A Request for a Response from Grace de Bellis on Abortion

Submitted by LocutusOP on Tue, 02/26/2019 - 21:22
Author: 

Michael Roberts , Alan, Patrick Selden,  Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth      

Date: 
Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - 21:15
Article link: 
A Request for a Response from Grace de Bellis on Abortion

 

 

When I read abortion is the concern of women and not men, suggesting Peter Hitchens had no right to make comment, I immediately thought of the etymology of the word man.

The word man is late old english of around 1000 years ago, and meant adult of the human race.

Back then a man was referred to as a wer and a woman as a wif.

Hence werewolf means man-wolf, under which structure the terms wereparrot and wereshark would translate as man-parrot and man-shark respectively. While the term wife, as in she's my wife, means she's my woman.

When Kirk of Star-Trek says "To boldly go where no man has gone before", he was refering to the entire human race collectively.

When it was changed under Picard "To boldly go where no one has gone before," it may have been polically correct to those lacking the relevant knowledge, but heck, it does sound weak in comparison.

WIth these words understood I can say that while pregnancy is specific in nature to the wif whom it directly concerns, pregancy also affects mankind as a whole.

It is from the latter stance that Mr Hitchens is obviously commenting from.

Posted by: Michael Roberts | 16 February 2019 at 06:21 AM

...

Your litany against the evils of drugs, divorce and abortion is consistent and unassailable. "Divorce is entirely to the disadvantage of women. If a man has had several wives, he shows no sign of it, whereas a woman several times married fades completely." - Napoleon, in a letter to Gaspard Gourgaud at St. Helena, Jan. 9th, 1817.

The Hippocratic Oath also states, "I will not give to a woman an instrument to procure abortion."

Posted by: Alan | 16 February 2019 at 08:24 PM

...

 

Abortion raises profound moral and philosophical questions - Is it murder? When does individual life begin? - that by their very seriousness are the concern of society as a whole, not just part of it; at a more venal level, every working adult pays for it out of their taxes, not just some of them. Therefore, taking the position that only women are entitled to hold opinions or make decisions about the issue is wrong; it's also an attempt to skew any discussion on the topic in a certain direction, and should be resisted at every turn.

Posted by: Patrick Selden | 17 February 2019 at 08:14 AM

...

Re: Posted by: Ruth Gould | 20 February 2019 at 12:24 AM

Do you also think men, having no womb, have no right to organise university debates on how abortion affects men?

And do you think men/governments have no business getting involved in organising, and especially paying for, abortions?

Incidentally, do you also think (actual genetically female) women born without a womb (and/or perhaps ovaries) should also be banned from the abortion argument.

Incidentally, as women are not subject to conscription/the draft, wouldn't you agree that they should be banned from any discussions or votes, inside or outside parliament, that could involve, or lead to, any kind of military action?!

Posted by: Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth | 24 February 2019 at 10:57 AM

...

> ".......until men really do take an equal responsibility for bringing up children, they should basically shut up and facilitate the circumstances in which women can truly make these decisions themselves."

> Posted by: Ruth Gould | 20 February 2019 at 12:24 AM

Do you mean that in every two parent family women should be forced to work to bring in 50% of the income?

Or do you mean women (and the legal system) should be banned from denying fathers 50% of the contact time?!

By the way, where women insist on retaining their previous lifestyle and enjoying 50% of their (ex husbands) former wealth and future income:

Shouldn't the ex husband have an equal right to 50% of, erm, his former marital "expectations"?!

Sounds fair and equitable to me!

Posted by: Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth | 24 February 2019 at 03:18 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Own comment: 

There are many lies flying around regarding the killing of unborn children, and many lies were indeed told to make the case for its legalisation. One of these is the untold number of women who died while attempting to kill their children, numbers which are always exaggerated by those who want to make it legal and force everyone to pay for it.

I shall point out from the outset that these numbers mean nothing to me emotionally or logically: There is nothing fairer than someone dying in the attempt to kill an innocent being, so the argument that women dying while trying to kill their unborn never seemed particularly sensible as reason for making abortion legal. It would essentially be the same as saying that we want our mafia hitmen to do their killing with safer weapons, so that the don't end up dying from their murders - perhaps their gun back-firing or what not. I hope nobody would accept that and that argument generally works only for a society which has been immoralised into thinking that one innocent class of humans is more worthy of death than another (guilty one).

In any case, he makes a good case that the numbers were always false, and ridiculously so. One argument that is made is that men have no say in this debate since men do not get pregnant. A similar analogy might be that women ought not to have a say in punishing rapists since they cannot rape, but since women are involved more directly in rape than men are in the killing of unborn, that analogy fails somewhat. A better one is that women ought to have no say in whether to go to war or how to carry war out since wars are fought by men, a point I have long made. It is a point also made by one of the commenters, Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth :

Incidentally, as women are not subject to conscription/the draft, wouldn't you agree that they should be banned from any discussions or votes, inside or outside parliament, that could involve, or lead to, any kind of military action?!

Since the decadent suicidal West has decided to have women as soldiers in combat roles, and in future we might even see them drafted, one may argue that I might need a better apology. However, this is the same decadent suicidal West which now claims that men can be pregnant, so maybe not.