TM will allow a debate on restricting abortion to cling on to power.

[catgirl1976]

AIBU to be disgusted? I'm reading that she will allow a UK debate on abortion limits to secure the DUP's support.

She's a disgrace. I don't care if you voted Tory or Labour or for Lord Buckethead, but surely any woman must feel appalled that their rights are up for sale to secure her (untenable anyway) position.

I wouldn't put anything past TM. She is the woman who made a billion pound deal selling weapons to Erdogan who anyone can see is a dangerous dictator. If she can sell her soul to him, reducing women's rights should be a doddle for her!

UnbornMortificado

And also to all of us women who have had abortions.

And I think you should butt out of an unborn person's right to life, personally.

A foetus does not have rights until it is born, HTH.

The throwaway remark from the mp suggested the possibility of a debate .

Not even a vote, let alone proposed legislation. A debate. In which it would be shut down the way it's been shut down before. Permitting it to be debated would be nothing more than a bone thrown the DUP's way. There are only 10 of them, they've been in parliament for years and often voted with the conservatives and so far the sky hasn't fallen.

And I think you should butt out of an unborn person's right to life, personally

And it tends to be the boneheads who come out with stuff like this who are also pretty damm right-wing and don't give a shiny shit about the less fortunate. Let me guess? You also agree with Katie Hopkins that we should shoot at migrant boats?

Haven't read the first post but this is fake news. Neither the Conservatives nor the DUP are proposing a vote on abortion.

Even if they did, in a democracy, whats the big deal. This is a democracy.

I am sure that at some point in the future, it will be possible to gestate entirely outside the human body. That has nothing to do with the fundamental right to abortion.

This.

The link between very ore term births pre 24 weeks and the abortion limit being 24 weeks exists though. It's because of the 24 weeks being what's set as a viable foetus.
I agree they should be dependent of each other which is why despite being fully pro choice I'm not opposed to the discussion making parliament.

And the baby I know who was pre 24 weeks was breathing at birth. There were interventions to allow her body to grow without the effort of breathing but at no point could they not breathe unaided. Despite delays in development initially due to prematurity there are no long term effects.
Ok, it's unusual but it does happen so it needs to be discussed and imo the rules/policies surrounding viable births need to be national not postcode dependent.

Papafran I'm a member of the Green Party - pretty far left - yet it's my belief women should be legally able to access safe abortion at any gestation for any reason . As already mentioned , women who terminate late on don't do it for fun so why on earth would making her situation even worse by forcing her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term be a good idea? A tiny tiny amount of terminations after 20 weeks are for non medical reasons and I think that anyone desperate enough to ask for a termination at that point in the pregnancy is in a dire enough situation to genuinely need one .

Foetuses have no rights . Babies do .

Every time a party talks of removing women's rights, even if they have no current intention to do it, they move the overton window towards the oppression of women.

And that is why it is so important to let them know that it is unacceptable and women's rights ARE NOT A MATTER OF DEBATE.

Yes. Yes yes yes.

Even if they did, in a democracy, whats the big deal

Because it should not be a topic up for debate. If your logic works, should we have a debate about whether it is right to commit genocide against a race that we dislike? No, because that is fundamentally contrary to humanity, so it is not a topic that needs to be debated, because the answer will always be no. The availability of safe abortion is fundamental to women's rights.

I should add , I lost my very much wanted son at 24 weeks and 2 days . It broke me . I still believe women should be in charge of their own bodies - not your uterus , not your say

The throwaway remark from the mp suggested the possibility of a debate.

Overton window.

Women's rights are not up for debate.

Haven't read the first post but this is fake news. Neither the Conservatives nor the DUP are proposing a vote on abortion.

Fake news about this should also reacted to with severe anger. Overton window.
And the DUP has this stance. I went to Wikipedia to look it up. They are forced birthers. Allying with them means throwing women under the bus.

Even if they did, in a democracy, whats the big deal. This is a democracy.

One of the flaws of democracy is that it allows a majority to decide about things that don't affect them. Men should not ever get a vote on what women do with our own bodies. It is not their right to decide.

And sadly, some women are stupid enough to sign away their own rights, and other women's rights with them.

It is MONSTROUS that it is even considered REMOTELY debatable to FORCE WOMEN TO DONATE THEIR BODIES TO FETUSES.

Which is what forced birthing is.

Persist in your downplaying of how horrible this is, and I warn you, I am going to suggest men should be forced to donate bone marrow to children with cancer.
I will mention it again, and again, and insist that it is something that it is wholly reasonable to suggest a debate on.

onsleek, I am sorry. I think I probably misunderstood your statement about butting out of right to life. I took it to mean that you were pro-life, but I am so sorry for misconstruing it. It sounds like we have similar views on this.

Seems my comments was misconstrued (or not?)

If your logic works, should we have a debate about whether it is right to commit genocide against a race that we dislike? Actually yes a democratic country should be able to debate life and death. That is what makes it a democracy.

Even if they did, in a democracy, whats the big deal Because in a democracy we will uphold women's, men's and everyone's rights. Its good to demonstrate that. I am for legalizing abortion but we will never get there if we are not allowed to debate it in parliament.

Can't help feeling you'd be slightly more reluctant if we were talking about a proposal to forcibly castrate men, JamieXeed74.

This is one of those cases where I see the merit of 'no uterus, no opinion'.

Jamie we had that debate in the 1960s though. Why should we have it again? The matter is settled unless the debate is for extending the availability of abortion.

If America started debating on whether they should go back to race segregation, I would NOT be seeing this as the sign of a democratic society. There are certain things that are not up for debate.

If someone suggested we should debate whether homosexuality should be criminalised again, I would say the same. We had the debate- the matter is decided.

The democracy thing is not such a great argument when we are talking about potentially curtailing the rights of disadvantaged groups while it is the advantaged members of society who have zero experience of this that are leading the debates and potentially making the decisions.

I am for legalizing abortion but we will never get there if we are not allowed to debate it in parliament.

Oh, I am all for debating abortion in Ireland.

But taking away women's rights is not something that should be considered something to be debated. It must remain strictly taboo. It is important to not yield an inch.

People like to think that once progress is gained, it can never be lost. That is not so, and there are several examples for this.

I am all for making cannibalism illegal in countries where it is still practised. But that does not mean that the English parliament should debate whether eating Irish babies would be a way to solve the overpopulation problem.

Can't help feeling you'd be slightly more reluctant if we were talking about a proposal to forcibly castrate men

I am sure, in a democratic society, we can all very calmly talk about the positive effects the forced castration of men would have on the overpopulation problem and the rates of unwanted pregnancy.

There are of course reasons against implementing this, such as the side effect of obesity in castrated males, but we have to think rationally about whether the benefits might outweight the risks. After all, with modern medicine, we have a number of ways to surgically fix obesity ...

After all, with modern medicine, we have a number of ways to surgically fix obesity

Maybe forcibly even...

Can't help feeling you'd be slightly more reluctant if we were talking about a proposal to forcibly castrate men

Happy to have that debate as dont believe for a second anyone would vote for it.

But isn't that what a democracy is? You have to debate issues that you find 'difficult'. Otherwise who decides what human rights are? I dont believe they are things that should be resigned to a law/book. Otherwise we could end up like America that is stuck with the right to bear arms because it was written down 200 years ago.

I'm usually the first to feel sorry for fathers of a baby that will be aborted. However, I cannot condone a man getting a say in what a woman does with her body, no way never. Democracy or not, if you don't have the ability to carry a child then you do not get to choose if a woman does or not.

Jamie I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here but quite honestly you seem like you want to stir the pot a bit. So if there were more votes for abortion to be outlawed, do you honestly think it would be right to force say a 14/15 year old girl who is a rape victim to carry her rapists baby and quite possibly die as a result of childbirth? Who would be to blame for the murder, the rapist or those who voted to force her to carry a child she didn't want?

My child has a heart transplant. Pregnancy can be risky as can most things after one. Say she was raped (at any age) and it was hurting her health to carry. Is it fair to condemn her to death because some people voted that abortions aren't allowed?

I can keep going with scenarios that make your suggestion both nasty and stupid.

But isn't that what a democracy is? You have to debate issues that you find 'difficult'. Otherwise who decides what human rights are? I dont believe they are things that should be resigned to a law/book. Otherwise we could end up like America that is stuck with the right to bear arms because it was written down 200 years ago

No, because a democracy is based on fundamental human rights that are inviolable. It does not mean we can debate any old crazy thing and the majority wins. Also, we have HAD the abortion debate and moved on since last century. We would not discuss cannibalism because it involves murdering people and eating them and we should not discuss restricting abortion rights because it would involve directly interfering with another person's autonomy. End of.