Sickening

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

i'd hardly call picking the last decade 'cherry picking'.

i'm not sure what the point of going all statto is anyway - whatever, the numbers are sickeningly high.

but if you do want to be a statto, i'll trump you; the fact that the rate is stabilising in absolute terms, relative to a declining birth rate means it's actually increasing as a share of conceptions.

You don't know the figures from the last decade. You are basing your opinion on figures 3 years out of date and you don't know whether those figures are still the same, higher, or lower, and in fact you don't know whether these figures you based your argument on are even remotely representative. And I was pointing out that the figures had stabilised since abortion had been legalised. Which you claimed was wrong since they had went up 5% in the previous decade. All I was doing was saying that in comparison to the first two decades since legalisation the figure was stabilising.

On your second point, are you sure... Have you noticed the recent actual increase in the birth rate in the UK?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by wee 162
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You don't know the figures from the last decade. You are basing your opinion on figures 3 years out of date and you don't know whether those figures are still the same, higher, or lower, and in fact you don't know whether these figures you based your argument on are even remotely representative. And I was pointing out that the figures had stabilised since abortion had been legalised. Which you claimed was wrong since they had went up 5% in the previous decade. All I was doing was saying that in comparison to the first two decades since legalisation the figure was stabilising.

you really are a bit of a statto sometimes Al

On your second point, are you sure... Have you noticed the recent actual increase in the birth rate in the UK?

as you know Al, that is down to immigrant communities - who don't have as many abortions.

[Green Sleeves]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ok - what do you do with a surviving baby?

kill it humanely?

Yes. As fast and as humanely as possible.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes. As fast and as humanely as possible.

ok then, what other type of people should that also apply to?

specifically, if a baby is born normally and then rejected by the mother - should it also be killed humanely? if not why not?

[Smurf]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes. As fast and as humanely as possible.

Apologies.. Not read through all of this apart from the original link...

Why can i ask?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Smurf
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Apologies.. Not read through all of this apart from the original link...

Why can i ask?

it's perfectly logical isn't it? if the baby can be killed when obscured from view by a layer of skin, then why shouldn't it once it's visible?

but then that leads to the question i've put to greensleeves above.

[Smurf]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

it's perfectly logical isn't it? if the baby can be killed when obscured from view by a layer of skin, then why shouldn't it once it's visible?

but then that leads to the question i've put to greensleeves above.

Dude i now have an opinion on this that can infuriate others.

I accept your point totally.

I see no arguement at all beyond 12 weeks. And only then in absolute exceptional circumstances in the first 12 weeks.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ok then, what other type of people should that also apply to?

specifically, if a baby is born normally and then rejected by the mother - should it also be killed humanely? if not why not?

We're talking about abortions not viable preganacies. There are time limits related to viability (all the babies refered to in the article died as they were not viable). Also, there is a councelling process prior to undertaking an abortion including a pschiatric assessment. Again, I think you trivialise the process to make a point.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

We're talking about abortions not viable preganacies.

they were viable till aborted.

but if you mean they couldn't survive without care, which is why they didn't kill them:

"CEMACH chief executive Richard Congdon said lethal injection had not been given in the 16 abortions over 22 weeks' gestation because death was "inevitable".

from this it seems clear that more robust systems may well be bumped off. no wonder really as hospitals have been sued for the upkeep of survivors, when the mother has then gone to term. imagine this scenario where they could then be sued also by the prospective abortee- or maybe they couldn't? maybe such a person would grow to adulthood, unique amongst his peers as being unable to have a right of redress over people who tried to kill him?

in a confirmation of Al's worst fears about liberal capitalist society - if you are weak, voiceless and expensive to maintain: you are fucked boyo.

There are time limits related to viability (all the babies refered to in the article died as they were not viable). Also, there is a councelling process prior to undertaking an abortion including a pschiatric assessment. Again, I think you trivialise the process to make a point.

trivialise - what the fuck are you on about?

i'm asking people to follow through on their logic and see where it takes them - and my intention is as far from frivilous as you could get col.

you meanwhile don't seem to be able to stick to the point - what have counselling sessions got to do with what you do with babies that survive abortion?

so again i ask you col - what do you think? if you have a baby that may potentially be able to live - what should be done?

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

they were viable till aborted.

but if you mean they couldn't survive without care, which is why they didn't kill them:

"CEMACH chief executive Richard Congdon said lethal injection had not been given in the 16 abortions over 22 weeks' gestation because death was "inevitable".

from this it seems clear that more robust systems may well be bumped off. no wonder really as hospitals have been sued for the upkeep of survivors, when the mother has then gone to term. imagine this scenario where they could then be sued also by the prospective abortee- or maybe they couldn't? maybe such a person would grow to adulthood, unique amongst his peers as being unable to have a right of redress over people who tried to kill him?

in a confirmation of Al's worst fears about liberal capitalist society - if you are weak, voiceless and expensive to maintain: you are fucked boyo.

trivialise - what the fuck are you on about?

i'm asking people to follow through on their logic and see where it takes them - and my intention is as far from frivilous as you could get col.

you meanwhile don't seem to be able to stick to the point - what have counselling sessions got to do with what you do with babies that survive abortion?

so again i ask you col - what do you think? if you have a baby that may potentially be able to live - what should be done?

The point is that abortions should be carried out after counselling of those concerned up until a point where they are viable.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The point is that abortions should be carried out after counselling of those concerned up until a point where they are viable.

col - what would you do with a baby that survived an abortion, and may be able to go on to live? some of them are older than babies who have lived so it's entirely possible.

what would you do?

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

col - what would you do with a baby that survived an abortion, and may be able to go on to live? some of them are older than babies who have lived so it's entirely possible.

what would you do?

If the baby survives the abortion, the abortion has been botched.

[Green Sleeves]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ok then, what other type of people should that also apply to?

specifically, if a baby is born normally and then rejected by the mother - should it also be killed humanely? if not why not?

There is no reason why this should be applied to any other "type" of people. Nor is anyone suggesting it should be.

Foetuses aren't people. If the mother doesn't want the foetus born then kill it as humanely, painlessly, and quickly as possible. Then dispose of it. Adios foetus.

If the mother doesn't want it who gives a shit? Why get all sanctimonious and pretend to care about a foetus that no one wants. Millions of foetuses have been aborted. Does anyone miss any of them? No. They're just aborted foetuses. Nothing more, nothing less.

The more abortions the better. Means less unwanted kids. In fact we should cheer every time there's an abortion and raise our glasses to the heroic caring mother who stopped another unwanted child entering an overpopulated world. Well done those women.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is no reason why this should be applied to any other "type" of people. Nor is anyone suggesting it should be.

Foetuses aren't people. If the mother doesn't want the foetus born then kill it as humanely, painlessly, and quickly as possible. Then dispose of it. Adios foetus.

If the mother doesn't want it who gives a shit? Why get all sanctimonious and pretend to care about a foetus that no one wants. Millions of foetuses have been aborted. Does anyone miss any of them? No. They're just aborted foetuses. Nothing more, nothing less.

The more abortions the better. Means less unwanted kids. In fact we should cheer every time there's an abortion and raise our glasses to the heroic caring mother who stopped another unwanted child entering an overpopulated world. Well done those women.

You should read Freakonomics - suggests that the drop in crime rates in the US in the 80s/90s was due to the reduction in unwanted children brought aboiut by the legalisation of abortion and nothing to do with zero tolerance.

[Green Sleeves]

Originally Posted by Colr
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You should read Freakonomics - suggests that the drop in crime rates in the US in the 80s/90s was due to the reduction in unwanted children brought aboiut by the legalisation of abortion and nothing to do with zero tolerance.

I've read it and its a really good book. The book's theory linking the fall in US crime in the 90s with the legalisation of abortion after 1973 managed to piss off both right and left. Yet it made logical sense.

[Smurf]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The more abortions the better. Means less unwanted kids. In fact we should cheer every time there's an abortion and raise our glasses to the heroic caring mother who stopped another unwanted child entering an overpopulated world. Well done those women.

What about the responsibility of conceiving in the first place?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If the baby survives the abortion, the abortion has been botched.

answer the question please

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is no reason why this should be applied to any other "type" of people. Nor is anyone suggesting it should be.

Foetuses aren't people. If the mother doesn't want the foetus born then kill it as humanely, painlessly, and quickly as possible. Then dispose of it. Adios foetus.

sorry this is the 21st century, I can't allow your superstituous self serving fantasy to go unchallenged: in what way is a child delivered after 20 odds weeks not a human?

is this untermensch status based on biology - if so at what point do you become human?

is it based on whether they are wanted or not by a 3rd party? if so, isnt this a bit bonkers?

if premature babies aren't human, why do we spend our tax dollars on preserving their lives

If the mother doesn't want it who gives a shit? Why get all sanctimonious and pretend to care about a foetus that no one wants. Millions of foetuses have been aborted. Does anyone miss any of them? No. They're just aborted foetuses. Nothing more, nothing less.

you callous fucker.

i could say the same about starving africans, the poor, the disabled. that's what happens when human life derives it's value from a more powerful 3rd party.

The more abortions the better. Means less unwanted kids. In fact we should cheer every time there's an abortion and raise our glasses to the heroic caring mother who stopped another unwanted child entering an overpopulated world. Well done those women.

congratulations.

you've just let the mask drop and revealed the selfishness, narcississm and nihilism that underpins so much contemporary 'morality', not to mention the backwards, unscientific, fairytale nonsense it uses to rationalise itself

i tell you what though; stick the rest of your left wing codswallop up yer bahookie - married to this, gives the lie to it being based on any concern for the brotherhood of man, but rather with you, is in fact just a license for selfishness as it is with so many others

will you cheer the worker's hero who puts you to sleep in a few decades, to solve the overpopulation you worry about, or indeed the western underpopulation resulting from selfishness?