I really don't understand all these males who, thinking just because they have 'qualifications, skills, educations' or a substance abused enhancement for confidence...

...know more about the Abortion issue than Females.

One gets a good perspective of the male Members here who have thrown themselves down on the issue of Abortion and have done nothing but just rape it for the good of the Males, more than Females.


Personally, as a Male - I don't think its up to me to deal with anything about Abortion unless I'm just following the lead of  a female directly... which I decided to do as an example by posting this Topic in this Board.

The only advice I could give males on the issue of abortion is this.
*WHACK !!! (THE F*UCK UP!)

Jasin wrote on Jun 26^th, 2022 at 7:13am:

...know more about the Abortion issue than Females. ...

The only abortions JaSin is an expert in are the nonsense rants he posts.

Jasin wrote on Jun 26^th, 2022 at 7:13am:

I really don't understand all these males who, thinking just because they have 'qualifications, skills, educations' or a substance abused enhancement for confidence... ...know more about the Abortion issue than Females.

Well, there's no specific reasons that males shouldn't know more about
abortion and its rights than any female.  In fact many males in the medical
profession know a lot more about it than many females—particularly the
younger ones, or those suddenly and unexpectedly becoming pregnant.

And don't forget that for every female that has to make a decision about
abortion and its consequences, there's also a male needing to consider those
too.  It's not solely a one-person decision.

And I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean;  please enlighten me.


Quote:

The only advice I could give males on the issue of abortion is this. *WHACK !!! (THE F*UCK UP!)

And those male medical staff have followed the females in medicine to know so.

For centuries, male doctors have put down female MEIOSIS  as nothing more than cliche female hysteria.

Meh. I'll listen to the females first when it comes to abortion - it's their body, it's their choice, its their decisions.
Let the females fight it out. Males should just butt out regardless of how qualified they are or think they are.

Evil is out in the open



"Abortion Involves Killing–and That’s OK!"
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/abortion-ethics-gestation-reproduction/

Frank wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2022 at 1:53pm:

Evil is out in the open "Abortion Involves Killing–and That’s OK!" https://www.thenation.com/article/society/abortion-ethics-gestation-reproduction/

This link is unsecured and is blocked by my malware tracker.

Here's the guts of the report:

There is something infantilizing about denying the fact that embryos die when we
scrape them out of the bodies of which they are a part. It sentimentalizes pregnant
or potentially pregnant humans as fundamentally nonviolent creatures to imply that
we can’t handle the truth about what we are up to when we opt out. And it patronizes
abortion-getters to insist that we are only making a health care choice, rather than
(also) extinguishing a future child. In my view, recognizing that gestating manufactures
a proto-person requires acknowledging that abortion kills a proto-person. A baby is
completely dependent on human care in order to stay alive, but its needs could be
filled by any person—whereas a fetus, a proto-person, is ineluctably dependent on
specific person…

As long as people are performing pregnancy on this earth, they must be free to change
their minds about seeing it through. The adoption industry could be revolutionized and
child welfare lavishly subsidized; regardless of the available supports, no one should
be pregnant involuntarily. The science of medicine dictates that when foreign organisms
inhabit the human body unwelcomely, we tend to eject them…

What would it mean to acknowledge that a death is involved in an abortion? Above
all, it would allow for a fairer fight against the proponents of forced gestating. When
“pro-life” forces agitate against feticide on the basis that it is killing, pro-abortion
feminists should be able to acknowledge, without shame, that yes, of course it is.
When we withdraw from gestating, we stop the life of the product of our gestational
labor. And it’s a good thing we do, too, for otherwise the world would sag under the
weight of forced life. It is a hard pill to swallow for a misogynist society, sentimentally
attached to its ideology of patriarchal motherhood, but the truth is that gestators
should get to decide which bodies to give form to. This choosing is our prerogative.
A desire not to be pregnant is sufficient reason in and of itself to terminate a gestatee.

—Sophie Lewis, “Abortion Involves Killing–and That’s OK!” at The Nation (June 22, 2022)

And what of excess embryos from IVF?  There's a difference inside a womb and out? 

Frank wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2022 at 1:53pm:

Evil is out in the open "Abortion Involves Killing–and That’s OK!" https://www.thenation.com/article/society/abortion-ethics-gestation-reproduction/

This is all a smoke screen . The right just want to own women

AusGeoff wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2022 at 3:24pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 3rd, 2022 at 1:53pm: Evil is out in the open "Abortion Involves Killing–and That’s OK!" https://www.thenation.com/article/society/abortion-ethics-gestation-reproduction/ This link is unsecured and is blocked by my malware tracker.

Here's why.  ;)
The Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States, covering progressive political and cultural news, opinion, and analysis.

Frank wrote on Jul 4^th, 2022 at 12:55pm:

AusGeoff wrote on Jul 3rd, 2022 at 3:24pm: Frank wrote on Jul 3rd, 2022 at 1:53pm: Evil is out in the open "Abortion Involves Killing–and That’s OK!" https://www.thenation.com/article/society/abortion-ethics-gestation-reproduction/ This link is unsecured and is blocked by my malware tracker. Here's why.  ;) The Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States, covering progressive political and cultural news, opinion, and analysis.

I don't care.  You finding one magazine with one article does not prove anything at all.  The right are just idiots

This Topic was moved here from Women's Issues by freediver.

Law professor Joanna Howe – ­appointed by Labor to help lead the Migration Review helmed by former top public servant Martin Parkinson – has lodged a stop bullying application against her employer Adelaide University over her research on abortion and regulation of prostitution.

She said the university’s ­approach to her research constituted a “violation of my academic freedom” given it had launched “relentless” investigations in ­response to vexatious complaints.

Professor Howe said she refused to attend a “research integrity course” following a recent investigation – the sixth since ­November 2019 – which cleared her of any breach of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.

“It violates my right to academic freedom because they are treating me differently to other university academics who do not publish in areas of controversy,” she told The Weekend Australian. “I refuse to submit to ‘re-education’ because academic freedom should protect the rights of scholars from being constantly harassed by activists who disagree with their research.”

Professor Howe said she was subject to online bullying, harassment, abuse and even physical threats because of her research, which she has promoted on social media. On Monday, she lodged an ­application with the Fair Work Commission against the University of Adelaide seeking an order to stop bullying at work. A conciliation hearing has been scheduled for July 8.

Professor Howe is seeking specific orders requiring the university to exercise powers under its academic freedom policy to dismiss bad-faith complaints made against her and withdraw the imposition of corrective ­actions. Her primary area of ­research is the intersection of ­labour law and migration law – a field in which she is a leading international scholar – but in 2017 she began research on abortion and, in 2021, the regulation of prostitution.

This has seen her examine the different methods of abortion, the regulation and incidence of sex-selective abortion, the regulation and incidence of abortion after ­viability or “late-term abortion” and the regulation and incidence of babies born alive after an abortion. She said her research had resulted in “multiple and repeated threats” to her employment.

Between November 25, 2019, and May 2, 2024, Professor Howe said the university undertook six investigations into her scholarship because of complaints. She described the investigations as “persistent” and “relentless”.

“Five out of six of the investigations found the allegations that were the subject of complaints to be unsubstantiated,” she said.

Professor Howe said the sixth investigation related to a potential breach of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research over a submission she made to a parliamentary inquiry in South Australia. While no breach was subsequently found, Professor Howe said the independent investigator found there were “minor departures from best practice in my submission because one primary source was not cited and I did not use a qualifying statement for one claim”.

“The university … ordered me to do a research integrity course to learn how not to do biased ­research. They gave me 30 days to do the course.” Professor Howe has refused to complete the course, saying that “by choosing to side with the bullies by continually subjecting me to constant investigation and constant scrutiny, they (the university) have failed to meet their obligations to me as a staff member.

Jasin wrote on Jun 26^th, 2022 at 10:05am:

And those male medical staff have followed the females in medicine to know so. For centuries, male doctors have put down female MEIOSIS  as nothing more than cliche female hysteria. Meh. I'll listen to the females first when it comes to abortion - it's their body, it's their choice, its their decisions. Let the females fight it out. Males should just butt out regardless of how qualified they are or think they are.

MEIOSIS—Meiosis is a process where a single cell divides twice to produce four cells containing half the original amount of genetic information.

So how can meiosis be considered hysteria???

Jasin wrote on Jun 26^th, 2022 at 10:05am:

And those male medical staff have followed the females in medicine to know so. For centuries, male doctors have put down female MEIOSIS  as nothing more than cliche female hysteria. Meh. I'll listen to the females first when it comes to abortion - it's their body, it's their choice, its their decisions. Let the females fight it out. Males should just butt out regardless of how qualified they are or think they are.

Pretty much so, yes

Would you support a law giving abortion rights to a woman up to the time of birth?

A yes/no question these women are unable to answer.

https://x.com/CNviolations/status/1899282880582635566

Their refusal to give a firm answer is a NO against such a law.
They just didn't want the responsibility of such a decision on their names.
More political performance than Medical integrity.

Frank wrote on Mar 12^th, 2025 at 10:41am:

Would you support a law giving abortion rights to a woman up to the time of birth? A yes/no question these women are unable to answer. https://x.com/CNviolations/status/1899282880582635566

It’s surely time we dropped our cynicism and got behind the government’s National Abortion Drive, another noble attempt to kickstart our floundering economy.

The United Kingdom has made great strides of late in this area, recently overtaking France in the number of abortions performed annually, the figures showing the largest increase since this sort of stuff was legalised. The door, then, is already ajar. All we need to do is push a little.

Our elected representatives were intent on doing just that this week by voting for an amendment that will now decriminalise abortion right up to the day of birth. I don’t wish to seem churlish, but to me this demonstrates a marked lack of imagination and ambition. Why not extend the period at which abortions are legal to several months, or even years, after the birth of the child?

I understand that technically this would be known as ‘infanticide’ rather than ‘abortion’, but terminology should not stand in our way. There are plenty of left-wing ethicists, such as Aussie Pete Singer, who believe that infanticide is justifiable in many cases, using broadly the same arguments as those used to justify late-term abortions – that the foetus, or child, could not exist independently without its mother.

Yes, I hear you cry, this is the same Pete Singer who thinks it’s OK to shag dogs. But, as ever, you are missing the context and the caveats. Dr Singer believes that you may give your dog one only if it is part of a rich and caring relationship and does not involve coercion. I understand that it is sometimes a tricky issue to obtain written consent from a Dobermann Pinscher and that given the limited intellectual capacity of many dogs, they may not fully understand what they’re getting themselves involved in. But Dr Singer is, as I have said, an ethicist, so I do not feel sufficiently qualified in challenging his jurisdiction on this issue.

Frank wrote on Jun 19^th, 2025 at 6:35pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 12th, 2025 at 10:41am: Would you support a law giving abortion rights to a woman up to the time of birth? A yes/no question these women are unable to answer. https://x.com/CNviolations/status/1899282880582635566 It’s surely time we dropped our cynicism and got behind the government’s National Abortion Drive, another noble attempt to kickstart our floundering economy. The United Kingdom has made great strides of late in this area, recently overtaking France in the number of abortions performed annually, the figures showing the largest increase since this sort of stuff was legalised. The door, then, is already ajar. All we need to do is push a little. Our elected representatives were intent on doing just that this week by voting for an amendment that will now decriminalise abortion right up to the day of birth. I don’t wish to seem churlish, but to me this demonstrates a marked lack of imagination and ambition. Why not extend the period at which abortions are legal to several months, or even years, after the birth of the child? I understand that technically this would be known as ‘infanticide’ rather than ‘abortion’, but terminology should not stand in our way. There are plenty of left-wing ethicists, such as Aussie Pete Singer, who believe that infanticide is justifiable in many cases, using broadly the same arguments as those used to justify late-term abortions – that the foetus, or child, could not exist independently without its mother. Yes, I hear you cry, this is the same Pete Singer who thinks it’s OK to shag dogs. But, as ever, you are missing the context and the caveats. Dr Singer believes that you may give your dog one only if it is part of a rich and caring relationship and does not involve coercion. I understand that it is sometimes a tricky issue to obtain written consent from a Dobermann Pinscher and that given the limited intellectual capacity of many dogs, they may not fully understand what they’re getting themselves involved in. But Dr Singer is, as I have said, an ethicist, so I do not feel sufficiently qualified in challenging his jurisdiction on this issue.

There are a few reasons for the huge rise in abortions recently. First, they are much easier to come by, as the medical clergy have become far more indulgent than used to be the case. Second, there has been the lessening of stigma regarding the procedure, especially now that we have banned those God-bothering dinosaurs from standing silently near abortion clinics praying and what have you. And third, because we have long since jettisoned the archaic principle that sexual intercourse is in some way related to having a child and that women (and men) who do not want a child would be best minded to refrain.

Oddly – and this is truly mysterious – although we have got rid of that old dictum and ensured that everybody, everywhere, can get hold of contraceptive devices in myriad forms at any time of the day or night, this has not resulted in a reduction of unwanted pregnancies. Quite the reverse. Those silly old things, morals, seemed to have exerted a certain influence back in the day. Luckily, today we know it is a human right to behave without a vestige of morality.

I should end with an apology to all the women readers who believe that men should not delve into the subject of abortions because it is something which doesn’t concern them. It is, after all, a woman’s body we are talking about, and she has a right to do whatever she wants with it. My only excuse is that as a columnist I very frequently write about things which have nothing to do with me directly, such as those rape-gang people. And at least the feminists urging decriminalisation know that I’m on their side.

Well, it’s hello to prenatal infanticide in the UK now that MP Tonia Antoniazzi’s amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill has passed the Commons after all of two hours’ debate with 379 MPs voting in favor. Can we get our heads round what that means? Nothing a woman does in relation to her own pregnancy can make her liable to prosecution. At the same age of gestation when premature babies are admitted to neonatal wards with a very good chance of survival, less fortunate fetuses can be killed with impunity by their own mothers. So anyone like Carla Foster, who aborted her baby Lily at 32 weeks’ gestation, will now get off free. There are, in other words, no sanctions for those who kill a fetus at any time right up to birth, so long as it’s your own fetus you’re killing.
https://thespectator.com/topic/british-mps-open-door-infanticide/