Feminism has gone too far now Watch

Copperknickers
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Utterly disgusting: a ruling by the court of appeal has set one of the most appalling precedents I have ever seen. It's irresponsible, sadistic, and diabolically, maliciously stupid. This country has actually managed to make Sharia law look rather tame compared with the extremes of liberalism, and all in accordance with the doctrine of pro-choice Feminism. Here it is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30327893

It has been decided that a woman has absolutely NO obligation to her child while it is inside her body, and she can drink and take drugs with total freedom while pregnant without fear of any criminal repercussion, even when that leads to the child being forced by the selfishness of the mother to live a life of misery with severe development problems. A girl has been cripplingly disabled by her mother, and the mother gets off Scot free. If you were to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach you'd be liable for jail time, but if she did it too herself it would be totally OK.

I don't care what your opinion on abortion is, or contraception, or even Feminism: anyone who seriously argues that a woman has total freedom over her own body, even in the certain knowledge that her body contains another body that will soon be a human being, is a vicious monster who has no place in a civilised society. Ignoring all of the ethical issues, from a civil perspective, we can't seriously expect to have a functioning society when we are allowing thousands of our children to be irreversibly crippled for life without any sort of deterrent. Whether or not you believe a foetus is a human, to poison one by drinking whole bottles of vodka every week while pregnant is to create a child with severe problems as surely as battering a baby over the head with a brick. I'd like to see anyone defend this in the name of 'pro-choice'.
14
reply
Somali Kamikaze
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
(Original post by Copperknickers)
Utterly disgusting: a ruling by the court of appeal has set one of the most appalling precedents I have ever seen. It's irresponsible, sadistic, and diabolically, maliciously stupid. This country has actually managed to make Sharia law look rather tame compared with the extremes of liberalism, all in the name of Feminism. Here it is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30327893

It has been decided that a woman has absolutely NO obligation to her child while it is inside her body, and she can drink and take drugs with total freedom while pregnant without fear of any criminal repercussion, even when that leads to the child being forced by the selfishness of the mother to live a life of misery with severe development problems. A girl has been cripplingly disabled by her mother, and the mother gets off Scot free. If you were to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach you'd be liable for jail time, but if she did it too herself it would be totally OK.

I don't care what your opinion on abortion is, or contraception, or even Feminism: anyone who seriously argues that a woman has total freedom over her own body, even in the certain knowledge that her body contains another body that will soon be a human being, is a vicious monster who has no place in a civilised society. Ignoring all of the ethical issues, from a civil perspective, we can't seriously expect to have a functioning society when we are allowing thousands of our children to be irreversibly crippled for life without any sort of deterrent. Whether or not you believe a foetus is a human, to poison one by drinking whole bottles of vodka every week while pregnant is to create a child with severe problems as surely as battering a baby over the head with a brick. I'd like to see anyone defend this in the name of 'pro-choice'.
I WAS going to defend this but .... I've got nothing :boxing:
2
reply
Smash Bandicoot
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
edit: wasn't funny, just realised what I said about my mum
0
reply
Blazar
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
I don't know what on earth makes you think this is to do with feminism, which is the promotion of gender equality. This issue is to do with bodily autonomy. I personally think that the mother should have been prosecuted, not for injuring the foetus per se (as a foetus in its early stages isn't a human being any more than a skin cell is a human being), but for allowing the injured foetus to develop and giving birth to a severely affected child.
10
reply
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
This title reminded me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KseqzmcqQBQ
0
reply
Copperknickers
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Blazar)
I don't know what on earth makes you think this is to do with feminism, which is the promotion of gender equality. This issue is to do with bodily autonomy. I personally think that the mother should have been prosecuted, not for injuring the foetus per se (as a foetus in its early stages isn't a human being any more than a skin cell is a human being), but for allowing the injured foetus to develop and giving birth to a severely affected child.
It's clearly a product of the pro-choice movement, the movement which claims that women should be treated exactly the same as men. This ignores the small problem that men and women are not the same, because men don't grow people inside them, so allowing a man freedom over his own body is not the same as allowing a woman freedom over her own body.

And depending on the period of pregnancy, a foetus can a highly developed animal, about the level of a lizard or a bird, and it is going to become a human, so it's a lot more than a 'skin cell'.
2
reply
Mimsycrafts
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
Not really about feminism is it though? She didn't argue that it was her right as a woman to grossly abuse her unborn child in this manner did she? I think you are getting confused about what feminists want which is equality not special treatment. Don't insult the poor child at the centre of this by trying to claim their pain for your own agenda

The 'mother' (and I am loathe to use the term because she clearly has no maternal instincts) should be doing some serious jail time
3
reply
Smash Bandicoot
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Mimsycrafts)
Not really about feminism is it though? She didn't argue that it was her right as a woman to grossly abuse her unborn child in this manner did she? I think you are getting confused about what feminists want which is equality not special treatment. Don't insult the poor child at the centre of this by trying to claim their pain for your own agenda

The 'mother' (and I am loathe to use the term because she clearly has no maternal instincts) should be doing some serious jail time
er, I think she did, hence the appeal, hence verdict pro-mother-which is about feminism, because it shows the government are afraid to make repercussions which will make them look like misogynists (i.e. berate an irresponsible mother for her behaviour which will be construed by the radfems as patriarchal oppression into the 'angel in the house' pedestal role).

She 'should be', but she isn't. Why is that?

If feminism truly wants gender equality, it will now support the child, not the mother. Actively. On the news.
0
reply
lucaf
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
While I agree this woman should ne seeing some serious jail time, wasnt the decision because they didn't want to set a precedent that could result in women getting sued who didn't know they were pregnant or who suffered side effects from medication?
0
reply
Mimsycrafts
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Smash Bandicoot)
er, I think she did, hence the appeal, hence verdict pro-mother-which is about feminism, because it shows the government are afraid to make repercussions which will make them look like misogynists (i.e. berate an irresponsible mother for her behaviour which will be construed by the radfems as patriarchal oppression into the 'angel in the house' pedestal role).

She 'should be', but she isn't. Why is that?

If feminism truly wants gender equality, it will now support the child, not the mother. Actively. On the news.
Have you read the article. It is local government that is berating this woman and taking her to court. No one is portraying this woman as a fallen angel. As the Law currently stands they cant prosecute its the law that is wrong. If you don't agree with that start the revolution and get the law changed and to an extent you will find support as long as it isn't a woman bashing proposal. Laws are absolute and there for a reason and until you get a numbskull who behaves like this woman you cant find and close all the loopholes. But this is a loophole that must be closed.

My belief: It is a womans choice to choose whether to continue a pregnancy BUT at the point you make that active decision to continue with a pregnancy you are forgoing you right to drink, drugs and reckless behavior and failure to behave accordingly will result in jail and the like. You propose a law that puts that in motion and I will be behind you ten thousand per cent.

Maybe mothers to be should sign something at a point that says they now believe their unborn child to be a child and not a foetus.
0
reply
BitWindy
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Blazar)
(as a foetus in its early stages isn't a human being any more than a skin cell is a human being)
So when does it become human?
0
reply
Mimsycrafts
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by BitWindy)
So when does it become human?
I think peoples personal beliefs vary on that one but from the sounds of it the law dictates the foetus becomes a human being at the point of birth but Im no law expert so please if anyone knows different please correct me
0
reply
BitWindy
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
I think a big obstacle is the practicality and consequence of possible punishments.

Would things really be better for the child if its mother was fined or imprisoned? That has the potential to make the child's situation even worse, which I think many of us would agree to be counterproductive.

Perhaps it would be better to remove the child from her ownership and then do these things, but that raises further questions regarding the child's future in the fostering/adoption system.
0
reply
Smash Bandicoot
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Mimsycrafts)
Have you read the article. It is local government that is berating this woman and taking her to court. No one is portraying this woman as a fallen angel. As the Law currently stands they cant prosecute its the law that is wrong. If you don't agree with that start the revolution and get the law changed and to an extent you will find support as long as it isn't a woman bashing proposal. Laws are absolute and there for a reason and until you get a numbskull who behaves like this woman you cant find and close all the loopholes. But this is a loophole that must be closed.

My belief: It is a womans choice to choose whether to continue a pregnancy BUT at the point you make that active decision to continue with a pregnancy you are forgoing you right to drink, drugs and reckless behavior and failure to behave accordingly will result in jail and the like. You propose a law that puts that in motion and I will be behind you ten thousand per cent.

Maybe mothers to be should sign something at a point that says they now believe their unborn child to be a child and not a foetus.
Yes!
0
reply
alexschmalex
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
Yeah this isn't exactly a feminist issue (for once) but it just shows how messed up society is becoming as a whole. The real problem is that we live in a system of zero accountability for our actions and the effects that they have on others and too many people think it's ok. People feel that they are above reproach and that they don't need to take responsibility. This case though pisses me off especially, to do that to your own child is and should be recognized as extreme child abuse
0
reply
BitWindy
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Mimsycrafts)
I think peoples personal beliefs vary on that one
That's no reason to avoid backing up an assertion.

(Original post by Mimsycrafts)
but from the sounds of it the law dictates the foetus becomes a human being at the point of birth but Im no law expert so please if anyone knows different please correct me
Not sure, but abortion is legal up to 24 weeks without other complications.
0
reply
Radicalathiest
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
'BBC News legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the case was significant because it centred on whether or not a foetus was considered a person, independent of its mother.'

this is the nub of the issue

the right decision has been made.
0
reply
Mimsycrafts
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by BitWindy)
That's no reason to avoid backing up an assertion.




Not sure, but abortion is legal up to 24 weeks without other complications.
Well ive already put my beliefs in a previous post but I believe a foetus becomes a human being when its mother chooses to continue with the pregnancy.
0
reply
BitWindy
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by Mimsycrafts)
I believe a foetus becomes a human being when its mother chooses to continue with the pregnancy.
On what grounds?
0
reply
Mimsycrafts
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by BitWindy)
On what grounds?
On the grounds that it is a womans absolute right to choose what they do with their body if they choose to carry a baby full term they are choosing to take on the responsibility of giving that child the best chance in life. ie not drinking and causing illness.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (535)
37.81%
No - but I will (111)
7.84%
No - I don't want to (96)
6.78%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (673)
47.56%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise