|
Poll: Who Should Be Leader of HM Most Loyal Opposition? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Corbyn |
|
95 | 18.63% |
| Dennis Skinner |
|
53 | 10.39% |
| Angus Robertson |
|
20 | 3.92% |
| Tim Farron |
|
9 | 1.76% |
| Paul Ukips |
|
7 | 1.37% |
| Robot Lenin |
|
105 | 20.59% |
| Tony Blair |
|
28 | 5.49% |
| Pissflaps |
|
193 | 37.84% |
| Total: | 510 votes | ||
|
TinTower posted:https://twitter.com/rossmccaff/status/846727252733775874 It was.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
Any legal goons want to weigh in on the actual illegality of sex-selective abortions? Abortion legislation doesn't seem to make it illegal beyond a doctor deciding whether it's a reasonable grounds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
jabby posted:Just as an aside, determining whether or not someone has a mental illness is incredibly subjective when that person is trying to convince you they have a mental illness. If you assume Blackman would deliberately manipulate the system in that way it would be trivial for him to look up the symptoms of PTSD and then claim to suffer from all of them. Then the whole case rests on the credulity of the psychiatrist they chose to call as an expert witness, which in turn depends on a lot on how sympathetic they were to his crime in the first place. Well, it was one of Are Boys shooting a terrist. It's not hard to find a shrink sympathetic to that. To be honest, if I was Blackman's counsel, I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't try the cray-cray defence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Any legal goons want to weigh in on the actual illegality of sex-selective abortions? Abortion legislation doesn't seem to make it illegal beyond a doctor deciding whether it's a reasonable grounds. Pretty sure they are functionally illegal but you might be able to find a doctor willing to lie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Any legal goons want to weigh in on the actual illegality of sex-selective abortions? Abortion legislation doesn't seem to make it illegal beyond a doctor deciding whether it's a reasonable grounds. Sounds loving barbaric. Have you been given your opinion about it yet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
The next global financial crisis will happen when the investors in Tesla, Uber, Snapchat & Twitter all finally realise that they've been a bunch of gullible idiots and simultaneously rush for the exit.MikeCrotch posted:Its the difference between the thread being complete garbage and mostly garbage so If you think this thread is poo poo, try paying the Middle East thread a visit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Its the difference between the thread being complete garbage and mostly garbage so Nobody gives a tuppence about your ignore list.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:[REDACTED]  he can't see you
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Any legal goons want to weigh in on the actual illegality of sex-selective abortions? Abortion legislation doesn't seem to make it illegal beyond a doctor deciding whether it's a reasonable grounds. For whether it should be allowed, that all depends on your views on the right to abortion on demand. I'm not sure how you could have on demand but say 'except for that'. A blood test can give a reliable indication as early as 7 weeks, which is within the window where the whole thing can be done by medical instead of surgical procedure and isn't even a fetus, and I've no idea how you could even write legislation which says "you can take this pill if you don't want a baby, but not if you don't want a baby boy" without opening some giant  about protected groups status applying to the unborn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:
He can. People who go on about their ignore lists are the same ones that can't help but click the link to read the posts anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Man, just let anybody have an abortion for whatever reason they want and content yourself with knowing that anybody having a sex-selective abortion is within their rights to control what happens to their own body, but is probably a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
The problem with sex-selective abortion isn't the abortions, it's the reasons people feel that having a boy/girl would be absolutely awful for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
All abortion is good :vhemtsay:
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
I have actually sort of eugenic'ed in real life already I think as me and my ex had an amniocentesis and we had decided if was a downs syndrome fetus (or anything else bad) we would abort. Actually choosing the sex seems a bit silly though unless there is a lack of one or the other going around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:As is there's no such thing as abortion on demand in Britain, it has to be on some medical or socio-economic grounds. The only way I can see the doctors involved OKing that is if they both agree that carrying to term a child of a certain likely sex would have undesirable mental health or other consequences for the mother, and I'm not quite sure how they'd come to that conclusion. Well... there more or less is abortion on demand in the UK. Labour managed to slip in a very subversive clause to the Abortion Act 1967: quote:that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family Because the effect of the pregnancy on the mental health of the mother is left entirely to the doctors to decide (and because Marie Stopes and then the NHS chose to define it as "The mother tells us it will") it means that abortion is available without any further examination or questioning. And like you say, there's no way of reversing that policy without opening up a million much huger problems, not least because sex-selective abortions have to be available for certain genetic conditions. Also of course, a big part of the reason the Abortion Act has been barely touched since then is every time they try Nadine Dorries and her ilk crawl out of the woodwork. Every time a law even vaguely related to pregnancy comes up they try and insert more barriers and/or drop the time limit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
floofyscorp posted:The problem with sex-selective abortion isn't the abortions, it's the reasons people feel that having a boy/girl would be absolutely awful for whatever reason. This is a correct opinion. Much like with many social issues, it's the circumstances that lead to the action that are the main problem, rather than the action itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Any legal goons want to weigh in on the actual illegality of sex-selective abortions? Abortion legislation doesn't seem to make it illegal beyond a doctor deciding whether it's a reasonable grounds. Technically it's illegal. There are only a few legal reasons for abortion and that isn't one. Practically however the legal reasons have large scope for interpretation by the doctors involved, and are also easy to manipulate by anyone seeking an abortion. The main discouraging factor from sex-selective abortions currently is that the anomalies scan (where most people find out the sex) happens around 20 weeks and the legal limit for abortion is 24 weeks. The blood test to find out earlier is expensive and not widely used. Also of legal interest is that a private prosecution was attempted against two doctors who were 'caught' in a Telegraph 'sting' operation appearing to offer sex-selective abortion. CPS blocked it on two occasions citing a lack of public interest. So it seems like even with significant evidence the chances of a doctor actually being punished for performing/signing off on such an abortion are fairly remote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:The next global financial crisis will happen when the investors in Tesla, Uber, Snapchat & Twitter all finally realise that they've been a bunch of gullible idiots and simultaneously rush for the exit. uber are incredibly hosed regardless since they stole googles self driving car technology and google have proof lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
jabby posted:The blood test to find out earlier is expensive and not widely used. But regardless of people's views on it, there really doesn't seem to be any way to prevent it which doesn't cause far more harm than it seeks to prevent, even if it is on paper not a valid reason. You can get the labwork done separately, and decide based on the results to terminate before it's even a surgical procedure, and the only way to stop that is invasive gatekeeping where the woman gets grilled about why exactly she feels that the pregnancy would be deleterious to her wellbeing. Is it even an issue in the UK outside of a handful of religious fundamentalists and people who took Valerie Solanas way too seriously?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Is it even an issue in the UK outside of a handful of religious fundamentalists and people who took Valerie Solanas way too seriously? Abortion is a tabloid hot button issue, and the interfering religious turdswogglers may be few in number but they are well organised and very, very well funded. I don't think most people seem to give two fucks though. I'm vaguely against sex selective abortions but it quickly gets complex and it's not my body so it's not my choice anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
I think for all those Irish women coming over for a weekends shopping it's a pretty big deal as well
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:I think for all those Irish women coming over for a weekends shopping it's a pretty big deal as well Yeah please keep dishing out those abortions until we sort our poo poo out over here. My pullout game is weak as hell
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
I don't think most of those are coming over for sex selective abortions though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I don't think most of those are coming over for sex selective abortions though. indeed not, but I'm just wary of any abortion fuckery after all the fuckery in NI
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:He can. People who go on about their ignore lists are the same ones that can't help but click the link to read the posts anyway. This is very true. I found it a lot harder to resist responding to your more obvious windups when I had you on ignore than now that I don't. Something about learning self control probably, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:This is very true. I found it a lot harder to resist responding to your more obvious windups when I had you on ignore than now that I don't. Something about learning self control probably, I dunno. I have never once posted in order to 'wind up' other people. I post honestly and in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:Abortion is a tabloid hot button issue, and the interfering religious turdswogglers may be few in number but they are well organised and very, very well funded. Both of those groups are very small in the UK, so I can't really see sex selective abortion as something that's happening at any scale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
also hyper religious groups are not usually the sorts to be getting abortions anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:also hyper religious groups are not usually the sorts to be getting abortions anyway http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:also hyper religious groups are not usually the sorts to be getting abortions anyway Yes they are, they're just more likely to come back and picket the clinic they received the treatment in afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Depends on the religion really. If it's part of a cultural orthodoxy that puts more emphasis on dowries and male heirs than on life beginning at conception then it's possible. It's also possible that what's going on in India is more to do with under reporting of female births, it's hard to get firm evidence outside of a few Telegraph style 'stings'. e: ^^ That too, but they're not the people being side-eyed when sex selective abortion is panicked over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Yeah please keep dishing out those abortions until we sort our poo poo out over here. My pullout game is weak as hell Has anything more come from the Taum scandal or is it being buried?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
It's depressing how true the "The only moral ________ is my _______" hypocrisy is. Also, I think it was a few years ago that US anti-abortion activists were flying in to the UK to picket abortion clinics. I honestly consider them worse than terrorists in terms of the impact they have on lives. Pure scum.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Scotland's parliament has voted to ask to be able to ask to leave. Indeed. Because Westminster has a veto on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:Has anything more come from the Taum scandal or is it being buried? There'll be an inquiry presumably and nothing much will come of it. The Church are already supposed to be on the hook for almost a billion euro in reparations to decades of abuse victims, but so far have paid the square root of gently caress all. Everyone under 50 pretty much hates the Church and all the religious orders. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
The Godfather definitely tells us that Italians wish their first child is a masculine child. So that could cause an imbalance over time unless half of them get wacked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Doesn't specify boy or girl though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Is it even an issue in the UK outside of a handful of religious fundamentalists and people who took Valerie Solanas way too seriously? It's unlikely to be widespread, but it seems likely to become more common in the future. Whether or not you consider it an issue depends how much you care. I do think there's an argument to be made that sex-selective abortion is harmful to society as a whole and likely to be driven by unpleasant cultural ideals, but you're right that there's no way to prevent it that doesn't cause more harm than good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Basically I'm saying that giving him a standard sentence for manslaughter is ridiculous when the nature of the crime (being an admitted violation of IHL) should have been a major aggravating factor. The Court Martial Appeals Court did exactly that (pdf warning) in their lengthy sentencing remarks, including all the aggravating and mitigating factors. They are crystal clear that Marine A retained a level of responsibility for his actions. You can go look at [2017] EWCA Crim 190 here (another pdf warning) if you want the full details of why the murder conviction was quashed in all its glorious 30 pages. Not directed specifically at you Tintower, but for all the people saying he wasn't suffering a real mental illness, it's real enough to be in the WHO's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, which you would know if you'd read the trial documents. The three psychiatrists who provided separate reports were all highly experienced, one was considered a leader in his field, and two specialised in combat and/or homicide psychiatry with appointments at leading universities or institutions. The appeals court judgement made it clear that "the court martial had no psychiatric evidence at the time it convicted the appelant". The most experienced psychiatrist specifically addresses why the events in the video don't convey an accurate picture of the mental state of Marine A. I detested the tabloid involvement in this case too, and Marine A's actions, but that doesn't mean the right answer is to ignore the judicial process when it produces a result you don't like. The judges have set out clearly why they felt the murder conviction was no longer safe - take issue with the reasons for that decision if you want, but just saying "raargh, he killed someone" isn't particularly productive. You might one day be glad of a judicial process that allows an appeals court to rule that a conviction was unsafe - undermining it (or mental health issues) does nobody any favours. It's like reading the Daily Mail coverage of a court decision in here today, just from the other side of the political spectrum. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
On the other hand he kills people for money so I'm not super sympathetic either way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:29
|
|