[tehFrance]

(Original post by tufc)
It's illogical to give the rape argument weight. If you're putting the child's right to life first, then this cannot be governed by its manner of conception.

Well I am not, it is already established by Morgsie that I am rather pro-abortion for various reasons.

[tufc]

(Original post by tehFrance)
If I were woman that was raped, I would not want to be carrying the child of the man that raped me, I would rather abort the fetus... I wouldn't say I am pro-choice (as I would prefer the woman carrying my child to carry it to term... unless there was a defect or something in which case abort!!!), I am pro-do what it is best for the baby and the mother and carrying a rapists baby is not what a woman should have go through if they do not want to.

I think most people would rather have to live with the knowledge they were conceived by rape than not exist at all. Abortion is NEVER best for the baby.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Howard)
But again, if a foetus is considered a human life then surely a human life of an innocent person should not be sacrificed because a woman has been raped.

If you are pro-"do what is best for the baby" then regardless of how it came to be conceived how can you possibly argue for killing it?

See above.

You missed the "And the Mother" part and if the mother is emotionally unstable due to the rape and she will be unable to raise a rapists child then I don't see why she cannot abort.

[tufc]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Well I am not, it is already established by Morgsie that I am rather pro-abortion for various reasons.

I noticed. My point was that you seemed rather shocked by someone's support of rape being omitted from the exceptions. Thus I was explaining why one cannot be against abortion, but still see it as OK in cases of rape.

[tufc]

(Original post by tehFrance)
See above.

You missed the "And the Mother" part and if the mother is emotionally unstable due to the rape and she will be unable to raise a rapists child then I don't see why she cannot abort.

She can put it up for adoption...
Even if she didn't I'd rather have a tricky childhood than never exist.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by tufc)
She can put it up for adoption...
Even if she didn't I'd rather have a tricky childhood than never exist.

What part of we have a population problem and too many children under the care of the state do you not understand? adding more unwanted children to the system is a stupid idea based on what appears to be very orthodox Catholic values that not even Italy or Spain adhere to.

Well you know what, the decision is not yours to make!

[Howard]

(Original post by tehFrance)
See above.

You missed the "And the Mother" part and if the mother is emotionally unstable due to the rape and she will be unable to raise a rapists child then I don't see why she cannot abort.

If she's unable or unwilling to raise it then she can hand it over for adoption.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Howard)
If she's unable or unwilling to raise it then she can hand it over for adoption.

Oh for ****s sake!!!!

READ THE BELOW!

(Original post by tehFrance)
What part of we have a population problem and too many children under the care of the state do you not understand? adding more unwanted children to the system is a stupid idea based on what appears to be very orthodox Catholic values that not even Italy or Spain adhere to.!

[Howard]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Oh for ****s sake!!!!

READ THE BELOW!

Well, that's an even more stupid argument. The main population problem now being faced in much of the western world is an ageing demographic - basically there are not enough young people to look after too many old people. Hardly makes sense to kill unborn children on that basis does it?

In fact, your whole argument is now becoming too absurd for words. "A woman is raped so we can easily justify killing her unborn child because there are too many people in the world" LOL!

[chiggy321]

(Original post by JPKC)
Please tell me you're not referring to Virginia's transvaginal ultrasounds?

And how bloody patronising. Women are perfectly capable of making their own decisions about their own bodies without invasive and often emotionally traumatic "informing" processes. They aren't dumb farm animals or children.

No I'm not - I'm referring to the counselling aspect which is adopted by several states and ensures that the full consequences of the abortion are made known to the woman. Yes, women are capable of making decisions about their own bodies - but they should be made to consider their responsibility to the child as part of this too! You clearly don't value the 'potential human life' particularly highly. I don't really care much about being "patronising" - it's a big decision and one which could result in the termination of something which could grow into a real human being so it's important that the full facts are made known to the woman. If that means "patronising" them then so be it.

[tufc]

(Original post by tehFrance)
What part of we have a population problem and too many children under the care of the state do you not understand? adding more unwanted children to the system is a stupid idea based on what appears to be very orthodox Catholic values that not even Italy or Spain adhere to.

Well you know what, the decision is not yours to make!

I'm not Catholic in any way, shape or form. And yes, it might lead to an increase in population. But I don't think you understand the pro-life position: if you see it as unacceptable to kill any other human being to prevent a population problem, you see it as just as unacceptable to kill a foetus to do so.

[chiggy321]

I cannot agree at all with those who seem to suggest that being a rape victim is not sufficient justification for an abortion. It is immoral and cruel to expect an innocent rape victim to have to take responsibility for a child who was caused by the actions of an evil rapist - it unnecessarily adds to the emotional burden of a rape victim whether she is required to make the decision to give it away or keep it. However, it is true that by abortion the 'potential human life' is still being terminated - so it should be the rapist who is held responsible for this termination and not the mother. Rather than punish the mother by not allowing her an abortion the rapist should be punished for the killing of the foetus as part of his sentencing for the rape or perhaps through another offence of 'Aggravated rape'.

[Mr Dangermouse]

Praise Allah no!

[tehFrance]

(Original post by tufc)
I don't think you understand the pro-life position: if you see it as unacceptable to kill any other human being to prevent a population problem, you see it as just as unacceptable to kill a foetus to do so.

You're right as I am not pro-life in any way, shape or form.

[tufc]

If this were amended to abortion being allowed inside 4 weeks, would anyone change their mind?

[tehFrance]

(Original post by tufc)
If this were amended to abortion being allowed inside 4 weeks, would anyone change their mind?

NO!

[tooti]

(Original post by tufc)
If this were amended to abortion being allowed inside 4 weeks, would anyone change their mind?

4 weeks is not long enough to find out that you're pregnant (missed period is usually the first sign obviously, not all women will assume they are pregnant straight away and then wait) and then make the decision to have an abortion. Its not something you can decide in a day and many women would want to look at their options for far longer than a couple of weeks, their decision could literally change their life forever.

It would probably put unnecessary stress on the mother and it could lead to some women rashly having an abortion just within the time limit then later regretting it which could cause psychological issues later on.

Edit- Completely against this bill anyway its ridiculous, i'd maybe agree with reducing the max limit for abortions (excluding health reasons) but the vast majority are carried out at under 10 weeks anyway (78%)

[D.R.E]

Why is the beginning of 'life' limited to conception, surely it starts in the testicles and ovaries, which would also justify banning all masturbation, contraceptive and casual sex?

No from me.

[King Kebab]

(Original post by Democracy)
(I have posted this in my capacity as Acting Speaker in view of Metrobeans' absence)

I DID NOT WRITE THIS BILL, IT DOES NOT REFLECT MY VIEWS ON ABORTION

B473 - Abortion Bill 2012, tufc

An Act ending the rights of mothers to kill unborn babies


BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. Abortion

(1) It is no longer legal to have an abortion


2. Exceptions
(1) If carrying a foetus to term would pose a significant risk to the mother’s life, or would pose a significant risk of long-term, severe damage to her physical health, she may have an abortion performed by a qualified abortionist. This service must be provided by the NHS, and be performed by a doctor in the employ of the NHS, at an NHS facility
(2) To be eligible for this, the pregnant individual must gain written agreement from three NHS-employed doctors that carrying the foetus
to term would either:
(a) Pose a direct and significant threat to the life of the pregnant individual
(b) Pose a direct and significant threat of severe damage to the long-term physical health of the pregnant individual.
(3) Bribing doctors to provide agreement, or obtaining such agreement through any fraudulent means will be a committal of the offence
detailed in 3(1)(a).
(a) Any doctors found to have been complicit in supplying such agreement for fraudulent reasons will be tried under the offence detailed in
in 3(1)(a).



3. Enforcement
(1) This Act will create a new civil and criminal offence
(a) This offence is entitled, “Providing Access to Abortion”
(b) The criminal offence will carry a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment
(c) The criminal offence will carry a minimum term of 3 years’ imprisonment
(d) Any doctor found guilty of the criminal or civil offence will be banned from practising
(e) Where committal of this offence has resulted in an abortion taking place, the criminal offence will be used to try the guilty parties, as
detailed in 2
(f) Where committal of this offence has not resulted in an abortion taking place, the civil offence will be used to try the guilty parties, as
detailed in 2
(2) Should 1 be breached:
(a) The mother of the aborted foetus will not be punished (except in accordance with 2(3)
(b) The provider(s) of the service which breached 1 will be tried for the offence detailed in 3 (1)(a)


4. For the Purposes of this Act:
(1) ‘Abortion’ refers to any deliberate attempt, successful or not, to terminate a human foetus'
(2) 'Foetus’ refers to a human life for the entire period of time between the start of the zygotic stage, and birth
(3) ‘Provider(s) of the service’ is defined as any person found to have had professional complicity in a breach
of 1.

The decision should surely lie with the woman who is carrying the embryo/foetus, for just that reason.

[Democracy]

(Original post by King Kebab)
The decision should surely lie with the woman who is carrying the embryo/foetus, for just that reason.

You're aware I didn't write this Bill yes? It doesn't reflect my own views on abortion.

You're better off quoting tufc who did write it.