OldNotWIse wrote: » I would never have had an abortion anyway.
OldNotWIse wrote: » I would never have had an abortion anyway. They don't speak for me and I do not feel in any way indebted or grateful!
DubInMeath wrote: » No more than you'd see in the Atheist threads in here, which as an Atheist yourself I'm sure you've read. Still waiting on scientific evidence of your claim that the rules to access abortion in the UK are constantly bypassed, as I mentioned last night the link you provided last night has been proved to be an inacurate pro life propaganda piece.
Reproductive Review is an update of news and comment on abortion issues. It is produced as an educational service by British Pregnancy Advisory Service (bpas). Reproductive Review is the re-branded version of Abortion Review: see below for an editorial explaining why we are expanding our focus. British Pregnancy Advisory Service (bpas) supports reproductive choice and health by advocating and providing high quality, affordable services to prevent or end unwanted pregnancies with contraception or by abortion. BPAS also offers a range of other reproductive health services, including pregnancy testing, STI testing, and advice for erectile dysfunction. To find out more, please visit the bpas website: www.bpas.org
OldNotWIse wrote: » I would never have had an abortion anyway
Shurimgreat wrote: » No mainstream political party would tough this with a bargepole for 34 of those years.
OldNotWIse wrote: » Agree. No matter what side of the fence you're on, the partying was a bit crass and vulgar in my opinion. I am a female of child bearing age and I voted No. While I was disappointed in the result, that's to be accepted now as we live in a democracy, but I really thought the after partying was over the top. It's not like after the marriage referendum where we had genuine cause for celebration - there are no winners when it comes to abortion.
Shurimgreat wrote: » ok fine. would you accept data from this group?http://www.reproductivereview.org/index.php/site/about/17/ So are you ok with data from this organisation?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » the iona institute is not a person. now what about the gloating? are we not allowed that we have thrown off one more shackle of the catholic church and it's proxies?
martingriff wrote: » Step back a bit there I was only stating what was reported by RYE no need for the attack.
martingriff wrote: » Except this wasn't a yes no win along religious divides. Many who were religious voted yes. I heard many at mass this weekend say they voted yes. I also know people who are very anti religious vote no. I know it makes some on here feel extra special as they are giving the religious a bloody nose unfortunately for those people in this instance not 2 much
Shurimgreat wrote: » Re no-one coming up with proposals for 35 years. No mainstream political party would tough this with a bargepole for 34 of those years. Its only in the last year that proposals have come forward that people can vote on. So maybe those political parties who were quite happy to see the status quo remain for 34 years and who are now out celebrating its repeal deserve significant criticism? They all towed the catholic church line and suddenly changed their minds. What was that about 16% of the population trusting politicians?
dav3 wrote: » There will be no blocking, there will be no obstructing. More people voted against same-sex marriage than abortion. 809,728 voted against divorce. 734,700 voted against same-sex marriage. 723,632 voted against abortion. The politicians need to get on with it at this stage and stop pandering to a minority of loud mouths.
Fighting Tao wrote: » No one could come up with anything that could cover everything for 35 years. That means no one at all and not just political parties. Even the attorney general 35 years ago had grave misgivings. If you are so great, then why didn't you? CHECK! Hurry hurry...next on your list please. We are working to a time scale here as to when the thread gets locked!
DubInMeath wrote: » I'd say part of it will be the likes of youth defence etc protesting at GP or hospitals as they did in the past or physically attacking medics and verbally abusing patients, similar stuff again from their past. It was telling I'd say that from a few stunts by some members, that they were kept out of the way by the retain campaign.
Fighting Tao wrote: » So you would chose to die rather than ask for an abortion like Savita?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » so what data are you referring to? it would have been helpful to post a link directly to the data.
yourdeadwright wrote: » Just playing devils advocate here, and not sure if its been brought up yet but ...... What's next for the right to chose movement , As of now Men are the only person who does not have the right to chose, will anyone now start a campaign for men to have the option to opt out of Fatherhood, Women can now have abortion and put kids up for adoption if they want out of parenting but a man is legally required to pay for his child, Will this ever change or do Men not deserve the right of choice ? Its just a very interesting question and it'll be interesting to see people views on this,
Shurimgreat wrote: » Unfortunately that's not good enough for Dulinmeath. He said he wants to be sure of the source. So I am providing him data from a pro abortion group.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Who campaigned to have the 8th added to the constitution? I'll give you a clue, it was the catholic church. So removing the 8th is throwing off another shackle of the catholic church.
Fighting Tao wrote: » I think I'm on that ignore list too. Yay!
Shurimgreat wrote: » And who was in political power when it was added to the constitution? The government of the day are the only ones capable of framing referenda and putting it to the people.
SusieBlue wrote: » The 8th wasn't just about abortion. I'll never have one either. But I appreciate the new opportunity I now have to consent and withhold consent to procedures I may or may not want done to my body while pregnant. It effects maternity care for everyone.
Shurimgreat wrote: » You haven't had that particular pleasure yet
ohnonotgmail wrote: » what data? there was no data in the link you provided that supported your position.
The vast majority (98%, in 2011) of all abortions take place under Ground C: ‘the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman’. Ground D – ‘the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing children or the family of the pregnant woman’ – accounted for 1 % of all abortions in 2011. Grounds A and B together accounted for about a tenth of one per cent of abortions. How are the legal grounds applied in practice?Ground C is often referred to as ‘the mental health clause’, and is perceived as the way in which doctors certify abortion ‘on request’, or ‘social abortions’. It is certainly the case that, despite the lack of a formal right to abortion in England and Wales, the abortion law is interpreted liberally to enable women to access abortion when they need it. However, the construction of the British abortion law still presents a problem for women and doctors. It is not the case that the majority of women seeking abortion are necessarily at risk of damaging their mental health if they continue their pregnancy. But it is significant that, because of the law, women and their doctors have to indicate that this is the case.
Fighting Tao wrote: » yourdeadwright wrote: » Just playing devils advocate here, and not sure if its been brought up yet but ...... What's next for the right to chose movement , As of now Men are the only person who does not have the right to chose, will anyone now start a campaign for men to have the option to opt out of Fatherhood, Women can now have abortion and put kids up for adoption if they want out of parenting but a man is legally required to pay for his child, Will this ever change or do Men not deserve the right of choice ? Its just a very interesting question and it'll be interesting to see people views on this, Not the first to play devils advocate here and it is always done as a concern for the future. Maybe you don't understand what the 8th did to women. That's easy for you to check out. That's why there was a movement for the 8th. Same with what banning SSM did. These were serious issues with inequality. Us men do have a choice....sadly. Walk away as many have done previously.
yourdeadwright wrote: » will anyone now start a campaign for men to have the option to opt out of Fatherhood
