• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Socialized medicine at its finest, forced abortion in the UK

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
36,364
Reaction score
43,730
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You brought your soap box w/you.
☺

The issue here is that he woman is not a mentally competent adult.
So, that alone makes it quite different from the hyperbole you suggest "they know what's best for everyone".

The assertion here is that the court knows better than the woman with a mental disability special psychological needs.
Feel free to make the case that "everyone" is the equivalent of a mentally deficient person with emotional issues.

This situation could've happened w/o regard to w/e economic system was in place.

The issue is about the care for those among us who're unable to care for themselves.
This issue would exist and persist in even in a world which was an entirely and totally a free market world.


that said...
idk if this was the right decision.
idk why the judge feels that the woman's mother is not likely to stick around.
The pregnant woman already has a social worker and the social worker supports continuing the pregnancy. This is a case where a judge has decided that not only the pregnant woman but everyone around her is nuts and that the baby must be killed. It isn't a decision to protect anyone, including the unborn child. It's a decision couched firmly in the idea that only the preferred classes of people should be allowed to have children and even then, only at the discretion of the courts.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,093
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's a decision couched firmly in the idea that only the preferred classes of people should be allowed to have children and even then, only at the discretion of the courts.
We have your say-so.
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
21,414
Reaction score
24,889
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
No that is not a reason you’re opposed to recognizing babies as having rights prior to birth.

This is a nonsensical argument not grounded in reality. The government if heavy handed enough can force you to do anything, or ban anything. There is no law of physics that says a government must be consistent in anything. In fact the UK allows abortion AND is apparently forcing it now. But if abortion were banned a judge couldn’t order it
You are wrong.
And it not a nonsense argument.


Here are just a few of my quotes from past years on this forum.

March 2012

They are not accurate terms.
Pro-choice people also support the right of a woman to carry her pregnancy to full term.
We want the woman to have a choice.
If the government wanted to mandate that all women whose child would be deformed should be aborted I know I would fight for the right for her to have that child even it were going to so malformed that it would only live a few minutes or hours.
The woman should also have the right to give her child up for adoption if she feels that is best for her and her child.

On the other side of the coin if she choses to have an abortion early in the pregnancy that should be her choice also.
We do not know all there is to know about the woman's health , her state of mind, her emotions, her financial status, or her ability to care for a child.


Nov 2013
But any pregnancy can put a woman at risk.
Why does she have to wait until her life is on the line if she feels instintictivily that she is not healthy enough to continue the pregnancy or if she feels that something might be wrong with her pregnancy or with the fetus she is carrying within her?

After the problems and risks I had during my 6 wanted and planned pregnancies ( 4 children and 2 miscarriages ...one at about 6 weeks gestation and the other a very malformed one who never would have viaible at about 20 weeks gestation ) I could never support a law or country that would force a woman to continue a pregnancy instead of allowing her to have an early abortion.

On the other side of the coin I would never support a law or country that force a woman to have an abortion.
From 2014


Any pregnancy can become life threatening.

....

Now many woman want to continue a pregnancy and give birth. They hope the pregnancy and childbirth will go well.

During my first pregnancy my kidneys were damaged and my life was at risk but I wanted to give birth so I continued my pregnancy knowing I might never live to see my little one or even know if I had a boy or girl.

But after my personal experiences I could never support a law or a country that would force a woman to risk her life and continue a pregnancy she did not want.

On the other side of the coin I would never support a law or a country that would force a woman to have an abortion.

And from June 6 of this year.

It is not about women’s rights.

Actually, Pro Choice allows each pregnant woman to follow her own religious beliefs or her own conscience.

I will not support a law or a country that does not allow elective abortions .

On the other side of the coin,
I will not support a law or a country that would force a woman to have an abortion even if the fetus were so malformed it would cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and would never be able to leave the hospital.

If the government had the power to ban abortions it has the power to force abortions.

Each woman with input from her doctor and her faith beliefs or her conscience should decide if she wishes to abort or continue a pregnancy.
 
Last edited:

GodlessBrandy

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2019
Messages
192
Reaction score
42
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I will not support a law or a country that would force a woman to have an abortion even if the fetus were so malformed it would cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and would never be able to leave the hospital.
I don't think at the time you wrote that, that you fully contemplated all the possible ramifications. For instance what if the child was not just malformed but would spend it's entire life in excruciating pain, would you feel the same way?

If you were a soldier on a battlefield and another soldier was injured with no hope of saving, but you knew that the soldier would suffer a slow and agonizing death, would you kill him?

I would. Without hesitation. It's called a mercy killing.

Under the right conditions, or rather the worst conditions, whether it be an unborn child, or a 50 year old man, I would definitely pull that plug.
 

year2late

DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
21,466
Reaction score
19,162
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
No that is not a reason you’re opposed to recognizing babies as having rights prior to birth.

This is a nonsensical argument not grounded in reality. The government if heavy handed enough can force you to do anything, or ban anything. There is no law of physics that says a government must be consistent in anything. In fact the UK allows abortion AND is apparently forcing it now. But if abortion were banned a judge couldn’t order it
How do you give rights to an embryo zygote or fetus without diminishing the rights of the woman? If a woman is diagnosed with cancer while pregnant...will she be required to only take treatments that are not harmful to the fetus? If the chemo that is harmful to the fetus is 75 effective and the treatment that is safe for fetus is 60 percent effective ....in your opinion should the woman have the option?
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
21,414
Reaction score
24,889
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't think at the time you wrote that, that you fully contemplated all the possible ramifications. For instance what if the child was not just malformed but would spend it's entire life in excruciating pain, would you feel the same way?

If you were a soldier on a battlefield and another soldier was injured with no hope of saving, but you knew that the soldier would suffer a slow and agonizing death, would you kill him?

I would. Without hesitation. It's called a mercy killing.

Under the right conditions, or rather the worst conditions, whether it be an unborn child, or a 50 year old man, I would definitely pull that plug.
It should be up the pregnant woman whether or not she wishes to continue her pregnancy.
If doctors know the fetus has fatal medical issues I am sure the pregnant woman will be made aware of the the problems and will make her aware of what to expect. Whether or not to have an abortion should be her choice.

Hospice palliative care would be offered if she chose to continue her pregnancy and she did have a live birth of a child a fatal abnormalities.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,422
Reaction score
3,340
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Then you can remove the baby and place the baby for adoption.

It doesn’t seem to my like the carrying of the baby is forced if a judge has to order a termination.
Have you ever tried to take a possession away from someone that didn't want you to have it? Have you ever tried taking a toy away from a mentally disturbed 6 year old? What happens when the toy is not a toy but a live child? Have you actually thought that through?
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,422
Reaction score
3,340
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The pregnant woman already has a social worker and the social worker supports continuing the pregnancy. This is a case where a judge has decided that not only the pregnant woman but everyone around her is nuts and that the baby must be killed. It isn't a decision to protect anyone, including the unborn child. It's a decision couched firmly in the idea that only the preferred classes of people should be allowed to have children and even then, only at the discretion of the courts.

So, a women is under state care because she has the mental and behavioral capacity of a 6 year old, is pregnant from a rape; and the mother thinks letting her mentally incapacitated,raped daughter have a baby is a good idea.

We have courts for a very good reason: they are charged with looking at all aspects of a case and making a decision that has the best out-come for all concerned including society. In this case the judge probably has decided that everyone around this potential child is nuts and the best out come is not to bring a child into that situation.

The case has nothing to do with class, socialized medicine, women's rights or even the morality of abortion. It's about protection: protection for the potential child from dangerously incompetent people: protection for the mentally handicapped pregnant "child" from the trauma of birth and what she will see as the theft of her toy: and protection of society from a child raised in this family.

I'm sure this judge was focused on the seriousness of this case and not on some ridiculous idea about power and class structure.
 
Last edited:

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
36,364
Reaction score
43,730
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So, a women is under state care because she has the mental and behavioral capacity of a 6 year old, is pregnant from a rape; and the mother thinks letting her mentally incapacitated,raped daughter have a baby is a good idea.

We have courts for a very good reason: they are charged with looking at all aspects of a case and making a decision that has the best out-come for all concerned including society. In this case the judge probably has decided that everyone around this potential child is nuts and the best out come is not to bring a child into that situation.

The case has nothing to do with class, socialized medicine, women's rights or even the morality of abortion. It's about protection: protection for the potential child from dangerously incompetent people: protection for the mentally handicapped pregnant "child" from the trauma of birth and what she will see as the theft of her toy: and protection of society from a child raised in this family.

I'm sure this judge was focused on the seriousness of this case and not on some ridiculous idea about power and class structure.
And so it goes with the Socialists. They presume disaster and mayhem lest their sage advice be fully and exclusively implemented.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,422
Reaction score
3,340
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And so it goes with the Socialists. They presume disaster and mayhem lest their sage advice be fully and exclusively implemented.

Socialist countries are the only counties that worry disaster will follow if the advice of the courts is not followed? Really? This isn't also a worry of a democracy , a monarchy, a dictatorship, a federation, a state, fascism, or a theocracy??? Only a socialist state worries when the courts are ignored?
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
36,364
Reaction score
43,730
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Socialist countries are the only counties that worry disaster will follow if the advice of the courts is not followed? Really? This isn't also a worry of a democracy , a monarchy, a dictatorship, a federation, a state, fascism, or a theocracy??? Only a socialist state worries when the courts are ignored?
Well, if your laws are designed to impose Socialism on the public then I suppose it SHOULD follow that the orders of the court would likewise be Socialist in nature. To not follow Socialist law wouldn't be very Socialist of a judge now, would it?
 

nekrodev

pleb
Joined
Mar 31, 2019
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
930
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
i love that this is still being equated with socialism lmfao. socialism is an economic system and this was a decision by a judge - someone appointed or elected by something that definitely wasn't the economy.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,422
Reaction score
3,340
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How is it imposing Socialism on the public to make a determination that a mother with a 6 year old mental capacity, significant behavioral issues, a grandmother that the judge noted "might have to leave the mother and the home at some point" and an environment so poorly supervised that the pregnancy was the result of a rape is not an appropriate home into which to bring a child.
 
Last edited:

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,422
Reaction score
3,340
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The only question in this whole issue is why did the state wait so long to make a decision that an abortion should be performed.
 
Last edited:

Scrabaholic

Smarter than the avg bear
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
19,558
Reaction score
14,944
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
As a pro CHOICER, I cannot condone this decision. If the pregnant woman is incapable of making decisions, then her legal guardian should decide. Not the courts.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
5,422
Reaction score
3,340
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As a pro CHOICER, I cannot condone this decision. If the pregnant woman is incapable of making decisions, then her legal guardian should decide. Not the courts.

(from the NYT). "The woman was under the care of a National Health Service trust, which sought the court’s permission for doctors to perform the abortion, the court was told. "
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
24,341
Reaction score
11,643
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Apparently a British judge is ordering a Nigerian catholic woman to have an abortion because of alleged mental disability. Make no mistake, the baby murder lobby has no limits, and seeing how the United Kingdom has no written constitution and no civil liberties to speak of, this is not surprising

The United States should impose economic sanctions against the UK and cancel trade deals, if I were Trump this is what I would do

UK court orders forced abortion for disabled Catholic, Nigerian woman
Let us start with a few comments about the nonsense part of your story:

1. it is ludicrous to claim the UK has "no civil liberties to speak of" which is utter utter utter nonsense. The UK has the Human Rights Act 1998 - Wikipedia

2. it may not have a codified constitution like the US/the Netherlands and many other countries but their laws and acts combined have about the same function.

3. this has nothing to do with "socialized healthcare" to claim that is a falsehood

4. this whole thread is nonsense because a court of appeal ordered that the woman can remain pregnant and will not have to terminate her pregnancy. I hope for the best interest of the child it is removed from the woman's care as soon as possible. It may be harsh but with a mental age of between 6 and 9 the child would be seriously at risk in the care of this woman.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
24,341
Reaction score
11,643
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Wow, so taking the child and putting it in foster care is more traumatizing than the government killing your child? This is a messed up story all around given that it seems the girl is mentally handicapped (not sure if that is the politically correct term anymore) and shouldn't be pregnant in the first place, but to go against the wishes of both the woman and her mother and kill the child is ridiculous.
Well, ripping the child from the mother's arms is I think equally distressing if not more for the woman. For the child I do not know if it will be better off in the foster care system but hopefully it will be adopted by a loving family who will give the child the future her birth mother cannot.

Also, still not killing a child, it still would only be aborting a fetus which at such a late stage of the pregnancy really should only be done for medical reasons (severe deformations of the fetus, fatal defects in the baby or to save the mother's life) and not because the NHS at that moment decides it is inappropriate or bad for the pregnancy to continue. If they wanted that they should have done it in the first 10 weeks of the pregnancy, not so late in the pregnancy.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
24,341
Reaction score
11,643
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Assuming this is true, which I doubt, given I can't find any non-ridiculous source for it - this would be awful, and obviously against what most people are okay with, as this removes "choice", a keyword in "pro-choice".
It is true but a lot of the sources are pro-life, Catholic news and some US news sources. So it was true, but it was already overruled so this is much ado about nothing anymore.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
24,341
Reaction score
11,643
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I will wait for confirmation on this story but I either expect that there is a lot more to it or that it is wrong.

If it is what it appears to be at face value then there will be big trouble.
The real problem is that she has a mental age of between 6 and 9, that is totally unfit for parenting IMHO.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
24,341
Reaction score
11,643
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yes, because babies should not be given the death penalty for what the father did.
This has nothing to do with babies but with at best a fetus, and you cannot have a death penalty for that which was never born/never existed legally or actually. And if a woman was raped she should always have the right to abort the ZEF.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
42,784
Reaction score
14,288
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, it clearly stands against any pro-choice stance.

Forced abortion is not choice.


In terms of the suggestion that US impose sanctions on the UK...we are bffs with countries with ongoing human rights violations...why this situation stand above others?
It is not "forced abortion". It is a court making decisions for a mentally incompetent rape victim. It was the correct decision too.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
24,341
Reaction score
11,643
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
There's a big chance that the baby will also have some kind of disorder, which means we citizens will likely have to pay for it for the rest of our lives, or do you think that these mentally ill people are a contribution to our society?
Maybe, but that is all a mute issue as the abortion ruling was already overturned. I just hope she will be adopted by some loving couple (gay/lesbian/straight, doesn't matter).
 
Top Bottom