• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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


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.
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...
We have your say-so.
 

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




Nov 2013

From 2014



And from June 6 of this year.

 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 

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.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 


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:

And so it goes with the Socialists. They presume disaster and mayhem lest their sage advice be fully and exclusively implemented.
 
Lutherf said:
And so it goes with the Socialists. They presume disaster and mayhem lest their sage advice be fully and exclusively implemented.
Click to expand...


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?
 
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.
 
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:
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:
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.
 
Scrabaholic said:
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.
Click to expand...


(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. "
 

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.
 

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.
 
nekrodev said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tim the plumber said:
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.
Click to expand...

The real problem is that she has a mental age of between 6 and 9, that is totally unfit for parenting IMHO.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Yes, because babies should not be given the death penalty for what the father did.
Click to expand...

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.
 

It is not "forced abortion". It is a court making decisions for a mentally incompetent rape victim. It was the correct decision too.
 
marinusf said:
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?
Click to expand...

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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…