Ɛmily Law

RT/QT/links/follow =/= agreement/support. Nothing below should be considered my professional opinion.

[Ɛmily Law @eal89]

@Parody_RCGP I actually had this problem with a very paranoid patient the other day, a new resident in the care home I cover. He wanted me to show ID, I had nothing to show him, merely the word of the care staff and other residents that I am indeed their doctor. It did not go well.

[Prof. Gary Francione @garylfrancione]

@HelenWebberley Helen, that is *no* different from saying a small dog is a dog, a large dog is a dog, a hot dog is a dog.

[Zoe Burton @drzoeburton]

I'm raising £10k for @CureLeukaemia
A cause close to my 💖
Especially since my neice Clemmie was diagnosed this summer.
I’m cycling 1200km- the whole #TourdeFemmes #theroute next August 🚴‍♀️🚵‍♀️
Every penny counts and donations go to the charity every week x
https://t.co/pU9Q2aABRM

[Gus Tawse @gus_tawse]

Tesco just arrived with the Christmas delivery. The driver handed me a bag and said ‘There’s a couple of substitutions, here’s your sprig of rosemary and haddock’

I said to him ‘This isn’t the thyme or the plaice’.

[Ɛmily Law @eal89]

@Dr_Done_ I’m aware I’m not the most naturally talented driver in the world, but it would worry me to think people did a one day course to be a paramedic and only a little bit of that is driving on blue lights.
I reckon I’d need at least a week just driving to do the blue lights.

[Ɛmily Law @eal89]

So @RoyalMail don’t let you buy the postage for their own Santa address online 🙈😂
Going to have to go out for a real stamp!
🎄🎅🎄🎅🎄🎅🎄

[Katharine Birbalsingh @Miss_Snuffy]

Charlie Kirk held traditional views. I didn’t agree with all of them. I’m pro-choice, pro-gun laws, not a Christian, and I don’t support everything in the Bible.

But my goodness, did I respect Charlie! You don’t have to agree with someone on everything to admire them.

What an extraordinary man — always on the road, putting himself in danger, trying to undo the damage done by American schools and universities.

He was always respectful. On the rare occasions he wasn’t, he’d catch himself and rephrase.

He gave advice to young people who had lost their way.

Charlie was one of the few who truly understood how desperately we need to change our EDUCATION CULTURE, both in schools and universities.

Most people don’t see what Charlie saw: educational institutions are the heart of society. They shape the future.

The Western world has lost a serious general in the fight for our survival.

Charlie was the best of us.

May he rest in peace.

Fathers and their children. ❤️👇

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

When this madness ends, which it will, one of the ugliest things to look back on will be how women weren't even allowed to the dignity of owning their sex-specific trauma. The misogyny is simply breathtaking.

[Ɛmily Law @eal89]

@thattradgal I’m doing RCIA at the mo. I didn’t really know about St Therese of Lisieux but there was something on the Hallow app and I prayed along. The next morning the first spring roses had bloomed in my garden. It was only later I learnt about the connection with roses. Amazing.

[Kathleen Stock @Docstockk]

Longish summary of responses to points offered on my timeline for full decriminalisation of abortion, even up to birth, using at-home abortion pills for non-medical reasons (which has just been voted for, absolutely crazily imo, by UK MPs)

a) You may not be able to know or say at what precise point some grains make a heap but you still know unambiguously when you can see a heap. Same goes for cells, and for baby. Late-term abortions kill babies. Viable babies. This position does not require there to have been a baby/human/person there all along. Pushing back on full decriminalisation is not arguing for no abortions ever. (Which obviously could be done, but I'm not doing it).

b) Babies at late term have unambiguous interests of their own. They are not just narcissistic extensions of mother. They are not parasites or invaders. They are human beings. They are dependent human beings and is weird to see feminists who talk about value of care and dependence become psychopathically detached about the value of the life of a dependent, viable baby because the mother doesn't want it. It sounds dementedly callous to try to deny the interests of babies in this sort of issue by defining them out of existence, or just ignoring the fact they do exist at all. If you said "yes, babies have been/ will be killed by use of at-home abortion pills for non-medical reasons, but that is less important than that their mothers don't face the stress of prosecution" I would at least respect the honesty.

c) The law against late-term abortions acts as a deterrent against mothers killing their babies. If you lift it, you will get more deaths. You say it’s only a few - is that really supposed to be an argument? And; If I am not supposed to care about “only a few” baby deaths, why am I supposed to care about only a few prosecutions?

Again, if you are reasoning like this, and especially if you are weighing it up only against the mother's alleged right to non-prosecution, then you have your priorities badly skewed, and have conveniently forgotten that deaths of babies are also involved. And while we are at it: how do you know it will only be a few baby deaths in years to come? Do you know what happens when new social norms get embedded around new technology, and other ones – say, around contraception – shift? The use of at-home abortion pills is relatively new, who knows where it will be in ten years time?

d) If you have to excuse the death of a baby by hyperbolically depicting the only sort of women who would ever have a late-term non-medical abortion as "desperate" and otherwise blameless, it's a tell for motivated reasoning. There are many kinds of women in the world, who act for many different kinds of reason. Do you think all infanticides or child murders are only carried out by "desperate" and otherwise blameless women? (If you do, probably stop reading, there is no hope for you.) There are also, of course, men in the world who can get their hands on abortion pills and force women to take them. Your backing of decriminalisation is making that more easy too.

e) It is fascinating that some of you think both of these things are true at the same time: a) “women should never be prosecuted for carrying out their own late-term abortions, even for non-medical reasons ’ and b) “people providing assistance for late-term abortions for non-medical abortions should still be prosecuted” (as they will continue to be). So you *do* think there is something wrong with these abortions then, do you? What? Could it be that *a baby dies*?

f) The idea that it is really important we repeal this law because of the possibility of false prosecution of women is bizarre (and again, the histrionic depiction focusing on "women who have suffered miscarriages being dragged away from their children in police vans in the middle of the night" etc is a tell, like you have to amp up the drama to make the point. Also, how interesting: suddenly it's ok to care about the interests of young dependent children again, is it? But I digress…) Anyway, let's apply this logic to rape law. We must repeal rape laws because falsely accused men are being dragged away from their children in the night.. um, no? The law has a point, it has a deterrent function, and that point is more important than the inevitable possibility of false prosecution given the existence of any law in the first place.

f) Those telling me that academics and NGOs have done all the thinking on this already and I should just outsource my brain to them are really having a laugh. I've looked at their arguments and do you know, it's really weird, but they don't talk about the baby's interests, even in late-term abortion for non-medical reasons. They just act like that issue isn't there. And it is.

g) The UK is not the US. With best will in the world, Americans reading their own issues into the UK situation is unhelpful.

There is no good case for full decriminalisation as voted for today. And there is no genuine political will for it either, because most people haven’t been slowly boiled in a vat of hyperliberal feminism and progressive technocracy like overheating frogs, until they can't tell which way is up. All this will do is further undermine the legitimacy of feminism generally (by association, even if some feminists are actually against it) and also undermine public trust in lawmakers (How could this have been decided so quickly without any proper consultation or discussion of a wide range of views? Why wasn’t it in the manifesto, if it is so important?).

[Ɛmily Law @eal89]

@DrGoblin3 Offer to take them out for a pint. Don’t leave it to them to contact you, suggest dates until you find an agreeable one. Send a reminder of when you’re picking them up earlier in the day.

[CoffeeWithTheClassics @CoffeewClassics]

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”

~G.K. Chesterton
23/

[Pope Leo XIV @Pontifex]

The more we let ourselves be convinced and transformed by the Gospel — allowing the power of the Spirit to purify our heart, to make our words straightforward, our desires honest and clear, and our actions generous — the more capable we are of proclaiming its message.

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

The only people who consider it 'anti-feminist' to point out that a woman is a woman by virtue of her biology are those who think female-specific anatomy or bodily functions are inferior in some way, that bearing young is a lowly, worthless occupation, or that misogynist social stereotypes are a worthier measure of who's a real woman.

Possessing the equipment for egg production should neither tie you to any particular destiny, nor diminish the human being who has it; the female reproductive system is neither shameful nor lesser, but it's certainly treated that way in too many parts of the world. Indeed, it's treated that way by plenty of misogynists in supposedly liberal democracies, which might partially explain why so many young women have come to believe that, if they want to be accorded full personhood rather than becoming a pornified sex object, they'll only be able to do it by erasing all physical signs of femaleness. The problem is not their anatomy, it's the society, or indeed the family, that made them feel that way.

Pretending sex differences don't matter does nothing to advance the lot of women and girls. Promoting the idea that men can become women by performing their idea of what a woman is - which, funnily enough, often turns out to be a pornified sex object - does not liberate women and girls. The attempt to redefine the word 'woman' by dismissing female biology benefits only the men who've been eagerly helping themselves to women's protected spaces, sport, opportunities and honours - or, in the Fox Batterer's case, who've jumped eagerly onto the movement's coattails because they're spotlight addicts and believe they'll go down in history as Genderism's Gandhi.

[Ɛmily Law @eal89]

@FondOfBeetles 1-4 men and 5-7 women I’d say.
I’m female.

[Pope Francis – ARCHIVE @Pontifex266Arch]

I would like us to renew our hope that #peace is possible! From the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of the Resurrection, where this year #Easter is being celebrated by Catholics and Orthodox on the same day, may the light of peace radiate throughout the Holy Land and the entire world.

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

All these years, and I had no idea I was the cure 🙏

[Heather Ryan @DrHFRyan]

Saw this and found it interesting. Deep in the article is buried the fact that the NNT is 500 😂 I dread to think what impact this would have on NHS GP if introduced - imagine having to deal with all the borderline results!

https://t.co/BRXYuiaJ3P

[Ɛmily Law @eal89]

@anna_dearman

[Pope Francis – ARCHIVE @Pontifex266Arch]

Our bodies are weak but, even like this, nothing can prevent us from loving, praying, giving ourselves, being for each other, in faith, shining signs of hope.