• 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

EMNofSeattle said:
Writing words in all capital letters is not an argument.

Also my my argument is not that the government should regulate what a woman does with her womb, only that she is not permitted to kill the distinct human being inside it.

And yes, the killing of another human being without just cause In a society is my business, it’s all of our business.
Click to expand...

For some reason the pro-life think they have to force women to listen to them so I forcefully write it down too from time to time.

And when it comes to arguments do you have any?

Ooh so you don't want the government to decide what a woman does in her womb but in all reality that is exactly what you want. And there is no distinct human being inside her womb, that is just nonsense.

And again, it is not killing, it is aborting. And no, it is none of your damned business whatsoever from there until the end of time what some lady decides that happens in her womb. You may have the arrogant attitude that you have that right but you don't, not even one little bit.

Not your womb, not your decision, nothing to do with you.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Laws against abortion do not constitute imposition of religion since they do not command adherence to any specific religious act nor membership in any particular religious body. It is true that in secular society that atheists and Christian heretics and some obscure religious groups possess serious lack of morals and due to non-belief or heresy mistake their lack of virtue (such as selfishness) as a virtue and therefore will support anything that makes them feel better, but that doesn’t make a law against abortion predicated on humanity of the baby a religious imposition. Thus your argument is invalid.

Maybe my religion gives me the moral courage to stand for what’s right, but what I advocate for is purely secular. Society simply cannot function in any manner resembling Just on the idea that “well I can’t impose my beliefs on you and vice versa” any society where that idea is taken seriously is a failed state. All societies are built on imposing order on society any punishing those who won’t comply
Click to expand...

Yes, laws against abortion would infringe on the religious liberty of the Jewish community and The pro choice Protestants.


7 Christian Denominations with Most Liberal Stance on Abortion | Newsmax.com

List of pro choice from Religious Tolerance:

The Secular Web and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, they include, in alphabetic order: 1
bullet American Baptist Churches-USA (see below),
bullet American Ethical Union,
bullet American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee,
bullet American Jewish Committee,
bullet American Jewish Congress,
bullet Central Conference of American Rabbis,
bullet Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),
bullet Council of Jewish Federations,
bullet Episcopal Church (USA),
bullet Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot,
bullet Moravian Church in America-Northern Province,
bullet Na'Amat USA,
bullet National Council of Jewish Women,
bullet Presbyterian Church (USA),
bullet Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,
bullet Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,
bullet Union of American Hebrew Congregations,
bullet Unitarian Universalist Association,
bullet United Church of Christ,
bullet United Methodist Church,
bullet United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism.

bullet Religious groups other than denominations:
bullet Catholics for Free Choice,
bullet Episcopal Women's Caucus,
bullet Evangelicals for Choice,
bullet Jewish Women International,
bullet Lutheran Women's Caucus,
bullet North American Federation of Temple Youth,
bullet Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation,
bullet Women of Reform Judaism,
bullet Women's American ORT,


The Pro Choice Protestants are not obscure Christian groups. They make up a large potion of the Protestant community and their religious views were taken into consideration by the Justices in part IX of Roe v Wade.

There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. [Footnote 56] It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. [Footnote 57]
It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. [Footnote 58]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
Laws against abortion do not constitute imposition of religion since they do not command adherence to any specific religious act nor membership in any particular religious body.
Click to expand...
Yet they are driven by hypocrites asshole zealots who can't stay the **** out of other people's lives.

It is true that in secular society that atheists and Christian heretics and some obscure religious groups possess serious lack of morals
Click to expand...
The only truth is that some low intellect morons want to impose their primitive thinking on others.

Maybe my religion gives me the moral courage to stand for what’s right
Click to expand...
Good, stay the **** out of other people's lives.

but what I advocate for is purely secular.
Click to expand...
What you advocate for is pure ignorance.
 
HumblePi said:
well I think she should be forced to have it and then you can adopt it, mentally challenged or not, you will do a great job raising her child, right?
Click to expand...

EMNofSeattle said:
I’m sure I would but since there’s a grandmother and social worker who support the decision to carry the baby that will not be necessary
Click to expand...


The grandmother might not stay in the country.



The judge also suggested the woman’s mother may return to her home country at some point.
Click to expand...

Appeal court overturns forced abortion ruling | World news | The Guardian

By the way if you read the article in the link you wil notice that the abortion was overruled and will not take place.

Pro choice wins again.

So much for your Socialized medicine rant.

Now you can apply to adopt and raise the baby.
 
Last edited:
weaver2 said:
(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. "
Click to expand...

If they were her legal guardian, they wouldn't need the court's permission. And if they were, why was she in the care of her mother?
 
Peter King said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that information, Peter. I'm glad that she's not being forced to have an abortion. I do agree that it may be best if the child is removed from the home when it's born, sadly.
 
iguanaman said:
It is not "forced abortion". It is a court making decisions for a mentally incompetent rape victim. It was the correct decision too.
Click to expand...

If the woman does not want the abortion, then yes, it is forced. Fortunately, it's not going to happen.
 
year2late said:
That was my initial gut reaction. But it would be interesting to know the entire story. I am curious how the mother of the pregnant woman thinks she is going to care for her grandchild and her daughter. She couldn't even prevent the rape. We just have no REAL clue of any of the circumstances. I am curious if they are looking for the rapist?
Click to expand...

Agreed. More info is needed. I've heard various things about it, such as the mother is facing deportation, the pregnant woman is violent etc. but do not know what is true or not.


But one thing is for certain, this case has nothing to do with being pro choice. For whatever the reasons, the court took the decision out of the legal guardians hands.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Pro choice means we want the pregnant woman to decide and not have abortion forced on her. In this case, even though she has a young mental age, there is no reason why she can't have the child and then it be removed if neither she nor her mother can care for it.
 
AmNat said:
It’s clear that if we do liberate Europe, we’ll have to have a de-indoctrination program, just like last time.
Click to expand...

Liberate Europe ....bahahahahahahaha!!!!!! The US needs to stop invading other countries.
 
minnie616 said:
Yes, laws against abortion would infringe on the religious liberty of the Jewish community and The pro choice Protestants.


7 Christian Denominations with Most Liberal Stance on Abortion | Newsmax.com

List of pro choice from Religious Tolerance:

The Secular Web and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, they include, in alphabetic order: 1
bullet American Baptist Churches-USA (see below),
bullet American Ethical Union,
bullet American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee,
bullet American Jewish Committee,
bullet American Jewish Congress,
bullet Central Conference of American Rabbis,
bullet Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),
bullet Council of Jewish Federations,
bullet Episcopal Church (USA),
bullet Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot,
bullet Moravian Church in America-Northern Province,
bullet Na'Amat USA,
bullet National Council of Jewish Women,
bullet Presbyterian Church (USA),
bullet Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,
bullet Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,
bullet Union of American Hebrew Congregations,
bullet Unitarian Universalist Association,
bullet United Church of Christ,
bullet United Methodist Church,
bullet United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism.

bullet Religious groups other than denominations:
bullet Catholics for Free Choice,
bullet Episcopal Women's Caucus,
bullet Evangelicals for Choice,
bullet Jewish Women International,
bullet Lutheran Women's Caucus,
bullet North American Federation of Temple Youth,
bullet Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation,
bullet Women of Reform Judaism,
bullet Women's American ORT,


The Pro Choice Protestants are not obscure Christian groups. They make up a large potion of the Protestant community and their religious views were taken into consideration by the Justices in part IX of Roe v Wade.
Click to expand...

Their religious views do not command abortion and therefore it is not an imposition to forbid them from doing so.

Even if their views did, the state can ban religious practice that goes against public interest such as human sacrifice, some forms of drug use, polygamy, etc.

Publishing a list of heretical churches is not an argument.

The Roe v Wade decision was wrongly decided on many grounds, the least of which being their “religious analysis” again a ban on abortion in the criminal code is NOT an imposition of religion anymore then laws against theft or assault. That it happens to align with religious values is irrelevant, if you’re not forced to join a group or forced to conduct religious practice then you are not being imposed upon.
 
prometeus said:
Yet they are driven by hypocrites asshole zealots who can't stay the **** out of other people's lives.

The only truth is that some low intellect morons want to impose their primitive thinking on others.

Good, stay the **** out of other people's lives.

What you advocate for is pure ignorance.
Click to expand...

It must have taken a lot of rubbing both your IQ points together to write this nonsense
 
Peter King said:
For some reason the pro-life think they have to force women to listen to them so I forcefully write it down too from time to time.

And when it comes to arguments do you have any?

Ooh so you don't want the government to decide what a woman does in her womb but in all reality that is exactly what you want. And there is no distinct human being inside her womb, that is just nonsense.

And again, it is not killing, it is aborting. And no, it is none of your damned business whatsoever from there until the end of time what some lady decides that happens in her womb. You may have the arrogant attitude that you have that right but you don't, not even one little bit.

Not your womb, not your decision, nothing to do with you.
Click to expand...
More non-sequiturs that have already been disproven.
 
minnie616 said:
List of pro choice from Religious Tolerance:
Click to expand...

I believe there are others as well, that are pro choice but not necessarily a member of the RCRC, such as the Lutheran church. Not sure about Methodist. Here in Canada, the United Church of Canada is pro choice and the Anglican Church, while it doesn't say it's pro choice, it's focus is on improving conditions for women to allow them to keep their child rather than politically opposing abortion.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Agreed. More info is needed. I've heard various things about it, such as the mother is facing deportation, the pregnant woman is violent etc. but do not know what is true or not.




Exactly. Pro choice means we want the pregnant woman to decide and not have abortion forced on her. In this case, even though she has a young mental age, there is no reason why she can't have the child and then it be removed if neither she nor her mother can care for it.
Click to expand...

It is funny how to some this is a cut and dry (primarily against pro-choice proponents)

Not a simple situation and no connect to the pro-choice folks.

I speak to understanding meaning of words. They cannot understand that pro-choicers would be against it because to man of them pro-choice means "pro-abortion"

The meaning of "pro-choice" is clear. A woman having a choice to choose to remain pregnant. Pro-abortion is inaccurate terminlogy because you will find that most pro-choicers would never choose abortion. (such as myself)
 
EMNofSeattle said:
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
Click to expand...

Couple questions for you, sir:

1) What does this have to do with socialism? Sounds like wildly problematic policy, which, as someone who identifies as being pro-choice, think is absolutely inappropriate. I just don't see any ties back to socialist ideology here.

2) What the hell is "the baby murder lobby"?
 
Manc Skipper said:
The most obvious omission is that the person the abortion is "being forced upon" lacks the mental capacity to choose. It follows that to become pregnant she was raped. She's pregnant but is unaware of the implications of that. As the judge said , once she has a tangible baby, then she could be distressed as in someone takes away her favourite new doll. A minor "operation" will soon be forgotten
Is forcing a raped mentally handicapped woman to carry a rapist's baby to term a moral decision?
Click to expand...

I'll take this on, as a very pro-choice guy. I'm about to make an ass of myself here, given the clichés I'm about to peddle in, but...**** it, that's never stopped me before...hehe...

1) Slippery slope. I hate this argument...but this is one place where I'll drop it anyway. If we justify removing this woman's choice in this case, we can do it again in others. Will all women with mental health issues face abortion? What if a woman is about to go to jail, and is pregnant? What if a woman knows she's going to give birth to a child with deformities or mental illness, that will likely be a drain on the social system? What if a woman is pregnant with another man's child, and her husband is upset about it?

Obviously these represent very different points along a sliding scale, but it's the same scale - we're talking, one more time, about legitimate reasons to take away a woman's choice, this time in the opposite direction. To even begin to feel remotely comfortable with this, there would have to be such a high degree of transparency and oversight as to totally destroy any right to privacy the woman may have.

This feels like a step backwards...or perhaps too far in what was the right direction. If the woman is unable to make the choice, then nature should make the choice for her, and the baby should be given a chance, in my opinion - with full support of the state, of course.

2) If a minor operation will be forgotten, then so will the baby. If the woman is so far gone that she won't remember her pregnancy, then it's likely she won't remember the baby either. However that does not appear to be the case.

I think this is all academic, as I agree with other posters, this story seems a little sketch - you would think forced abortions would at least be picked up by Fox, if none of the other MSM outlets. But even as a hypothetical scenario, I think it is an extremely complicated issue that I'd have a terribly hard time figuring out which way my moral compass points. Pro choice means standing up for the choice, more than the abortion, I think.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Their religious views do not command abortion and therefore it is not an imposition to forbid them from doing so.

Even if their views did, the state can ban religious practice that goes against public interest such as human sacrifice, some forms of drug use, polygamy, etc.

Publishing a list of heretical churches is not an argument.

The Roe v Wade decision was wrongly decided on many grounds, the least of which being their “religious analysis” again a ban on abortion in the criminal code is NOT an imposition of religion anymore then laws against theft or assault. That it happens to align with religious values is irrelevant, if you’re not forced to join a group or forced to conduct religious practice then you are not being imposed upon.
Click to expand...

The Jewish religion does put the life of the woman above the life of the unborn.

Pro choice Protestant religion sincerely believe that the woman is a moral agent and a law forbidding an abortion takes away her soul competency.





I find it really interesting that there were letters written between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson because the Baptists were concerned about the separation of church and state. Those letters led to the Bill of Rights. It’s from the Bill of Rights we have a Right to privacy.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty‐‐that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals‐‐that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions‐‐that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men‐‐should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Click to expand...


Letters between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists - Bill of Rights Institute

It is also interesting that one of the Baptists tenets is soul competency.

Soul competency is a very important religious tenet that is held by many main line Christian religions.

Many Christian faiths and other religious groups hold beliefs that reproductive choice including access to legal abortion is a part of our religious tenet.

We believe that "Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures. "

Here is a <SNIP> from an article about soul competency.

From a Huffington Post article:


Our faith tradition teaches soul competency, a Baptist principle that is violated in restricting the right to choose an abortion.
Our forebears suffered greatly, even to the point of death, to express their conviction that no one stands between the individual and God.

Furthermore, it is a it is God-given right to hold your own belief and to reject state-sponsored religion.

This is the core Baptist principle of soul competency -- belief in the ability of each person to "rightly divide the word of God" (2 Timothy 2: 15) and act accordingly. Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures.
Therefore, current legislation restricting women's reproductive choice also restricts moral choice.
Click to expand...


Most Women Under 40 Haven't Heard the Pro-choice Moral Argument | HuffPost
 
Last edited:
OlNate said:
Couple questions for you, sir:

1) What does this have to do with socialism? Sounds like wildly problematic policy, which, as someone who identifies as being pro-choice, think is absolutely inappropriate. I just don't see any ties back to socialist ideology here.

2) What the hell is "the baby murder lobby"?
Click to expand...

Socialism requires a massive state with the power to reallocate property (which is something you trade time of your life to obtain) and therefore they begin to eventually see power over life itself.

The baby murder lobby is exactly what it sounds like. There’s the abortion clinics, and their allies in government positions who exempt them from every regulation and create propaganda likening abortion to a right
 
minnie616 said:
The Jewish religion does put the life of the woman above the life of the unborn.

Pro choice Protestant religion sincerely believe that the woman is a moral agent and a law forbidding an abortion takes away her soul competency.

From the following :
Click to expand...

I don’t care and I don’t care.

Those religions should not be imposing their will on unborn babies. You see, Gary Ridgeway was a moral agent too, you gonna let him out of Walla Walla?

I can’t control what other people think of the value of human life, i know what the value is and therefore I continue to lobby the state to apply that value
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
I don’t care and I don’t care.

Those religions should not be imposing their will on unborn babies. You see, Gary Ridgeway was a moral agent too, you gonna let him out of Walla Walla?

I can’t control what other people think of the value of human life, i know what the value is and therefore I continue to lobby the state to apply that value
Click to expand...

Pro choice does not impose an abortion on anyone it allows the woman to have soul competency/religious liberty.

Religious liberty is a core Constitutional right of the US.

From the RCRC:

Religious Liberty

Our religious principles: We are attuned to the important role of our diverse faiths in personal and public life. We treasure the religious freedom guaranteed Americans since our nation’s founding.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
Socialism requires a massive state with the power to reallocate property (which is something you trade time of your life to obtain) and therefore they begin to eventually see power over life itself.
Click to expand...

Mmm...that's not a definition, and most countries that employ socialist policies do not do that, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I think your premise might be a bit off...

The baby murder lobby is exactly what it sounds like. There’s the abortion clinics, and their allies in government positions who exempt them from every regulation and create propaganda likening abortion to a right[/QUOTE]

Ok, so, basically an ugly sensationalist way of referring to pro choice folks? Do you think that makes people take you more or less seriously?
 
Scrabaholic said:
If the woman does not want the abortion, then yes, it is forced. Fortunately, it's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Someone with the mental age of 6 cannot decide such things. Also the pregnancy was the result of a rape.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I don’t care and I don’t care.
Click to expand...
Of course not, that would require some rational thinking and intellect. You clearly prefer the lack of intellect and ignorant zealotry.

I can’t control what other people think of the value of human life, i know what the value is
Click to expand...
Do not delude yourself, you only know what has been fed to you and it is worthless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom