "love" but on "submission" (which is what "Islam" means).  That is, "submission" to the will of God.  But since there is no god, de facto that means "submission" to the set of texts and ideas bequeathed by the founders of Islam, and submission to the Imams who interpret them today. 

The "evil done in its name" is just a symptom, a symptom of the harmful ideas at the core of Islam. 

And I also make a deeper critique based on the intrinsic nature of communism and its incompatibility with individualistic human nature. 

No I don't.  You just interpret it that way because you don't want to actually have the discussion, you want to disallow it. 

Weinburg is wearing blinkers. For good people to do bad involves putting ideology over humanity. In terms of religion it often involves ignoring very clear messages like thou shalt not kill. Hence I sympathise with those ex muslims but they have the wrong target. There are religious leaders who are very culpable in such evil action and so their particular sects could be defined as bad. Islam as a whole is not bad and you insult many millions of faithful good people when you say that, including several million in the UK

Agreed. So Weinberg is right (putting religious ideology over humanity is exactly what religion does), but is not general enough (since non-religious ideologies such as communism can be just as harmful).

I note how you always exculpate religion. For you, it is always distortions of religion, not the religion itself, at fault.  

You are, of course, entitled to your assessment.  But you don't seem to allow that others might come to the opposite assessment. 

In *your* *opinion* they have the wrong target.  The problem is that you seem to want to disallow the contrary opinion. 

That's your opinion.  I (and plenty others, including large numbers of ex-Muslims) disagree.  

There you are, that's classic you -- you attempt to disallow the contrary opinion by saying it is an insult and offensive.  Well maybe it is, maybe it isn't; I don't care. We should still be able to hold and state that opinion, and argue the case, regardless.   

Again, people ignore those maxims, not the broad religion.

I have a record of critical posts on UKC on bad things done by pretty much every major religion. I only defend religion against unfair broad brush attack like yours.

I'm not defending Islam against offence (feel free to offend them as much as you like if you enjoy being a nasty shit who winds up good people). Where my position on offence differs to yours is that I feel broadcasters have a right to choose not to do that. I'm actually defending my view that Islam is not bad based on huge numbers of demonstrably good people who believe in it. If you actually tried talking to some faithful muslims you might even discover that yourself.

I'm also concerned about why you find any excuse to pick on Islam and always find ways to attack it, where in this Alabama case, clearly influenced by christian conservatism you end up appearing to be an apologist and attack liberals instead.

In terms of selfless efforts to good causes the most impressive people I've met have been religious muslims and communists. I don't need to believe what they do to recognise that. I remain a humanist social liberal. I think you risk becoming the zealot you purport to despise when you unfairly generalise your theories on their ideology.

Ah right, so all those ex-Muslims who regard Islam as harmful and argue against it are being "nasty shits".  

If we take any of the major disastrous events cause by ideologies -- Stalin's purges, Mao's cultural revolution, Third Reich Germany, etc -- the majority of the populations caught up in such events were good people.   

Those events did not occur because it so happened that 2/3rds of those populations were bad people (likely the mix was not much different from anywhere else).  They occurred because the nations got caught up in harmful ideologies.   

Hypocrite!  Who turned the thread to the topic of Islam??   It was you. 

You are the one who attacks newspapers censoring  public display of your cartoons. I don't know any ex muslims of that ilk (and I know quite a few in academia). They prefer not to offend people to make a point.

Good people don't act in brutal genocidal ways unless under huge psychological trauma;  the main crime of the good people in those countries is not calling out that behaviour for what it was... something that needs immense bravery to do, and those who were brave suffered horrendous consequencies.

You are like a spin doctor:  in pointing out your hypocricy in the topic of the thread why again do I become the hypocrit?

I do indeed think that broadcasters with a public-service remit should see their role as including critiquing religions just as they critique political parties. 

Plenty of ex-Muslims and critics of Islam deplore the obsequiousness towards Islam shown by much of the Western media.  

If you refrain from criticising a religion just because people claim offence, that gives them the means to shut down any criticism they don't like merely by claiming to be offended.

Simpy not true.  People, who would otherwise by good people, can, when in the grip of an ideology, readily play a minor-part role in a genocidal system. 

That's what all the evidence shows. Mao's cultural revolution, Stalin's oppression, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, etc.   It was not the case that the majority of the people in those countries happened to be monsters.  

Take the widespread support for the draconian and oppressive blasphemy laws in Pakistan.  Does that mean that the majority of the population of Pakistan are bad people? Or does it mean that they are under the influence of a harmful ideology?  

Death by violence was apparently higher in hunter gatherer societies, but most of that was within group.

Organized warfare required the social changes and resources of farming communities, leading to increased casualties from inter group violence. Apparently, the same changes reduced intra group violence.

CB

Coel I not only stated clearly but linked to something called primitive communism which was and is the way hunter gatherer societies functioned. You can see it to this day in many tribes from S. America to Africa. 

Coel step away from the straw. 

No, they are made by scientists called anthropologists whos job it is to study past societies. And then Marxists who also study historical materialism show their findings. 

Your posts are so one sided against everything that is not capitalism when it is responsible for more repression, barbarism, genocide, wars and exploitation than everything else by miles, its weird. 

You say above somewhere that Islam demands "submission to God", what you don't seem to realized is that every single religion I can think of also requires you- if you want to have a spiritual experience that is- to surrender yourself. Meaning before you can experience any transcendental experience logically you must let go of the material, worldly, gross body/ matters, ego call it what you want but every single religion worth its salt if it is truly based on pure spiritual experience will require this. 

Ps. I used to slag off people who believed in God, thinking they think its a wee man in the sky but now I think it is just a name they have for the oneness that genuine spiritual experience is. 

I'll give you that one. 

Although you must admit there's something fundamentally undemocratic and wrong about only 9 old white guys and no women getting a vote on an issue that affects women more than men. There should be more women than men if there was any fairness.

Edit:of course you got that in the politburo as well and was equally unfair. 

A timely article, as ever, from Coleman Hughes (the awful alt-righter)

https://quillette.com/2019/05/21/rethinking-abortion-advocacy/?fbclid=IwAR0...

Shame about the fact checking and weird analogy (the biology involved in the age of consent is trivial compared to that in determining say when a foetus is viable and most European countries have an age of consent below 16 or don't they count as western?). Otherwise the case agaimst the pro life group is OK but the case against pro choice is a strawman... claimed sanctification of the woman's rights to her body ....when in fact most laws are set by the nation on completely different reasoning. Good to see some US states being exposed for the awful treatment of so called sex offenders for having sex with a minor who is over 16 where in the state next door it would be legal (iits amazing what else counts as a sex offence in some US states, for example oral sex, or worse still, public urination). He could also have complained about conservative christian influence in these states with such extreme changes to abortion law; I guess that would have pissed off too many of his fellow travelers.

In the context of the US debate over abortion that is not a strawman, since in the US the doctrine of a women's rights to her body really is sanctified by the pro-abortion lobby (and was of course the reasoning behind Roe v Wade).

I've already given the example of how white supremacy is intrinsically harmful and explained why I think that. You can run through the same arguments for these if you like. And I've given a lot of reasons why I think that in the cases of both Islam and communism, a more nuanced assessment is necessary. 

And I've explained that saying that all Muslims follow a harmful ideology is absolutely not helpful, because it's divisive. It's also patently untrue, because we can see so many Muslims following the religion but not doing anything harmful. And while "communism is a harmful ideology" simply demonises people with a different political view (something you're continually accusing others of, while flagrantly doing it yourself) a statement like "it's hard to see how a system based on communist principles alone would be more successful than one that embraced trade in delivering good outcomes for a national population" gives room for discussion. I could learn more and be convinced. I don't know a great deal about modern communist theory (or indeed political theory full stop) and I'm not going to tell someone who's an authority on it that they "follow a harmful ideology". It would be arrogant and stupid.

On the contrary, I just pointed out that you had resorted to self-abuse! 

You don't have to reply of course (nor do you have to beat yourself up over your age or skin colour) but please don't suggest that I'm being abusive to avoid engaging with the conversation.

That doesn't follow. People can hold to beliefs that cause harm generally, even if they personally are not acting on them and not personally doing harm.

For example take the blasphemy laws (and the attitudes behind them) in Pakistan, which have a hugely harmful and poisonous effect on the nation overall.    Likely, the vast swathes of the population support these laws, and yet they personally have never done anything as a result. 

It's a bit like claiming that if some people who smoke are not ill then that shows that it is "patently untrue" that smoking causes ill-health. 

So if I find one little old lady who holds white supremacist views, and yet has never herself acted on them and not herself done any harm, does that refute your claim? 

Pakistan is barely democratic in a western sense and its still suffering from a time when it suited the leadership, the army and the US to keep a religiously conservative and poorly educated poor to act as a bulwark against communism. As such, there is no real equivalence between law in Pakistan and law in Alabama. There is however US government responsibility in both. The whole situation in Middle Eastern Muslim nations is a result of power games between western powers with the US usually propping up despotic Muslim governments. Arguably the most pernicious form of Islam, Wahhabism (a highly extreme, oil funded doctrine, that should be proscibed in the west)  flourishes in Saudi (who export it, like oil, across the world) as they are a US (and UK) ally, something recently strengthened by Trump.

I prefer to call out real evil, not disguise it by blaming millions of ordinary people who have no hate. I look forward to a time when our western governments at last tackle genuine religious extremism in our allied nations like Saudi, instead of being hypocrites,  whipping up fear of the resulting terror while they protect its biggest ideological and funding source.

On the little old white lady. If she belongs to a proscribed organisation she is commiting a crime. If she just hates in private she is still morally repugnant, like muslims or christians  who do nothing but would wish to see apostates and blasphemers killed.

And of course, as usual, the ideology is Islam bears no blame at all for anything. 

And I don't so much blame the "millions of ordinary people", I blame the **ideologies**, as I have explained repeatedly. 

But you always misrepresent that because you are not honest, are you?  You prefer to act like the good little Islamist puppet and claim that Islam itself is benign, and that anything bad is always distortions of Islam. 

And for a population to do bad does *not* require "hate"!  Really, it doesn't.  It requires an ideology that leads people to do bad when they *think* they are doing good!   

So no-one is saying that the millions of ordinary people in those nations are all bad people who "hate".  Seriously, they are not! No-one is saying that. But you keep misrepresenting that because you're not honest.   The blame is on the harmful ideologies that lead populations astray (Islam is one; Christianity was as bad in the Middle Ages; various forms of totalitarian communism are more recent examples; et cetera).

OK, so vast swathes of the population of Pakistan are morally repugnant in your eyes.  Now, why are such a large fraction of Pakistanis morally repugnant?  Is it just that they are bad people (something in the water, or something in the genes?)?  Or are they led astray by a harmful ideology?   (Just as other populations have been led astray by other harmful ideologies such as communism or Nazism.)

You keep having a go at me, but I'm not sure that my answer to that is less compassionate than your answer.