Chomper Higgot

I agree, it’s an extreme view, or at the very least grossly myopic.

Yes it was, and not just because you yourself often require others to state ‘the obvious’. However, there are a couple of far more serious points to be made. Firstly, if abortion is outlawed then women who miscarry are at risk of being prosecuted on the basis of mere suspicion. This Inevitably gives rise to an increased likelihood of women who do miscarry failing to seek the medical attention they need. Secondly, there are multiple ‘non viable’ pregnancies for which abortion is the only means of avoiding death or serious injury to the pregnant woman. Not stating the obvious negates consideration of these very real risks.

That’s not entirely correct. There are very many pregnancies that excluding abortion do not result in a living human being. https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/miscarriage-rates-by-week#causes

I think it’s quite clear women having rights enrages some men’s feelings.

So what’s the alternative of a court ordering a man to pay for the children he’s fathered? Someone else paying.

So it’s the court order that causes all the harm?! No court order, no harm?!

So if men don’t father children, they don’t work?!

It matters when the immigration issue that was used to drive voting isn’t resolved.

A characteristic Johnson found appealing when selecting his front bench.

Correct, transparently recorded and accounted for. I’m more interested in who’s handing cash to elected officials and what it is they receive in return.

Not all Transam, I’m simply noting you have to depart from reality in order to avoid facing the mess Boris is making. I do understand why you have no real defense.

It’s a matter very many people regard as deeply offensive, especially those who lost family members to COVID and were not permitted to attend hospitals or even funerals to say their goodbyes. Refer outcome of bi-elections.

Except immigration from European nations wasn’t the immigration that ‘Leave’ campaigned on. If you take time to look you’ll find a few Leave Campaign Poster images and wide spread discussion on their messaging to remind you of what immigration Leave campaigned on.

Perhaps you can get back to the reality of who is actually PM and the mess he’s making of the job.

What’s this nonsense about what a woman decides to do with a man’s body? Oh, it’s more of your ‘man pity’. If you are going to engage in the philosophical, I suggest you get to grips with the concept of ‘false equivalence.

That he has not gone is not evidence he isn’t going.

The problem with delusion is it knows no bounds.

Actually there is. The PM may call an election whenever he chooses. Calling an early election might be an option to bring rebel Tory MPs into line. It might also be a tactical choice given the consensus amongst economic analysts that inflation and other economic woes are only going to get worse. An early election might be a better option for Johnson if he believes he’ll maintain power, albeit with a reduced majority versus losing power if he runs to full term. Johnson will decide on the basis of what’s best for Johnson, he has no other consideration.

Added to which the UK has stagnant growth. It’s not just worker’s wages that are falling behind inflation but the whole economy. Inward investment is down, internal investment is down, skills and worker shortages across all sectors. Its a mess, and it’s not getting any better.

And then what happened?

Somebody writes what’s presented to you on your ‘daily scan’.

You don’t seem to understand tactical voting.

Perhaps you’d prefer something from the ‘political rightwing’ of British newspapers: https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1631182/boris-johnson-no-confidence-vote-conservative-party-prime-minister-tory-rebels-vn

You mean people not happy with the PM, his Government and the mess they are making of the UK. Yes I agree, voting them out is an excellent means of protest.

Again this is not a sensible argument wrt to giving a man a say in a woman’s choice to have an abortion. You also seem not to understand what ‘bodily autonomy’ means. Giving a man any say what so ever over the choices a woman makes with her own body strips her of ‘bodily autonomy’. Arguing for men to be allowed to do so reveals the glaring subtext of this SCOTUS ruling, controlling women’s bodies. It is not possible to dictate to women what they can and cannot do with there own bodies without stripping them of the freedom men take for granted, they immediately become ‘controlled’, no longer fully in possession of their own bodies.