Jailing a mother of three - WTF

[Capitalismwantsyou]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/12/woman-in-uk-jailed-for-28-months-over-taking-abortion-pills-after-legal-time-limit

It would never be possible, their hormones are all wrong. Tell me that you don't understand biology without telling me that you don't understand biology.

It's a thought experiment. A more realistic one than your only person on the planet with a police robot one 🤣🤣🤣

It's interesting you won't engage with it because I think it would reveal that underlying your ideology is the same transhumanism as the Trans. You just won't take your ideas to the logical conclusion: you think woman should have total freedom from the material reality of our reproductive role... but then we'd just be the same as men.

I've found your view of young preterm babies, which many of us have experienced birthing, to be distressing.

Which bits?

We all understand (I hope, although TBH I am now doubting that many posters on this thread have mental processes that make sense to me) that a 8 wk pregnant woman can feel joy that she's pregnant and huge grief if she miscarries. Another woman 8 wks along can feel utter terror that she's pregnant and relief if she miscarries. This is called "Theory Of Others' Minds", where you recognise that other people can feel completely differently about the same situation. Make that 28 wks and you've one woman who is decorating the nursery excited for her LO arriving, would be beside herself with grief if she still-birthed, and would be in the NICU around the clock if her baby came early. The other woman has been in denial, is terrified, and would cry with relief if she still-birthed. They are in the same situation but reacting completely differently. My stance is the only one that acknowledges that both women's reactions are legitimate and refuses to criminalise the second woman.

If that makes me some kind of monster, then fine, I'm some kind of monster. A monster who is in lockstep with BPAS and Abortion Rights on this.

"I know it doesn't look like it from my other posts, but I do think that what she did was morally awful. I just don't think it should be criminal."

Why do you think it was "morally awful" if they had some "bodily autonomy" right in play?

I can only guess, that if you think it's morally awful, it's because you recognise it as infanticide. And yet you are saying oh no it's not infanticide because the baby doesn't have the right to use the mother's body.

I won't engage with the impossible. Men's hormones are all wrong and they have the wrong pelvises.

you think woman should have total freedom from the material reality of our reproductive role...

So when are you coming with the semen-filled turkey baster to forcibly inseminate me? Because it looks like you think that I shouldn't have freedom from that reproductive role.

Blessed are the fruit, indeed.

This

I think Vito is only advocating for Vito and is doing so from a place of extreme fear, pain and possibly also disgust around pregnancy, birth and motherhood. For which I have compassion but, it is not an ideal position from which to rationally discuss public policy.

"If that makes me some kind of monster, then fine, I'm some kind of monster. A monster who is in lockstep with BPAS and Abortion Rights on this."

And the people that support puberty blockers and surgery for kids can cite medical groups that support their agenda. It's still arguably a very dark path to go down.

The other woman has been in denial, is terrified, and would cry with relief if she still-birthed. They are in the same situation but reacting completely differently. My stance is the only one that acknowledges that both women's reactions are legitimate and refuses to criminalise the second woman.

With respect, I think you have some issues if you think there are women who cry with relief over a stillbirth. And it's not about reactions or feelings being legitimate even if they did. People can feel all kinds of different ways but the reality is a late-term abortion is not the same as an early abortion. You acknowledge that. And there's only one possible reason for that difference which is that one is taking the life of a child. That will never be 'legitimate' except in self-defence or severe disabilities not compatible with life. Of course the law allows late term abortion for other conditions like Down's Syndrome so you'll be pleased about that, although it has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.

This is interesting because it reveals another belief you share with Trans ideology: that everything is just constructed based on the feelings of people and what they report, and this must be given primacy, there is no material reality.

For most people there is a material reality of a dead baby, which might have lived, in both scenarios and that is a tragedy for that baby regardless of the emotions of the woman about its death.

For you the baby only has value in as far as it's dependent on the emotions of others. It's nothing in itself.

In this case: for me there is a tragedy for this baby girl who was killed, for you because her mother didn't want her the fact of a dead baby is irrelevant.

Theory of mind helps you understand other people's actions & feelings it doesn't tell you what is right or wrong, or whether what they think is true.

I won't engage with the impossible

What was your police robot last women in the world musings then?

I know why you won't engage with this thought experiment.

I know it makes you feel sick.

You're frame your fight as being with "the State" but really your fight is with Reality.

You only accept gestation and birth if it is a "free gift" - so, totally wanted by the mother, and with no complex feelings about it. In fact she can give it straightforwardly.

But actually it's not a "free gift" that your mother gave you. It's a very valuable gift which she gave you at a good deal of cost to herself, her wishes and desires, her body, and her mental health. (I don't doubt there were also many many positives for her, too).

This is the reality although I think it's a painful one for you to face.

It does make you sick to think it - because it makes you feel your dependence and your debt. And whatever your mother was like - it calls for gratitude - which can be a complex emotion to feel.

The reality is no pregnancy is a "gift freely given". Unless they're in denial about it mothers have a greater or lesser degree of ambivalence

It may not be exactly what the mother wanted, but those feelings have to be borne.

There is no magic rule that says no one should ever have to feel no difficult feelings.

The reality is that life is full of them. Having to do something you don't want in the interest of someone else, is one of them.

🫣

No, for the same reason that I think that Shrimp was morally objectionable in refusing his cousin his kidney, but the court ruling saying that he was allowed to refuse was still correct. scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11988310705292367329&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Fine. The answer is no, because hacking a man's body about to do what a woman has evolved to do would be pointless and dangerous, even if it became somehow possible.

Of course the law allows late term abortion for other conditions like Down's Syndrome so you'll be pleased about that, although it has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.

If you'd read the thread, you'd know that I don't agree with disabled babies being singled out for late abortion. It's saying that disabled people are less valuable than the rest of us.

You're frame your fight as being with "the State" but really your fight is with Reality.

Yes. You've hit the nail @BumpyaDaisyevna

The reality of the burden women carry in the gestation of babies, which can't be got out of without barbaric outside intervention after 24 weeks, must be denied and placed on the state.

Women having to carry viable babies to term is a fight with against reality, that's what happens when you are pregnant, not with the state making them do it.

This is comparable again with the TRAs who think they're fighting for their rights & medical intervention, but it's reality which prevents them from changing sex not being denied medical intervention by the state.

This is interesting because it reveals another belief you share with Trans ideology: that everything is just constructed based on the feelings of people and what they report, and this must be given primacy, there is no material reality.

So fucking wrong. There is a material reality of a pregnant woman, and a material reality that only she can provide life support to the baby. That's as material as you can get in terms of women's lived realities. You are constructing your ideas of when it's OK to abort based on your feelings of a baby's interests taking primacy over the woman it's inside's interests after a certain point in pregnancy. This is SPUC and Loving Both rhetoric.

Disagree with me, fine, but don't fabricate an opinion and ascribe it to me.

Women have had abortions since forever. Some have had them very late. It is the State that passes laws stopping us from having abortions.

Having an abortion is possible, changing sex is not.

But if it were possible, and they really wanted it, wouldn't the hacking & risk be up to them? And their bodily autonomy? Surely you don't mean risk to the baby because that wouldn't matter, just whether this man wanted one or not.

And it would have a point. Men who wanted to have babies could have them and women could entirely avoid the consequences of unwanted pregnancy.
It would be great, we could get our wombs removed and let the men have the kids.

Everyone could do exactly what they wanted with their bodies. Total choice and autonomy.

I don't know why you're against it in principle?

You didn't mention the material reality of a dead 28 week baby in both scenarios.

The reality of this is not dependent on the women's emotions about the baby.

You judge the whole debate based on women's feelings only, this is the only reality for you.

It is the same as Trans ideology where only their feelings matter and must be elevated above all else regardless of consequences for others.

They're sacrificing kids fertility in the purity of the 'my feelings & lived experience trump all' ideology. But at least they're not killing babies.

You are underpinned by the same epistemology.

Having an abortion is possible, changing sex is not.

Says you. What if someone believes it is possible they want the surgery and to live as if they've changed sex, why should anyone stop them??
Because it infringes on the rights of others maybe?....Bingo.

Surely you don't mean risk to the baby because that wouldn't matter

I take that you are not familiar with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. It has a section that says A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment.

The baby, once born, absolutely matters. This is a matter of medical ethics. Giving a man a uterus can't be done without harming the baby to be born. A doctor who attempted it should be struck off. This is not the same as jailing a woman for drinking whilst pregnant because she's not operating on someone else against medical ethics.

Having an abortion is provably possible. If it wasn't, that woman wouldn't be in jail because it wouldn't be possible to prove that she'd self-aborted.

Changing sex isn't possible, sex chromosomes are in every cell.

The 24 week limit is also based on the stages of brain development in the foetus. In particular, it relates to the development of the thalamo-cortical complex, which provides consciousness. Some scientists believe that consciousness cannot occur before 24-26 weeks’ gestation. If they’re correct, the 24 week limit makes sense.

^You didn't mention the material reality of a dead 28 week baby in both scenarios.
The reality of this is not dependent on the women's emotions about the baby.^

If I am 28 weeks pregnant, I pay for one bus fare, not two. Legally, there's one person. What right does the State have to police my body to defend an entity that isn't legally a person yet? To stop doctors from giving me a treatment that would harm the future child to be born? Maybe, for the same reason that we don't implant embryos into anyone who turns up at the clinic. Stopping me from preventing the live birth? Legislative overreach.

Only if you think that Judith Thomson should be forced to stay hooked up to that violinist for nine months.