Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

1 in 5 Abortion Clinics Breaking the Law.

Announcements Posted on
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think people are forgetting there are girls out there who are practically forced into abortion by family/boyfriends. What happens to them if the doctor authorising the abortion asks no questions. I know of a girl who had planned her baby with her long term partner. Both very happy about the pregnancy. Until his controlling mother got involved brainwashed him and terrified her. She was marched up the clinic and was too scared to say anything at the time. Maybe if she'd been spoken to more she'd have cracked and revealed the reason she was there.

    She's been traumatised by the situation since.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If you deny people who really want an abortion they will find other means, even if it means cruelty like starving themselves and drinking- anything for a misscarrage.

    Personally i dont agree with abortions, but in some situation it cant be help. i would say anything near a featus shouldnt be aborted.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Don't really see what all the fuss is about. Abortion should obviously be available on demand, Lansley needs to stop whining.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    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.
    oh heaven forbid you find my choice of words offensive ... as a matter of fact i found it offensive having to endure this rambling rant, do you see me whingeing about it? no.
    is there a point with your little latin translation there? you cant kill whats not alive...

    you wont agree? well thats your prerogative. youre views will tansend? oh good god sir please get off this high horse you find yourself on, just because you dont like the the way the majority of the world live their lives does not make you a better person, if anything it simply makes you a washed up old dinasaur with abnoxiously conservative views that are completely unrepresentative of the 21st century. i get the feeling if the world was left up to you to run we'd find ourselves flogged for not knowing the bible by heart and if a woman so much as looked at another male theyd be hung drawn and quartered.

    this rant youre having has steadily become more unhinged the more youve written hasnt it? correct me if im wrong but from what ive just read it seems you just bashed gays, womans and mens rights, the video game industry and sleeping with your husband whilst at the same time accusing them of having being a whore on their wedding night? what utter tosh. i really dont know how to respond to the rest of that paragraph its just so heinously wrong on every level i couldnt even begin to describe how much crap youve managed to spill.

    oh please you believe in your 'god' thats your choice but this infliction on the rest of the population that we're all going to hell and being judged is such crap how dare you try and impress such backwards views on the good people of this site. youre going along by whats written in this delightful collection of hate and mass murder that is called the 'bible' should we all start worshipping harry potter because thats a book? i think not.

    faith is not required for anything, if you want faith sure go for it not being a believer though is hardly going to make your life any worse, except when your breed of christians these 'radicals' get their way and have them burnt at the stake for being heretics... just remember the bulk of the worlds problems have been caused by religion not by this deviant morality you seem so keen to accuse everyone of being a part of.
    • Thread Starter
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)

    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)
    Oh it's low! Super duper! Go to China and tell me gendercide is low.
    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.
    Except of course this view has become more and more popular over the last few years. These two academics aren't the first to come up with it and there's at least one world head of state who voted in favour of this, Barack Obama. So don't you dare try and claim it has 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.
    Except of course it is being exacted onto another body.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)

    Except of course it is being exacted onto another body.
    A body that has no right to be there in the first place.
    • 62 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Oh it's low! Super duper! Go to China and tell me gendercide is low.

    Except of course this view has become more and more popular over the last few years. These two academics aren't the first to come up with it and there's at least one world head of state who voted in favour of this, Barack Obama. So don't you dare try and claim it has no wider support.



    Except of course it is being exacted onto another body.
    we are not in China = failure

    really? Obama supports infanticide? link to that please. I really doubt it has anything like the support you think it does, I have yet to talk to anyone (and I talk to a hell of a lot more pro-choice people than I imagine you ever will) who supports infanticide.

    it's being exacted on to a foetus which hasn't been born yet so is therefore not yet alive so the woman's right's take precedence.
    • Thread Starter
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    we are not in China = failure
    I'm well aware we're not in China but are there not chinese and INdian communities in Britain who practise this? Also, last time I checked, China is growing as a country and becoming exceptionally important on the world stage. Therefore to dismiss this practise is infantile and stupid.

    really? Obama supports infanticide? link to that please. I really doubt it has anything like the support you think it does, I have yet to talk to anyone (and I talk to a hell of a lot more pro-choice people than I imagine you ever will) who supports infanticide.
    He voted three times, 2001, 2002, and 2003, as a state senator, against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act which would outlaw post birth abortion. That's a simple fact. You haven't, of course, addressed the issue of other academics who are slowly beginning to support this such as P Z Meyers and others.

    it's being exacted on to a foetus which hasn't been born yet so is therefore not yet alive so the woman's right's take precedence.
    Ahh, so the child, right up to before it is born, isn't biologically a human being? Gotcha!
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Telegraph link with pictures and video

    Thoughts and opinions? Is abortion too easy to access? Or is this quite alright? What do you make of it in light of sex selective abortion (both here and abroad)? What do you make of it in light of the article calling for infanticide to be legalised.
    When you live in a world full of various options and freedom, you'll never be able to change anything about abortion.

    If you ban it, back street abortions will occur, which is obviously never going to be good and will cause healthcare costs to soar, so it is in the best interest of the government to maintain the current rules.
    As for sex-selective abortion, I doubt there's anything that can be done about it, but aborting a child based on sex is horrific. - It will lead to a modified future where people will abort children who are genetically unlikely to have blonde hair and blue eyes. This system is ridiculous, and to some extent, it should be made a lot more difficult to obtain, but then surely back-street abortions would increase, causing the issue discussed above? It's a difficult topic to discuss.
    • 62 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    I'm well aware we're not in China but are there not chinese and INdian communities in Britain who practise this? Also, last time I checked, China is growing as a country and becoming exceptionally important on the world stage. Therefore to dismiss this practise is infantile and stupid.


    He voted three times, 2001, 2002, and 2003, as a state senator, against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act which would outlaw post birth abortion. That's a simple fact. You haven't, of course, addressed the issue of other academics who are slowly beginning to support this such as P Z Meyers and others.


    Ahh, so the child, right up to before it is born, isn't biologically a human being? Gotcha!
    I am not supporting what the Chinese do...nor am I supporting infanticide...but my points were about the UK where the law does not allow these things so...

    without knowing more about the bill and the reasons he voted against it, that tells me incredibly little, certainly not enough to suggest he supports infanticide. I haven't read or even heard of that person, but I would be interested as to what arguments they make, personally it is not something I am inclined to support.

    biologically it's foetus.
    • Thread Starter
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    I am not supporting what the Chinese do...nor am I supporting infanticide...but my points were about the UK where the law does not allow these things so...
    Super.

    without knowing more about the bill and the reasons he voted against it, that tells me incredibly little, certainly not enough to suggest he supports infanticide. I haven't read or even heard of that person, but I would be interested as to what arguments they make, personally it is not something I am inclined to support.
    Go and do your research then. P Z Meyers is a popular academic, a good mate of Richard Dawkins (another person, by the way, who's said there are cases where infanticide is accetpable). There are plenty of others like Peter Singer. Five minutes of digging will find you a nice little list of people who pretty much demolish your argument that no one else supports it.

    biologically it's foetus.
    Do you even know what foetus means? I doubt it. I expect you are using the term incorrectly (applying it to the whole of the pregnancy when in fact it only covers a certain aspect of it) like most people do so as to dehumanise the unborn child. I suggest actually learning the proper definitions before so liberally throwing them about so as to give the impression you actually know what you're talking about.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Don't really see what all the fuss is about. Abortion should obviously be available on demand, Lansley needs to stop whining.
    No they don't. Doctors have the right to refuse to take part in any abortion, if you can ifind one who will agree then fair enough. I'm against euthanising babies anyway.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brutal Honesty)
    No they don't. Doctors have the right to refuse to take part in any abortion, if you can ifind one who will agree then fair enough. I'm against euthanising babies anyway.
    Sorry, did you quote the right post? Because yours makes no sense in relation to mine.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Do you even know what foetus means? I doubt it. I expect you are using the term incorrectly (applying it to the whole of the pregnancy when in fact it only covers a certain aspect of it) like most people do so as to dehumanise the unborn child. I suggest actually learning the proper definitions before so liberally throwing them about so as to give the impression you actually know what you're talking about.
    I'm always surprised by people's use of fetus as if it somehow makes it less human even though a fetus is still a fetus until birth and pretty much 99% of people believe a fetus just 1 minute before birth is a human. Human life starts at post-fertilization (zygote). It's just a matter of whether you value human life intrinsically by the fact of it being human life or whether you have other criteria e.g. sentience, ability to survive outside of mothers womb given current medical technology etc that you use to give something moral consideration.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Sorry, did you quote the right post? Because yours makes no sense in relation to mine.
    Yes, women don't have the right to abortion on demand.
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    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.
    Being enforceable doesn't come into it. Only a tiny fraction of rapes, assaults and several other crimes are ever detected and prosecuted. It would certainly be possible, for instance, to present evidence of arrangements with abortionists and so forth.

    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.
    Indeed it would be. The burden of proof is always on the Crown.

    Given that there are around 200,000 abortions each year, the number of offences will overwhelm the police and judiciary.
    Well at least pick a side! Either you're saying that these crimes would be undetectable or they'll overwhelm the courts - you can't have it both ways!

    If abortion was criminalised, the number of abortions would drop to a tiny fraction of what they are. I suspect, however, that non-invasive abortions at an early stage of pregnancy would be the main issue. 'Backstreet' abortions of the type we saw before decriminalisation in the 60s would, I suspect, not occur now.

    Yes, abortion would still occur. I think anyone who would support a recriminalisation position would accept that.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    What evidence do you have that would suggest that if abortion was criminalized that there would be much fewer coat-hanger abortions than in the 60s?

    Oh and yes the 'baby' is a parasitic ball of cells for so long as it remains within the mother's body they should have full jurisdiction over what happens in their womb.

    At the end of the day if a mother doesn't want a baby she won't have it one way or another. If that means putting it into the already incredibly bloated care system, leaving it on someone's doorstep or even shoving a coat hanger into herself.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    I'm well aware we're not in China but are there not chinese and INdian communities in Britain who practise this? Also, last time I checked, China is growing as a country and becoming exceptionally important on the world stage. Therefore to dismiss this practise is infantile and stupid.
    - Firstly there is a gulf of difference between practices in rural areas of India/China and those of ethnically chinese/asian communities living in Britain.
    Why does China being important make any difference - female infanticide is illegal there. Its simply a fact that they still struggle to police it.

    -Secondly adding insults like infantile and stupid do not help your argument. You are in essence saying 'this persons views do not match my own therefore they must be stupid/immature'. It doesn't really work in your favour.

    (Original post by adamrules247)
    He voted three times, 2001, 2002, and 2003, as a state senator, against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act which would outlaw post birth abortion. That's a simple fact. You haven't, of course, addressed the issue of other academics who are slowly beginning to support this such as P Z Meyers and others.
    Post birth Abortion is an evocative name and sounds simple enough. Unfortunately I would bet you know little of what it means in reality. As do many 'academics'. This has not been helped by a recent paper which pushed the moral boundary and discussed infanticide proper. [which is similar to how when pro-lifers talk about abortion that represent it as abortion of a 8 month gestation baby]

    Do you know that "post birth abortion" occurs in the UK?
    If a woman goes into early labour and delivers a child at 22 weeks the doctors will not try to save the baby. They will allow it to die, usually in mothers arms (failing that under a resusicare with the paediatricians). Because they know the alternative is far worse with the same tragic result. But according to right wingers and 'pro-lifers' this is 'post birth abortion'.

    I don't think many Americans even consider what the law change would mean. Hospitals packed full of tiny babies in incubators having multiple operations and invasive procedures. Wards full of profoundly disabled young children with no hope of ever being independent.



    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Ahh, so the child, right up to before it is born, isn't biologically a human being? Gotcha!
    And then a pointless obtuse response.

    The key point with pro-choice is that a foetus is unable to survive unassissted and its presence in the womans womb significantly increases her likelyhood of dying. The balance starts falling at 22-24 weeks hence why limit for abortion is there (with very careful caveats for post 24 week abortions).
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Indeed it would be. The burden of proof is always on the Crown.
    Bit easier now they ey? (compared to in the distant past)

    If criminalised I would imagine that like gun/knife crime they would make it a legal duty of docotrs to report suspected abortions.
    And if a suspected abortion was reported it would be rather easy for police to look at the electronic trails that we all tend to leave behind.
    A nice 'google for abortion clinics in channel isles' or something
    • 31 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.

    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Any law which allows a woman to hire a medical professional to kill her unborn child without being prosecuted?

    (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.

    I was wondering why you opposed it and then that last paragraph said it all. You're a believer, you oppose abortion for religious reasons. That says it all.
    The "creator" didn't give us permission to fly yet Aeroplanes were made. It's a silly argument. Opposing abortion for religious reasons almost isn't worth replying to or taking seriously. Abortions, if administered legally and correctly serve a purpose. If a person falls pregnant either by accident, or because of rape or incest, then a woman should be allowed to get rid of it.
    Unless you believe that it's a gift from God even if it's concieved through rape, much like that moron Rick Santorum believes.

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?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  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 to join now Processing…

Updated: April 1, 2012
New on TSR

Have a UCAS application question?

Post it in our dedicated forum

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.