The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/my-outfit-is-not-an-invitation-for-comment-or-for-assault-women-are-never-asking-for-it-430279.html What a bizarre article. It really does look like she is just slipping out of it.
_Jamie_ wrote: » Who thinks that it is? The 'woman's body' bit means it's a woman's body and she can choose whether or not that body can be used to support a growing fetus.
me_right_one wrote: » The people who say "my body, my choice" do.
_Jamie_ wrote: » I say that, I don't. I am one of those people. I know what I mean when I say it. Also, move the foetus to an incubator? :eek: You can only do that very close to a the birth time. Even at six months, which has been survivable, no doctor would by choose remove the foetus. The longer in the womb, the better.
me_right_one wrote: » I agree. But you cant have it both ways. I know a woman who was born at 21 weeks, not a bother on her now. You cant say "my body, my choice", and then say that the notion of helping the baby to survive in an incubator is silly. Why does the outcome always have to be "kill the baby"?
_Jamie_ wrote: » I think most people would agree that once the foetus can survive, it's too late. The foetus can survive, it's just the foetus will have a better chance to survive within the womb. It's an not a clear cut situation. There are caveats with any situation. But most people would just advocate early stage abortions and at that stage, the choice refers to the choice to abort if the woman doesn't want to continue with the pregnancy. At that stage, it's not known if the foetus will be brought to term anyway. But if a woman is seven months pregnant, you can be pretty sure there will be a birth.
_Jamie_ wrote: » the choice refers to the choice to abort if the woman doesn't want to continue with the pregnancy.
_Jamie_ wrote: » So? :eek: I mean, she's a right eejit but what she wears should not warrant comment. And from a female point of view, that is a bogstandard, currently-fashionable top that wouldn't even justify a second glance from me.
Going Forward wrote: » That's a nice top, shouldn't attract any attention whether it's worn by a man or a wonan. In the Examiner she bemoans the fact that she's had a lifetime of being told to cover up. And has been variously groped and told to cover up. Seems she wants to be able to go around in her nude just to be offended by the reaction, whatever it is. Naive. Last night on Ray Darcy, the Tinder thing, if the sexes had been reversed there would have been uproar. Offended ladies everywhere.
_Jamie_ wrote: » The 'woman's body' bit means it's a woman's body and she can choose whether or not that body can be used to support a growing fetus.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Every bloody day this same point has to be made to the pro-choice. It's like talking to a fcuking wall.
midlandsmissus wrote: » My stance on abortion has changed throughout my life, it is a controversial topic. When I was young as I was anti abortion, partly to not having much life experience, my own opinions, and anti abortion videos shown at school. The older I've gotten, the more I see abortion as humane. When you see a few young mothers with babies in circumstances where that baby is never going to to have a good life with enough love, care, support and materialistic goods, and the mother is no way able to care for the child, I see abortion as the humane option all round.
midlandsmissus wrote: » We are the in the tiny minority of countries in Europe that don't allow abortion. I think those other countries have figured out that we are humans, not pets.
midlandsmissus wrote: » I saw all the vile abuse spewed towards Louise O Neill on here,( can she sue by the way, there are precedents of people in the media suing due to derogatory comments on forums) and I went to read her articles and they're completely harmless. Its just a woman having an opinion. Some of you guys should be ashamed if this is bow you react to a woman having an opinion.
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » Louise is back on social media this morning after her detox. Welcome back.
I saw all the vile abuse spewed towards Louise O Neill on here,( can she sue by the way, there are precedents of people in the media suing due to derogatory comments on forums) and I went to read her articles and they're completely harmless. Its just a woman having an opinion. Some of you guys should be ashamed if this is bow you react to a woman having an opinion.
Nicolas Cage wrote: » Mod: I don't know why some of you have been going on about abortion for days, but this is clearly not what the thread is about.
Mortpourvelo wrote: » You know, instead of whining about perceived grievances and inequality, I really wish the likes of Mulally and O'Brien would cop the f**k on about ACTUAL inequality. Eamon Lillis - staves in the wife's head with a brick, gets 6 years and inherits from same wife Brian Hennessy - raped woman, left her and two children to die in a fire on Christmas Day - seven years in jail and due out soon. Meanwhile Catherine Nevin has done (so far) 16 years and will likely die in jail The Mulhall sisters - still in jail after what ? 10 years ? For helping dispose of the body of a rapist ???Plus both - and others - given stupid nicknames by the papers to further demonise them. Yeah murder deserves a stretch of AT LEAST 15-20 years. But to give someone 6 and they can inherit whilst someone who didn't even carry out the killing gets 15 ? Something else other than justice is going on here. So, whilst you "feminists" are bleating on about the right to dress like a slapper, give someone a lapdance in public and THEN act like the victim - actual injustices are being carried out on women.
