DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
you mean the bit where you didn't explain your views by twice posting that you'd vote to see abortion outlawed? yeah you've been so coy haven't you.
Abort 67 "intimidating protests" outside Blackfriars/London clinic
- Thread starter cantsin
- Start date
I'm pro-life. That's for the mother and the baby.
I expressed support of women being able to legally terminate while it's legal without harassment from extremist pro-lifers.
I stuck my neck out to explain that even pro-lifers such as myself, do not believe in those kind of protests outside abortion clinics.
A number of people then laid into me, demanding that I defend my pro-life views.
Sorry to disappoint, but I will not. Because this thread is supposed to be about the protests outside abortion clinics.
Now if your hatred of me out burns your desire for people to get along with the whole defending of abortion clinics so that people can go about their legal business...
Well. What can I possibly say?
I have told people a number of times now. I'm not going to defend my pro-life views on this thread.
That's not changing. People have said they reckon I couldn't defend such views. I don't care.
I've got bigger fish to fry than getting worked up over pro-choice / versus pro-life and you should have bigger fish to fry than me.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
So basically you are a shit out who can't defend his views and regards other peoples principles on the matter as trivial
You would have known a long way back on this thread, that I don't want to see ALL abortion outlawed, grey areas etc.
But you know that I don't give a fuck, which is why I never set out to win arguements or change minds.
So guess what, another day roles on by where complete strangers on the net, thinks that each other is a pratt.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
oh right, no I get it now, because you attach so little 'give a fuck' to the matter you regard other people's views in the same category as your own, they shouldn't give a fuck and care because you don't and hey its just the internet etc
A shit? Is that the best you could come up with? Is that all the anger that you have within you?
Whatever happened to you-fucking-sub-human-cunt-of-a-parasite-loser-scum-bag!!!
You're not good at this are you? Why would I want to defend views that I have, which I'm not that fussed about or deem that important?
And where have I said that other peoples views are trivial?
Fucking hell. Do you read any of my stuff? I've said about 3 times that I don't even regard my views on the subject as important. How can I? It's not a subject I've researched well or have even fucking claimed to have researched well.
Please tell me that you're not involved in any kind of campaigning for any cause.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
no, a shit out. As in you have shit out of defending your views by handwaving, goalpost moving and other sand throwing obfuscatory bollocks
They can give a fuck all they want about the subject.
If I wanted to change someones mind about something, I wouldn't start from the M.O. of trying to make someone feel bad about themselves, stupid or somehow selfish, arrogant etc.
But maybe my expectations of this place is a bit to high I guess!
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
if pointing out the logic or lack of it in your position makes you feel bad then perhaps thats a failure of your own position rather than the erroneous views of the people presenting an opposing one.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
but who cares eh? its not something you'd bother thinking about before outlawing abortion eh! cock privilege in actiion
My position on abortion was peripheral, considered unimportant to the main point I was making, therefore it was not a position I was ever going to defend, so there is no failure on my part.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
its a position you made clear as corollary to your main point, you were challenged on it and have massively shitted out on the defense of that point.
Yeah because I didn't want the thread derailed and what thanks did I get for that?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
schooled?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
but regardless, derail is a derail. The thing is being strictly on topic is no defense to hide behind. Threads evolve, discussions move as they will. This isn't debate club.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
The Blackfriars protestors do not appear to be there today. 
gamerunknown
Well-Known Member
Content warning for discussion of sexual violence.
Yes, but if you voted to make abortion illegal, they'd suffer far worse harassment from the state when trying to undergo one. Abortion clinics would be shut down and women would most likely travel abroad or have them done clandestinely. Having exemptions would mean additional intrusive questions for the women: "Can you prove you were raped?".
Trying to agitate against abortion outside of the framework of the state is more likely to be effective and less likely to lead to perverse outcomes, though by the time pregnant women have decided to attend abortion clinics such agitation is likely to be counter-productive. I'd also like to echo some of the sentiments of the previous posters: comprehensive sexual education and greater provisions for women are two of the best predictors of a reduction in abortions. Legislation hampering access to abortion isn't.
For what it's worth, I have two acquaintances who'd count themselves as feminists and socialists that "disapprove" of abortion. One has expressed that the time-restriction should be further reduced below viability (at about 18 weeks). Another debated the subject at the feminist society she attended. I personally believe that the arguments based on bodily autonomy may not withstand scrutiny if utilitarian concerns trump those of liberty (I suppose one could bring Thomson's defence in here). However, I constrain myself to arguing for the two outcomes above - better sexual education and more provisions for women in general.
Spirit of Slade said:
Yes, but if you voted to make abortion illegal, they'd suffer far worse harassment from the state when trying to undergo one. Abortion clinics would be shut down and women would most likely travel abroad or have them done clandestinely. Having exemptions would mean additional intrusive questions for the women: "Can you prove you were raped?".
Trying to agitate against abortion outside of the framework of the state is more likely to be effective and less likely to lead to perverse outcomes, though by the time pregnant women have decided to attend abortion clinics such agitation is likely to be counter-productive. I'd also like to echo some of the sentiments of the previous posters: comprehensive sexual education and greater provisions for women are two of the best predictors of a reduction in abortions. Legislation hampering access to abortion isn't.
For what it's worth, I have two acquaintances who'd count themselves as feminists and socialists that "disapprove" of abortion. One has expressed that the time-restriction should be further reduced below viability (at about 18 weeks). Another debated the subject at the feminist society she attended. I personally believe that the arguments based on bodily autonomy may not withstand scrutiny if utilitarian concerns trump those of liberty (I suppose one could bring Thomson's defence in here). However, I constrain myself to arguing for the two outcomes above - better sexual education and more provisions for women in general.
Similar threads
