Nigel says he's against abortion, taking the right wing Fundamentalist approach from America and suddenly rights that women have fought hard for for decades are back up in the air.
What a stupid argument, so a woman can just kill hers and a man's baby, no she can't, or couldn't.
You make a valid point about adoption for longer term potential terminations. A termination having got caught out in the first couple of months is almost the same as taking the pill. Are you also against that?
I'm not on the Christian American view, although it's still a tough thing. The longer it goes on the worse it gets. But even an early one leaves people with a sense of what if. Afterall, that was going to be a person if left unchecked, who would they be, what would they be like if they had just gone along with it?
Fundamentalist nonsense from Farage and the Right.
You've made that up, all he did was give his personal opinion that in this day and age, 24 weeks is quite survivable. A perfectly reasonable position.
Free vote. The Government will have to do as it's told. After all that's what Parliamentary sovereignty is supposed to be about.
The amendment to the law doesn't change the time frames as they are. It changes the criminality aspect of the very rare cases that do occur.
He could be in trouble as he posted his views on Facebook.
The House of Lords is a revising chamber and quite rightly so. They will help to sharpen the safety elements of the bill as well as cleaning up the bureaucracy. The Lords cannot block the intensions of the Commons. The Bill will pass into legislation...keep up.
It allows self abortion to be decriminalised beyond 24 weeks, meaning up until birth. All wrong.
Again, post 56, is what I was referring to. Whether it's possible or not IDK but some clearly seem to think it is.
Yes, I've seen that post but the idea that the Lords will stop the will of the Commons would create a constitutional impasse that might see the Lords dissolved. I think that's nonsense btw but I forsee a straightforward passage through the Lords.
So you think suitable time has been spent on these very important new laws, even though it's had significantly less time than was spent on fox hunting...
Not all pregnant mothers to be have family to muck in, and circumstances change.
Don't be absurd. I've said no such thing. The Lords review is an important part of the process.
No, but adoption is surely a better option, if they don't want the child yet or ever, then surely that's a better way than getting rid of a life.
Face it, it's been rushed through and many who know far more than us have real concerns.
I may personally agree with that. But on some level adoption can also bring about many other issues. It’s complex in some cases.
The law didn't need changing, didn't hear anyone making the case for it to before this.
Maybe if you tried replying directly to people they nearly wouldn't miss this.
Sorry, I don't read it like that. It's a private members bill so it's always scrabbling for debating time in a packed Government programme. Did it need more time? I don't know. However, there were those MPs who voted for the Bill to continue at it's early stages whilst commenting that if they felt it was too rushed, they would vote against at 3rd reading: David Davis was one such MP. Even so, sufficient MPs voted for it to get it through The Commons.
You have blithely chosen to ignore @B_Side_The_C_Side 's key statistic, that 99.25% of all abortions happen before 20 weeks in the UK. His post is very informative and worth considering. It's not a rant - as you choose to frame it.
I think this will be another thing to come back to bite them, once people see abuses happening.
Going back on topic…. Assisted dying.
The good things that happen because of the Act won't make the news. Twas ever thus.
Exactly. Trump's America and Farage's ideas for here are getting more like Gilead every day.
And assisted dying is far more peaceful and leaves much less of a burden and legacy on those left behind if you go down the other optional route.
Yes. That’s pretty much how I’ve regarded the new bill. The new Act (if passed) will make the process more “civilised”. But ultimately we can all choose the moment of our own end. That’s always been the case and will always remain so.
Agreed.
Slightly lower I think, this opens the door for abuse by immoral or eveb desperate people and for the numbers to rise with no deterrent. Whilst it may be low in % terms it's still hundreds and could rise to thousands of baby's that would have survived. If putting it in % form makes people feel better that's on them.
I've kind of answered the first bit in my last post and I've said special circumstances yes, but this step, for those against it, fear a rise in the after 24 weeks category.
In my experience palliative care is about people being in excruciating pain until someone in charge decides to give them a dosage of morphine large enough to relieve the pain, in the knowledge it’ll also kill them.
A good friend of mone who died a year last February was given a litre bottle of morphine as his way out if he wanted it. The old truism is 'tough cases make bad law' and the safeguards even if perfect will go by the wayside soon enough. A round of Chemo costs ~£4k euthanasia ~£200. Money will pervert all good intentions, so no. Edit to add I haven't checked the figures given.
Great post...You're 100% right
It’s a shame only you could find time for humour on such a delicate thread where people have talked about losing loved ones, shame on you.
