Vive La France!

[JonathanM]

OMG, guys.

I posted the article to provide a very simple counterpoint, to the very simple narrative that some were pushing on here, that only men who hate women want to restrict abortion. Here is the figure from that latest poll. It shows by a twenty point margin (again), that women are more in favour of making abortion more restrictive than men are.

 

[JonathanM]

Males: 26% in favour. Females: 43% in favour (of more restrictive abortion measures).

A bit of an ambiguous, misleading nonsense stat. 'More restrictive' could mean knocking one day off the gestation cut-off point, lol. Largely irrelevant when you consider at what (gestation) point 99% of abortions occur.

What is telling is that overall, 87% of people in the UK are in favour of abortion.

The article wasn't arguing for more restrictive abortion. That was never the point of the article. It was purely comparing the attitudes of men and women to more restrictive abortion. I found it really interesting as I had never been aware of these figures.

 

[Odds]

OMG, guys.

I posted the article to provide a very simple counterpoint, to the very simple narrative that some were pushing on here, that only men who hate women want to restrict abortion. Here is the figure from that latest poll. It shows by a twenty point margin (again), that women are more in favour of making abortion more restrictive than men are.

View attachment 337883

Does that poll include feminists campaigning to decriminalise abortion and advocating for pills-by-post?

 

[noseall]

I posted the article to provide a very simple counterpoint, to the very simple narrative that some were pushing on here, that only men who hate women want to restrict abortion. Here is the figure from that latest poll. It shows by a twenty point margin (again), that women are more in favour of making abortion more restrictive than men are.

View attachment 337883

A largely irrelevant ambiguous nonsense stat.

It's still the women hating men that want to restrict or ban abortion altogether. Knocking a few days off an already very late gestation cut-off point seems noble - but is far from it. You obviously don't understand at what point most abortions occur.

The women hating men in the USA for example have virtually prevented women in their loony RWR states from getting an abortion. The women hating RWR fruit loops are even trying to get Mifepristone banned, so that they can have ultimate control over their 'birthing vessels'.

 

[JonathanM]

To repeat my earlier question, why tinker with the edges of a policy that has the majority support of the nation?

Firstly, it was just an interesting article. That is what newspapers are supposed to do.

It wasn't calling for any change.

But even if it was calling for some tinkering, what would have been wrong with that? Is the current system perfect? Could it be made slightly better?

 

[noseall]

But even if it was calling for some tinkering, what would have been wrong with that? Is the current system perfect? Could it be made slightly better?

Not especially no.

It would be like celebrating or championing a factory owner, that promises all the workers in his employ, that once they reach their 133rd birthday, they get a million pounds bonus each.

Virtually all abortions (barring a small number) occur early on.

 

[blup]

Call it what you want. It doesn't alter the fact that a measure of abortion related deaths, in comparison to childbirth, is meaningless, for the reasons I've mentioned, and given in more detail in the article.

Its not intended to prove anything but is useful statistically, for example an analysis of the availability and/or effectiveness of contraception.

 

[JonathanM]

Not especially no.

It would be like celebrating or championing a factory owner, that promises all the workers in his employ, that once they reach their 133rd birthday, they get a million pounds bonus each.

Virtually all abortions (barring a small number) occur early on.

So what if during the first 14 weeks, we were like France, where you don't need two doctors opinion? And then from 14 to 24 weeks the system remains the same. Some people might think that was an improvement. What is so perfect about the current system that changes can't be discussed?

 

[fillyboy]

So what if during the first 14 weeks, we were like France, where you don't need two doctors opinion?

Aren't 2 medical consultations mandatory in France?

 

[Odds]

The women hating men in the USA for example have virtually prevented women in their loony RWR states from getting an abortion. The women hating RWR fruit loops are even trying to get Mifepristone banned, so that they can have ultimate control over their 'birthing vessels'.

They will not succeed...

The stakes in the Supreme Court’s mifepristone case go way beyond abortion.@ VOX.com

 

[motorbiking]

Aren't 2 medical consultations mandatory in France?

1 consultation, which must be followed up by written request. Until 2015, there was a mandatory 7 day cooling off period. Vive la France indeed.

 

[noseall]

Aren't 2 medical consultations mandatory in France?

Possibly. Not sure.

Approval is quite specific in the UK and is peculiar or unique to abortion, i.e. two doctors MUST sign it off before it can proceed. Until then there is no approval.

 

[noseall]

1 consultation

Makes abortion a lot simpler.

VIVE LA FRANCE!

 

[JonathanM]

Aren't 2 medical consultations mandatory in France?

Yes, two consultations, at least a week apart. But purely to discuss the procedure. Not two doctors opinions about whether the criteria for abortion are met.

 

[motorbiking]

incorrect - the cooling off period was dropped in 2015

Edit: I stand corrected - the 2 consultations are required, not 1.