Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

1 in 5 Abortion Clinics Breaking the Law.

Announcements Posted on
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The Abortion Act was a joke from the outset and has never been properly adhered to by abortionists. I can't say this particularly surprises me. Abortions are, effectively, on demand in this country before the 24 week cut-off - completely contrary to the letter and spirit of the law. I was of the impression this was already well known.

    I disagree with abortion, so naturally this seems quite minor in comparison with the larger issue.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I love abortions.

    I really dont see the problem.

    If some one wants to do it, let them, they dont need cancelling bla bla bla.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    21st century Great Britain should follow Northern Ireland's lead (and the ROI) and get rid of pro-death laws. That would make us much more civilised.
    just one of many examples but any women who gets raped and gets pregnant via that should be forced to keep the result of said rape? savage.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Tightening abortion laws will only affect the poor and the uneducated.

    People with money and know how will simply travel to another country for an abortion and no doubt, abortion clinics will spring up in Europe and other places to fill the need.

    The original 1967 Abortion Act sponsored by David (now Lord) Steele cited a key factor was the laws outlawing abortion affected mainly poor women. Well off women could get an abortion from a qualified doctor or travel abroad but poor women had to make do with back street abortionists and many hospitals were filled with women suffering from botched abortions.

    Given the historical backdrop, I doubt if the govt even in its current stupidity would want to spend millions patching up the results of botched abortions.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    just one of many examples but any women who gets raped and gets pregnant via that should be forced to keep the result of said rape? savage.
    And killing the innocent unborn child produced by rape is not savage? It is at best a primitive form of retribution- "this child's dad is a rapist so I will kill it" no matter what psychobabble you use to attempt to justify it.

    You are the savage, along with the millions who have converted away from moral truth in the past 50 years. We are now in the decadent stage of the West and it will not last the next century in the ascendancy.

    As for me, I am proud to be in a minority who reject postmodernist immoral views on sex, marriage, gender, family, abortion, capital punishment, censorship and everything else.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    And killing the innocent unborn child produced by rape is not savage? It is at best a primitive form of retribution- "this child's dad is a rapist so I will kill it" no matter what psychobabble you use to attempt to justify it.

    You are the savage, along with the millions who have converted away from moral truth in the past 50 years. We are now in the decadent stage of the West and it will not last the next century in the ascendancy.

    As for me, I am proud to be in a minority who reject postmodernist immoral views on sex, marriage, gender, family, abortion, capital punishment, censorship and everything else.
    no its not, its the mothers body and thus the mothers prerogative how would you like it if you were raped, one of the most traumatic experiences someone can endure, and you were forced to live with the constant reminder of this?

    you cant kill what's not alive, it is nothing more than a bag of cells when they are aborted they have no consciousness ergo it is not 'killing' anything, this is why we have limits on when the FOETUS, not child, can be aborted.

    no from what you say you are part of the minority who are bible worshipping neanderthals who undoubedly think women should be seen not heard and never leave the house without her man present... the world is evolving we cannot stay routed in the past and unless you 'get with the times' you will find yourself being eclipsed by more and more people and further isolated in your medieval views.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    That child has a moral right to live. As do American capitalists- and even paedophiles (except perhaps murdering paedophiles.)
    Killing to save someone suffering is still wrong as the Creator did not give us permission to do so. Mother not ready? Baby can be adopted. Baby not slaughtered, mother not a killer facing punishment at the Judgment, adoptive mother has bundle of joy, and God will be pleased- good news all round.
    a religous nut, excellent
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    The Abortion Act was a joke from the outset and has never been properly adhered to by abortionists. I can't say this particularly surprises me. Abortions are, effectively, on demand in this country before the 24 week cut-off - completely contrary to the letter and spirit of the law. I was of the impression this was already well known.

    I disagree with abortion, so naturally this seems quite minor in comparison with the larger issue.
    Good.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Its obviously a last gasp of the religious when they try so hard to be relevant but chose a really bad target for their interference. I think it would good when people stop respecting those with religious views and see them as the people they really are, busy bodies who think they have to impress an invisible friend.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Tightening abortion laws will only affect the poor and the uneducated.

    People with money and know how will simply travel to another country for an abortion and no doubt, abortion clinics will spring up in Europe and other places to fill the need.
    You could say the same about child sex trafficking. I don't really think it's a credible argument against creating a law you believe to be morally right. There is always the possibility that there may be somewhere on earth people can go to in order to escape a national law - so be it, I say.

    In practical terms, you could in theory make it an offence for a Briton to travel from the United Kingdom to procure an abortion. Offences with widened jurisdictional boundaries are quite in fashion these days.

    Given the historical backdrop, I doubt if the govt even in its current stupidity would want to spend millions patching up the results of botched abortions.
    That, and the costs of imprisonment once they had recovered, of course. Neither is pleasant, but ultimately that should have a deterrent effect. I really don't believe that we are the same society as we were when abortion was entirely illegal - pregnancy does not mean ruin for some women today as it once did.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't get how some couple not being able to conceive is any fault of the pregnant woman wanting to adopt. That’s the couple’s problem and their inability to do so shouldn’t change how unwanted pregnancies are dealt with. Being forced to carry an unwanted child because someone else is unable to conceive seems a bit backward.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chloe xxx)

    Someone doesnt want their healthy baby, give it to me i love cute little things

    There are plenty of children in the foster system who would love a family. Get to it, practice what you preach.

    RE OP. Breaking the law isn't good, but abortion can never be too easy to access imo.
    • 63 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    1. you shouldn't need two doctors, one is more than capable of assessing if the woman can have the abortion or not, if that one doctor cannot make that assessment, why are we employing them to make it?

    2. the number of so called "selective" abortions is incredibly low and exaggerated by the Right Wing media, the fact is that purely by having tighter regulations and checks this can de dealt with more than adequately. (bare in mind that ANY system can and will be abused to some extent, it's about reducing it as much as we can)

    3. so far as im aware there are barely any people advocating infanticide as the OP misleading suggests by linking to a lone article with no wider support.

    4. most of the stories in the press and the comments here are imo nothing more than a pathetic attempt by people on the Right to undermine a woman's right to chose what she does with her own body.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    You could say the same about child sex trafficking. I don't really think it's a credible argument against creating a law you believe to be morally right. There is always the possibility that there may be somewhere on earth people can go to in order to escape a national law - so be it, I say.

    In practical terms, you could in theory make it an offence for a Briton to travel from the United Kingdom to procure an abortion. Offences with widened jurisdictional boundaries are quite in fashion these days.



    That, and the costs of imprisonment once they had recovered, of course. Neither is pleasant, but ultimately that should have a deterrent effect. I really don't believe that we are the same society as we were when abortion was entirely illegal - pregnancy does not mean ruin for some women today as it once did.
    Yes, laws like that do exist but would the govt want them and how would they be enforced?

    For example, how would the police know someone travelling out of the country was pregnant unless they make every woman of child bearing age take pregnancy tests when they leave the country and when they come back. Even if they were pregnant when they left and not when they came back, it does not prove they had an abortion, they might have had a miscarriage and it will be up to the police to prove otherwise.

    Given that there are around 200,000 abortions each year, the number of offences will overwhelm the police and judiciary.

    So no, not going to happen unless the tories want to stay out of power for another generation.

    If you don't believe an unwanted pregnancy is bad, have one and see what its like.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    For all you pro-life, anti-abortionists

    How many of you are also vegetarians?
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    no its not, its the mothers body and thus the mothers prerogative how would you like it if you were raped, one of the most traumatic experiences someone can endure, and you were forced to live with the constant reminder of this?

    you cant kill what's not alive, it is nothing more than a bag of cells when they are aborted they have no consciousness ergo it is not 'killing' anything, this is why we have limits on when the FOETUS, not child, can be aborted.

    no from what you say you are part of the minority who are bible worshipping neanderthals who undoubedly think women should be seen not heard and never leave the house without her man present... the world is evolving we cannot stay routed in the past and unless you 'get with the times' you will find yourself being eclipsed by more and more people and further isolated in your medieval views.
    I do not worship the Bible and it is highly offensive to hear anti-life people like you using the word WORSHIP, you probably don't even understand what worship is. Foetus is Latin for little child. That "feelings of the mother" argument is raised frequently in the abortion debate with respect to rape but feelings are no excuse to kill.

    The "sentience" view of when the cells become human is a secularistic one. For me as a Christian sentience has absolutely nothing to do with whether life is worth preserving although it makes the act worse.

    I will NOT agree with the mainstream consensus views of my time and culture for a quiet life. I will not be brainwashed. I am not a sheep and my beliefs will not therefore be decided by the majority of the people around me but will transcend sociocultural norms to hit the everlasting truth. I will remain faithful to God and His word. Therefore I am "countercultural" in a much truer sense than the 1960s radicals who took a God-respecting, moral, self-controlled and responsible culture in the West and broke its rules until they became the norm, just in the opposite direction.

    The mainstream 21st century positions- "yes abortion, no death penalty"; "orientations" on sex being "equal"; "sleeping around and being impure on your wedding-night is OK"; "porn and Grand Theft Auto are acceptable uses of free speech but let POLICE get involved when racist words are thrown round"; "cut parents out of important parts of children's lives and let their school subvert their morals"- do not and will never appeal to me. I am proud to be "backward-looking" as I only see further collapse and destruction of society in the forward direction. I prefer to be called traditionalist conservative though,..

    Maker- it is not whether PEOPLE respect religious views that matters. It is what GOD thinks that matters, you will not be using words like "imaginary" to describe Him at the Judgment. That will not be a PEOPLE judgment, it will be a ruling by He who created the very concept of "person".

    Nothing can ever convince me to the naturalistic godless worldview. I believe there is a place for science, reason, and logic (all these are used by Christians every day- along with sensible people in all faiths) but that FAITH is required for full knowledge of truth.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Foetus is Latin for little child.

    etymonline gives: fetus
    Late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg," from L. fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young," from Latin base *fe- "to generate, bear," also "to suck, suckle" (see fecund). In Latin, fetus sometimes was transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood" (cf. Horace's "Germania quos horrida parturit Fetus"), but this was not the basic meaning. Also used of plants, in the sense of "fruit, produce, shoot."

    If they used it for fruit as well I don't think it's much of an argument to make :rolleyes:

    The rest of your opinions are so dull I cba to argue you them. Abortions for everyone!
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Yes, laws like that do exist but would the govt want them and how would they be enforced?

    Given that there are around 200,000 abortions each year, the number of offences will overwhelm the police and judiciary.

    So no, not going to happen unless the tories want to stay out of power for another generation.

    If you don't believe an unwanted pregnancy is bad, have one and see what its like.
    If an ETJ abortion law came in juries would refuse to enforce and women would end up off the hook. (I am anti-ETJ anyway; no one should be punished because they are a Briton. It should be that people of all nationalities are punished because the CRIME happened in Britain. Except for diplomats and service personnel I would prefer states to have power over land, not individuals.)

    It's not a disease or malady to be pregnant so that's why abortions are not truly healthcare and why the original Geneva declaration does not allow them to be performed. Medicine is about healing rather than killing.

    Also why should the government allow the child to be killed in the womb just because of "wantedness" considerations? Humans are valuable and deserving of safeguarding. Unfortunately if they want to stay in power in European democracies. All one of the problems with demo-capitalism, although the best system of governance overall, it prevents morality from being enforced when the maj. of population or against it, I do not believe that states should start enforcing the Bible or anything like that. But certain parts of those moral truths, the ones about preserving human life, should be provided for by legislation.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blu tack)
    etymonline gives: fetus
    Late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg," from L. fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young," from Latin base *fe- "to generate, bear," also "to suck, suckle" (see fecund). In Latin, fetus sometimes was transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood" (cf. Horace's "Germania quos horrida parturit Fetus"), but this was not the basic meaning. Also used of plants, in the sense of "fruit, produce, shoot."

    If they used it for fruit as well I don't think it's much of an argument to make :rolleyes:

    The rest of your opinions are so dull I cba to argue you them. Abortions for everyone!
    In this case I am so obviously using it of an UNBORN CHILD, which is why I was making the point that the 2 terms fetus and uborn child/baby are purely synonymous. The word fetus is preferred by people who believe they have no moral rights and are legitimately killable. Baby/child reflects humanity and so is preferred by me and other pro lifers.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't really see anything wrong with abortions on the grounds of gender, or for any reason at all. If you rationalise that aborting a foetus is absolutely fine because it's not a child or a true human being, then who are you to dictate the circumstances under which women can abort those foetuses?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 1, 2012
New on TSR

What are your A-level predictions?

Join our AS and A2 results day chat thread

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.