Redressing balance

[Gisellagertrude]

This site's presentation of issues involved in using home abortion pills - and making of this permanent - is one sided.

How can this site be biased and also reach out to all women - or rather all people who are touched by this issue?

Can you link to the relevant article please?

Can you explain what you mean? What don't you think is being addressed?

Bias is allowed.

You might need to be a bit more specific

Mumsnet have a campaigning history and are perfectly well allowed to have a viewpoint on an issue that affects women and girls. They have no requirement or need to avoid being "one sided".

Maybe you can provide an alternative perspective so people can decide if they agree?

Could you explain what you mean?

From your post you could find MNHQs stance on this either a brilliant or an horrendous thing. I can't tell - or respond with any meaning!

The site owners are allowed their own opinions

These can reflect in the things they think worthwhile supporting and promoting

Like any other social media they don't have to present all sides of any debate

Where the public /site users have big differences of opinion they facilitate (mostly ) civil discussions

Wheee the very large and rather diverse user base is in agreement then debate tends to be absent

Are you an anti abortionist by any chance OP? Or a MRA?

@RoseslnTheHospital

Mumsnet have a campaigning history and are perfectly well allowed to have a viewpoint on an issue that affects women and girls. They have no requirement or need to avoid being "one sided".

Agreed

What's to stop anyone signing up and sharing their views here, @Gisellagertrude? They may have to defend their stance vigorously but that's good, surely? Clarifies one's thoughts.

There is no reason why Mumsnet, and certainly not the individuals who post here, should be even-handed & balanced.

@Gisellagertrude Who are "all people who are touched by this issue " if not the women who require an abortion?

Redress the balance then, we’re all listening. We may not agree but we will absolutely respond with respect, though also challenge.

My question is this:

if this site is "by parents for parents" this means all parents, yes.

So all biases are, of course, allowed.

When one bias is hardly mentioned - one self-evident by its absence - what does it say about this site and its inclusion of all? Its attraction of all?

A temporary emergency covid-related law-change tonight probably becomes permanent, if tonight's Commons vote turns out as expected. as expected.

Why was it supposed to be temporary? And only for an emergency?

There problems associated with in effect anonymising abortion pill access - and permanently hardly figure if at all on this site.

When a site becomes one-sided it is a ghetto.

Sorry for typos!

Still no idea what the hell you are on about.

if this site is "by parents for parents" this means all parents, yes

If you mean men, say men.

There problems associated with in effect anonymising abortion pill access - and permanently hardly figure if at all on this site.

You're free to post what you think those problems are. Maybe link a few articles on it too.

Come on OP spit it out, what are you actually trying to say in plain english?

Or your preferred language if English isn't native - I'm sure someone will translate

Fair point. Just anything but waffle. Makes it look like you are up to something.

What "bias" are you referring to from Mumsnet?

The change to allow telemedicine for prescribing abortion pills was initially temporary because it was done due to covid restrictions. It wasn't "only for an emergency", it was emergency legislation which just means it was brought in quickly due to the pandemic situation. Now it is being considered and debated for a permanent change.

It is absolutely wrong to suggest that the telemedicine scheme "in effect anonymising abortion pill access". Nothing about the process is anonymous. A very large study was done on women accessing this new system, which showed it to be safe and the preferred choice of the vast majority of women.

Why was it supposed to be temporary?

Oh how quickly we forget!!!

Covid ring a bell?

Could you explain what the problem is please?

How are you expecting to “redress the balance” when no one knows what you are concerned about due to the posts being so vague?

Perhaps the balance sought is to have more waffle abs less content ?

Mumsnet is very pro abortion. The posters are pro abortion save for a small number. Threads on ‘I don’t want this child’ tend to offer a binary choice now: keep or just get rid. Even mention of adoption has pretty much vanished as compared to threads even 10 years ago.

I’ve seen little discussion re: this law of the risk of partners or others using the service to cause abortions that a woman doesn’t want. I don’t think anyone even noticed the news report that the service had been used to abort a baby that was past the abortion time limit (www.thesun.co.uk/news/11690506/police-probe-death-of-unborn-baby-after-woman-has-illegal-abortion-by-post-at-28-weeks-four-weeks-past-limit/).

But mumsnet is reflective of the majority stance our society takes, as also reflected in the media. Abortion is sacrosanct, must be available without checks and balances, and must not be questioned.