Personhood laws for foetuses - risks for all women of child-bearing age

(284 Posts)
DebrisSlide Thu 06-Feb-14 22:36:30

I can't say much about this in text because I am frothing beyond coherence, but given the muted response in FWR, I thought I'd see what the wider MN community thought about this not a DM article

Rational response (imho) here

AuroraRoared Wed 19-Feb-14 16:16:37

Good point Orange

AmyMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 19-Feb-14 16:50:35

CoteDAzur

I hope MNHQ takes this opportunity to train some of the newer recruits about the meaning of free speech. Posts are being deleted at much higher proportions these days, and not always for deletable offenses.

"Beyond the pale" and "dismissive" are not grounds for deleting posts, unless Talk Guidelines have significantly changed since the last time I looked.

Although we want to allow for freedom of speech as much as possible, the talk guidelines do permit deletion for "wording that is truly beyond the pale"

Overall though, our aim is to allow users to express the spirit of the site rules more than anything else. We want MNers to feel free to say (almost) anything in terms of expressing points of view, but we will step in if things are reported that seem to us to be really beyond the pale or just plain mean.

LauraBridges Wed 19-Feb-14 17:13:36

I have been trying to publicise this case. It is very important for women's rights. I have always been comforted by the fact even in labour I could do what I liked - my own risk, my choice even if XYZ course of action might in the view of a man or a doctor or anyone else not be what they would choose. We must fight this hard.

No need to debate abortion at the same time although I can see the overlap of course - abortion lawful up to any date before birth if the baby disabled etc under English law which many people support.

CoteDAzur Wed 19-Feb-14 21:56:38

AmyMumsnet - Thanks for replying.

"the talk guidelines do permit deletion for "wording that is truly beyond the pale"

Not really. They permit deletion for swearwords that are 'truly beyond the pale''. Here it is:

_It's not our policy to delete swearwords_ (we are all adults, after all) but we do draw the line at obscenity, racist and disablist language, and wording that is truly beyond the pale. So, if you're not sure which side of that line your swearword of choice may fall, it might be best not to use it.

And let's see SGB's deleted post:

"My position is I'd prefer a few hundred or so dead or damaged foetuses than every woman in the country/the world reduced to the status of a breeding animal with no human rights."

No swearing, 'beyond the pale' or otherwise. No wording 'beyond the pale' either.

It seems to me that the opinion was not unwanted here, and not the wording, since I can't see any other way of talking about dead or damaged foetuses but saying "dead of damaged foetuses".

Iirc you have joined MN several months ago. (Welcome, btw smile) I would like to think that you are not singularly responsible for the increase in deleted posts (and the NY disaster?) but perhaps what is and isn't a deletable offence is a topic that needs to be discussed for a bit for better understanding all around (us and you). It feels like posts are being deleted just because they are reported, and they are sometimes reported because someone doesn't like what is being said. I think it is fair to say that we would like to see MNHQ take a more active role in actually taking the time to evaluate each reported post and leave alone the ones who are someone's opinion, expressed in everyday words.

pointythings Wed 19-Feb-14 21:59:08

Perfectly put, Cote.

Funnyfoot Wed 19-Feb-14 22:01:45

What Cote said (amazingly I might add)

ediblewoman Wed 19-Feb-14 22:21:46

Hear hear Côte

JanePurdy Thu 20-Feb-14 08:36:31

Hear hear Cote.

LauraBridges Thu 20-Feb-14 10:52:20

Is my description of English law and my support for it "disablist" above. English law allows desctruction of the baby before birth even at 40 weeks if it is disabled but not for children who are not. This is the law and supported by many. It very much discriminates against the disabled of course but it is perfectly lawful. Presumably we are allowed to describe that law and support it.

I wrote
a.."bortion lawful up to any date before birth if the baby disabled etc under English law which many people support"

This sentence is not beyond the pale that someone wrote above

"My position is I'd prefer a few hundred or so dead or damaged foetuses than every woman in the country/the world reduced to the status of a breeding animal with no human rights."

It is a valid view that many of us would support.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now