Hooray for Diane Abbott!

Author
Discussion

Hackney

6,810 posts

207 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
It's 20% when compared to your number of births.

What I you take into account miscarriages etc or even no. of times contraception used.

tinman0

18,231 posts

239 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
clockworks said:
Over 190,000 abortions carried out each year in GB
And this is meant to be a civilised society? Yet we get all gooey eyed when presented with a case for the death penalty?

eldar

21,614 posts

195 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
tinman0 said:
Is that meant to be a put down?

Turn it the other way round - why does it need to be so high? If 90% of unborn child murdering is done by 12 weeks, why does the limit need to be 24 weeks?

(And I am perfectly ok to late term child murdering for medical reasons).
EFA

martin84

5,366 posts

152 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
tinman0 said:
Is that meant to be a put down?

Turn it the other way round - why does it need to be so high? If 90% of unborn child murdering is done by 12 weeks, why does the limit need to be 24 weeks?
I don't write Government policy, that's not up to me. My point is the Government have absolutely no interest in opening a can of worms on this issue so why is Hunt even talking about it? He's going to give himself a few days of grief which neither he nor his party can afford and for what? Personally I would like to think our Government have at least 7,432 better things to worry about at this moment in time than an abortion limit set nearly half a century ago.

tinman0 said:
(And I am perfectly ok to late term abortions for medical reasons).
In case you were wondering I don't actually care what you're ok with and I am relieved Government policy isn't based on what someone is alright with.

clockworks said:
I'm OK with abortions under certain circumstances, but I'm shocked by the numbers.
Would you rather an even more unsustainable child benefit bill instead? People generally don't have an abortion for the fun of it so I would presume the primary reason in most of those cases for 'murdering' the child is they are incapable - probably financially - of looking after it. I would therefore conclude that if those children were brought into the World they would most likely end up reliant on the wallets of you and me via a Government which can't afford it's current bills.

Personally I'm not interested in an argument about this because aside from believing abortion should be legal - based on the consequences of when it wasn't - I have practically no opinion on the matter. It doesn't matter what I'm comfortable with, whether I think it's 'murder' or whether the limit is too high. It's not an issue which affects me and the thought of Cabinets full of men legislating on what a woman can do with her body just feels weird.

If you want to force the children to be born then you should be expected to pay for that child until it's 18. 'Money where mouth is' springs to mind.

clockworks

5,292 posts

144 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
martin84 said:
Would you rather an even more unsustainable child benefit bill instead? People generally don't have an abortion for the fun of it so I would presume the primary reason in most of those cases for 'murdering' the child is they are incapable - probably financially - of looking after it. I would therefore conclude that if those children were brought into the World they would most likely end up reliant on the wallets of you and me via a Government which can't afford it's current bills.

Personally I'm not interested in an argument about this because aside from believing abortion should be legal - based on the consequences of when it wasn't - I have practically no opinion on the matter. It doesn't matter what I'm comfortable with, whether I think it's 'murder' or whether the limit is too high. It's not an issue which affects me and the thought of Cabinets full of men legislating on what a woman can do with her body just feels weird.

If you want to force the children to be born then you should be expected to pay for that child until it's 18. 'Money where mouth is' springs to mind.
All I said is that I was shocked by the sheer numbers involved. I don't have an answer, and I don't want to ban abortions. Abortion as birth control after the fact doesn't sit well with me, but I wouldn't force my views on anyone else.
I do think that saving a few quid off your tax bill is an odd reason for sticking with the status quo, though!

I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the numbers, by age and "social class" - I wonder how many abortions are performed for "lifestyle reasons" on women who are capable of bringing up the child without reliance on the state.

Riff Raff

5,086 posts

194 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
martin84 said:
[snip]Maria Miller made a sensible enough argument last week about how the limit of 24 weeks was set in the 1960s and science has moved on. These days babies born at 21 weeks go on to be fine which wasn't the norm in the 60s.
I was under the impression that whilst babies born early *might* survive now, where they wouldn't have in the sixties, they are much more likely to have serious problems, problems that will be with them all of their lives, due to being born very premature.

thinfourth2

32,414 posts

203 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
clockworks said:
Some pretty staggering statistics on BBC news:

Over 190,000 abortions carried out each year in GB
One in three women will have an abortion

Given that there are around 700,000 live births in a year, plus however many miscarriages, that's an abortion rate of around 20%.

I'm OK with abortions under certain circumstances, but I'm shocked by the numbers.
And how many of those abortions are at 24 weeks?

And how many of those are at 4 weeks?

The Think of the children lot would have you belive that most are at 24 weeks but they aren't the vast majority are closer to 4 weeks.



But would you want a world without abortion?

tinman0

18,231 posts

239 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
martin84 said:
Personally I'm not interested in an argument about this
Well stfu then. It's internet a forum ffs.

Justayellowbadge

37,057 posts

241 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
tinman, I believe we should come to an agreement.

If you can use the term 'abortion' instead of the emotive 'unborn child murder', than I shall agree to use tinman instead of 'moronic fundamentalist bigoted sack of st'.


martin84

5,366 posts

152 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Eric The Camel said:
Could you make a case for the legal termination of a child born premature at 24 weeks? If so where is the line drawn - in the womb OK, outside not?

I appreciate you're not interested in this argument but you have commented.
Ignoring for a moment I am not a medical or legal expert, that's for smarter people than myself to answer but I would say the law has always been a matter of degrees and yes it decides inside the womb is fine and outside isn't. Whether that time limit is right or wrong isn't my decision.

Tonberry

2,078 posts

191 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
I've never been one for people and their 'rights' but I do feel strongly that all women should have the option to terminate a pregnancy if so desired.

The cutoff date of 24 weeks is fine as 12 weeks sometimes simply isnt even enough time to realise you're pregnant and then have to make a decision.

Murdering unborn babies? fk off, seriously.

fluffnik

20,156 posts

226 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
tinman0 said:
a good day for murdering unborn children!
The unborn are not children.

deadslow

7,962 posts

222 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Justayellowbadge said:
tinman, I believe we should come to an agreement.

If you can use the term 'abortion' instead of the emotive 'unborn child murder', than I shall agree to use tinman instead of 'moronic fundamentalist bigoted sack of st'.
clap

0a

23,879 posts

193 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
fluffnik said:
tinman0 said:
a good day for murdering unborn children!
The unborn are not children.
Well said.

fluffnik

20,156 posts

226 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Eric The Camel said:
Could you make a case for the legal termination of a child born premature at 24 weeks? If so where is the line drawn - in the womb OK, outside not?
I'm not convinced that aggressively keeping premature babies alive is necessarily a good thing.

Many of those who can be kept alive will be massively developmentally challenged to the extent that they will never be autonomous...

tinman0

18,231 posts

239 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Justayellowbadge said:
If you can use the term 'abortion' instead of the emotive 'unborn child murder', than I shall agree to use tinman instead of 'moronic fundamentalist bigoted sack of st'.
So you can't take a reasoned argument, so you resort to personal insult? Seriously, how old are you?

Back to the question - if 90% of abortions are done by 12 weeks, why shouldn't it be 12 weeks?

tinman0

18,231 posts

239 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
0a said:
fluffnik said:
tinman0 said:
a good day for murdering unborn children!
The unborn are not children.
Well said.
Well that makes it all ok then. Obviously.

Justayellowbadge

37,057 posts

241 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
tinman0 said:
Justayellowbadge said:
If you can use the term 'abortion' instead of the emotive 'unborn child murder', than I shall agree to use tinman instead of 'moronic fundamentalist bigoted sack of st'.
So you can't take a reasoned argument, so you resort to personal insult? Seriously, how old are you?

Back to the question - if 90% of abortions are done by 12 weeks, why shouldn't it be 12 weeks?
Did you really fail to grasp the very simple point I was making?

martin84

5,366 posts

152 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
When are the other 10 percent done?

Funk

26,254 posts

208 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
tinman0 said:
martin84 said:
Personally I'm not interested in an argument about this
Well stfu then. It's internet a forum ffs.
Don't be drawn in by Martin84. Pretty much anything he posts I know I will be absolutely opposed to or the opposite opinion of.

He's staggeringly daft.