Obviously, the Tory party are the one party holding back positive social reforms how ever, similar to the Republican party in the USA.
Nadine Dorries abortion proposals
- Thread starter hurfdurf
- Start date
Obviously, the Tory party are the one party holding back positive social reforms how ever, similar to the Republican party in the USA.
I wasn't attempting a character assassination, its just very rare you come across someone with such, what some would describe as, insane views. I was genuinely curious as to what kind of person you were to be able hold such views.
Why would you invoke the bible when it has been shown to be oh so flawed time and time again, full of contradictions and bizarre rules?
You claim we should show respect for life, but the very same book claims that one should be killed for working on a Sunday! (Exodus 31:12-15)
The fact you would even try and introduce such a flawed source as a form of moral guidance let alone base any kind of practical scientific decision on it rules out your whole opinion on both this subject and means anything you ever say should be immediately considered questionable at best.
^ this. To many people consider it as safety net and are to stupid to use a contraceptive in the first place. It's an all to easy, responsibility free solution. However I guess that's the society we live in.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Maybe it is all too easy and it's a responsibility free solution but then again when I think that the alternative is to have the child either brought up by someone who apparently treats abortion as the above or put into care/have someone else look after the child then I start to think it's probably the least damaging alternative. It may not be ideal by any stretch but we're making the best of a bad situation.
Everyone knows that the care system in this country is a lottery, hell most things are a lottery.
Should we really subject a child to a possibly more gruesome death when they are older?
It would be fine and dandy if the child got lucky enough to be adopted, but considering the areas these people who don't give a damn to use contraceptives in the first place are in, its simply not worth the lottery that the child wont get murdered by some sick **** in one of these adoptive agencies.
Of course people usually forget about the state of the care system in politics, there's a good reason why.
Should we really subject a child to a possibly more gruesome death when they are older?
It would be fine and dandy if the child got lucky enough to be adopted, but considering the areas these people who don't give a damn to use contraceptives in the first place are in, its simply not worth the lottery that the child wont get murdered by some sick **** in one of these adoptive agencies.
Of course people usually forget about the state of the care system in politics, there's a good reason why.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
lol. This thread was all serious until Kedge the comedian started posting. Good Job!
I think its unfair to say the entire alternative is all bad, sure I know (family members infact) who have taken kids in under care and its ended a complete mess but I also know a few friends that have adopted and its completely fine, excellent in fact. there are hundreds of couples who can't conceive who are desperate for a family.
My point was that by making abortion so readily available and easy we have produced a mindset of individuals who consider it a last line of defence. It's cause and effect, remove that safety net (i'm playing devils advocate, you can't remove it know, but it needs to be a much harder option) then would this reintroduce / instill a more precautionary mindset?.
I would like to think yes but my mind says probably not. We would end up with a load of unwanted kids and another batch of Jeremy Kyle watching slobs.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
You're right, that was careless of me not to define that I didn't think all care is bad. I'm aware that it isn't and in some cases will be better than the alternative, in an ideal world though I'd think it should probably be a last resort but if abortion becomes more difficult than it is now then I suspect you're right and it would become more utilised which I don't think is what we should be aiming for.
There is an issue that even if the care given is great that in some cases it is probably still somewhat emotionally damaging for the child to know their parents gave them up for adoption/had them taken away as they were judged unfit to care for them. Again that won't apply in all circumstances and doubtless there are significant numbers who have gone through care and ended up perfectly well adjusted but it's another issue to consider at the least.
You do spout some drivel. Are you suggesting a fetus climbs into an open womb and squats there untill its evicted?
You're approaching this in your usual "I'm right" blinkered fashion. You place full blame on an unwanted pregnancy on the fetus when in reality it (if it is an it) is in fact a complete victim regardless of how it was produced. It had no say in its production and no say in its demise.
Show some respect to a chap who has already stated they have lost children through miscarriage and is likely appalled (as anyone should be) at the thought of 600 abortions a day.
Speaking as someone who has helped people through miscarriages myself, including one of a close family member, abortion is a very unpleasant topic for all involved and produces all sorts of opinions.
I said before hand we were going with the ridiculous notion that if life begins at conception, what right does said life have to live in someone? Divine? Property law? Child protection laws?
I am dealing with someone who thinks that a woman should lose all domain over her own body should she be raped and suffer the further unpleasantness of becoming pregnant. The idea that she would then have to look after her unwanted and unasked for child that has been forced upon her through no fault of her own is disturbing at the least, if the topic is so sensitive for someone that they dare not discuss it lest it bring up unpleasantness from their past then it is up to them to avoid entering the debate, the onus is not on me to shelter them from the discussion they enter.
If I am approaching this in the "I'm right" blinkered fashion, why is it I am asking questions rather than answering them myself?
Abortion and miscarriages are horrific subject and ordeals, but part of the problem with such sensitive topics is that discussions of them can be shut down very easily with cried of "have some respect" or "please respect my opinions on the sanctity of life that has no basis in fact"
Your idea that removing the safety net would make people think more carefully is as absurd as the notion that drug dealers wouldn't deal drugs if they knew the punishment could be a death sentence, as if drug dealers and other extreme criminals don't live with the idea of harsh punishment and death every day as it is.
What are you suggesting, someone gets to decide whether or not an abortion is justifiable? One person is raped, they get to have one, another has their condom broken, they get to have one but are given a stern telling off and told to be more careful in future, and then one poor girl stupidly took the risk of unprotected sex and got unlucky, welp, she is now forced to have a baby, she doesn't deserve an abortion!
Abortion is fantastic for society, just based on the massive fall in the crime rates that have occurred because of it, never mind the issues of over population and unfit parents and a care system for unwanted children that is both expensive and impossible to run well on any kind of realistic budget.
I don't get this post?
Abortion for some people is not horrific in the slightest, and no big deal, for others, its extremely traumatising experience.
Maybe, consider teenage pregnancy rates in Ireland where its banned against the UK and it shows a significant difference. Something must be at play there especially considering the Ireland stats are pretty constant.
England
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8531227.stm
v
Ireland
http://www.crisispregnancy.ie/pub/statistical_report2006.pdf
Heaven forbid that we have to take responsibility for our actions, there's no excuse in a country where contraception is both readily available and free. Its simply not right that we undertake 200,000 abortions a year. Sure you can repeatedly bang the rape drum or other deciding factors and that's fair enough but those rape numbers that result in a pregnancy are likely statistically insignificant. Its unwanted, irresponsible pregnancies that make the figures so alarming. And imho (perhaps as the stats show) its due to the ease of access to abortion and the attitude people have of it that contribute to that problem.
My point relates to the figures, not the act of.
Last edited:
Do you honestly think the difference between UK and Irish pregnancy rates are to do with the availability of abortion? You don't think Ireland's Catholic culture has anything to do with it?
I suppose it's all the girl's fault and nothing to do with equally irresponsible males?
I agree that with few exceptions, it shouldn't happen in this day and age but it does!
Perhaps if males were actually made to face up to their procreational responsibilities and FULLY support their offspring instead of dropping most of the bill on the taxpayer, maybe there would be quite a drop in abortions and unplanned pregnancies!