Vive La France!

[Vinty]

Lol.

"Unfertilized embryo " Lol.

 

[Brigadier]

Yes.

Rendering your reply to JohnD (his post, below), incorrect

At what point does an egg become an individual?

At conception.

 

[JonathanM]

.... which is not known for a number of weeks, or even months.

Does that matter, though? I'm trying to work out the logical sequence.

If somebody believes an egg becomes an individual at conception, does it matter that they aren't actually aware that it happened until weeks later?

 

[ajohn]

two consultations are required for early abortion, certification or sign off (two doc's ) for late abortions.

2 consultations? The route into an abortion clinic is via a triage system. The woman gets to talk to a specialist nurse and a midwife. Both of these could be Phd's, certainly in a nurse's case. = 2 doctors.

Say they are not doctors. Do the actual doctors review the information gained by these people or conduct their own consultation? Even doctors have their specialities.

Has anyone who has posted actually been involved in the entire process so is aware of what actually happens?

 

[Vinty]

I never said any of that. However, in regards to aborting a foetus, it is the woman's choice and hers alone.

You believe that a woman should have the unilateral right to destroy a life other than her own.

Fair enough, if support that principle, then why condemn others who decide that they have the same unilateral right to terminate without consent, the lives of for example, staff at abortion clinics in America.

Personally, i wouldn't support such course of action against anyone as i believe all lives have equal value.

You obviously believe different.

 

[Vinty]

Rendering your reply to JohnD (his post, below), incorrect

Conception occurs when a female egg is fertilised by male sperm.
I thought i made that clear.

 

[space junkie]

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

Have you got a link to that article, so that we are aware of its date?
The poll results presented by Notch7 was for 2023.

We wouldn't want to be mislead by out of date poll results.

The difference between sexes is purely academic anyway. It's tinkering around the edges, for what purpose?

 

[space junkie]

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.

I took the tone of the article to support greater restrictive access to abortion by raising the issue.
Normally the majority results of a poll are announced, or the majority and minority results are quoted. The article differed from the normal practice on that basis.
It quoted the minority percentages in support of greater restrictions. It did not quote the percentages of those supporting the status quo, or reduced restrictions to abortion.
On that basis it was misleading. A quick read, or a poor comprehension of the data, or a poor train of thought about the results, could easily mislead the reader to think that there is wide spread support for greater restriction to abortion.

Otherwise what was the point? It's totally and purely academic.

 

[space junkie]

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?

It wasn't overtly calling for any change, but the figures quoted, and the date of the polls (and the article) could easily mislead readers to think that there is widespread support for greater restrictions, as explained above.
The more recent poll presented by Notch7 indicates a shift in societal attitudes to make access to abortion less restrictive.

 

[JonathanM]

Have you got a link to that article, so that we are aware of its date?
The poll results presented by Notch7 was for 2023.

It's the same poll Notch7 posted. I can see, now, that wasn't clear.

The difference between sexes is purely academic anyway. It's tinkering around the edges, for what purpose?

Well, the author says it is purely to help inform the battle of ideas. Same purpose as me. I appreciate the title could be thought of as a little bit click-baity. But what has got you so wound up about the content of this article? The author isn't advocating for tougher restrictions on abortion, in any way, shape or form. He is merely analysing that, out of those who are, it's more women than men. That is something I found interesting. It hasn't made me more in favour of restricting abortion.

So which is it? Internalised sexism, men's liberation, fundamentally different ideas about the point at which life begins, or something else entirely? I doubt only one factor is at work, but it seems that we lack a definitive answer. And that's a shame, because in the ongoing battle of ideas it seems like a very important question to ask.

 

[Brigadier]

Does that matter, though? I'm trying to work out the logical sequence.

If somebody believes an egg becomes an individual at conception, does it matter that they aren't actually aware that it happened until weeks later?

It does if part of your argument is that "a life has been created".

 

[space junkie]

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

Would that issue alone (and there are lots of other issues) take account of societal attitudes to the use of contraceptives?
Or the various types of contraceptives, and socio-economic use of them.

 

[Brigadier]

Conception occurs when a female egg is fertilised by male sperm.
I thought i made that clear.

And I thought I made it clear that you can't know that "a life has been created" at that point.

It's only the case, weeks or months after - the - fact.

 

[JonathanM]

It does if part of your argument is that "a life has been created".

I still don't get it.

If someone believes a life was created at conception, how is that changed by them not finding out about it until weeks later. I know I am missing a logical step, so if you could just talk me through it that would be very helpful.

 

[space junkie]

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?

Aren't 2 medical consultations mandatory in France?

French government website (in English)
All the answers are there.

Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy (IVG)

The practice of abortion is regulated and several steps must be followed, before and after the intervention.

www.service-public.fr