Magnum Xtreme Gummies: Power-Packed...
Jokes12 mins ago
Do You Agree With Rees-Mogg That Abortion Even After A Woman Has Been Raped Is Morally Indefensible?
http://
I can understand why he believes this as he was brought up as a strict Catholic ("life is life"), but I can't agree with him - even the morning after pill would be a no no to him.
How do you feel?
I can understand why he believes this as he was brought up as a strict Catholic ("life is life"), but I can't agree with him - even the morning after pill would be a no no to him.
How do you feel?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
> I believe it is 100% the woman's choice
But it isn't. The woman is only legally allowed to make a choice within the 1967 Abortion Act. That means it is not 100% her choice.
[From Wikepedia] The Act made abortion legal in all of Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland) up to 24 weeks' gestation. In 1990, the law was amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act so that abortion was no longer legal after 24 weeks except in cases where it was necessary to save the life of the woman, there was evidence of extreme fetal abnormality, or there was a grave risk of physical or mental injury to the woman. ... As the UK's healthcare system is completely government-run, abortion remains officially restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health, health, rape, fetal defects, and/or socioeconomic factors.
If the law was changed, the woman's legal choices would be restricted to the new law. Laws are made not by women but by society as a whole, through Parliament. So having a Prime Minister so opposed to abortion would be a threat to the current law, a threat that I don't imagine would lead to much since there would be such significant opposition, but a threat nonetheless.
But it isn't. The woman is only legally allowed to make a choice within the 1967 Abortion Act. That means it is not 100% her choice.
[From Wikepedia] The Act made abortion legal in all of Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland) up to 24 weeks' gestation. In 1990, the law was amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act so that abortion was no longer legal after 24 weeks except in cases where it was necessary to save the life of the woman, there was evidence of extreme fetal abnormality, or there was a grave risk of physical or mental injury to the woman. ... As the UK's healthcare system is completely government-run, abortion remains officially restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health, health, rape, fetal defects, and/or socioeconomic factors.
If the law was changed, the woman's legal choices would be restricted to the new law. Laws are made not by women but by society as a whole, through Parliament. So having a Prime Minister so opposed to abortion would be a threat to the current law, a threat that I don't imagine would lead to much since there would be such significant opposition, but a threat nonetheless.
AOG - // /// especially if those strangers occupied such a deeply immoral organisation as the Catholic
church. ///
Immoral????????? that is a little harsh, what would the present Mrs Hughes say, her being a devout catholic and all that? //
You may say my view is a little harsh, I assure you it was seriously understated, so as not to divert the thread away from its main point.
I can tell you what the present Mrs Hughes will say - she will say that my views are my own, and I am entitled to them, as is she.
As to her level of devotion, that is a matter for her alone, I have never ever referred to her as a 'devout Catholic' - not for the first time you are assuming something I have not said, but let's not get derailed on that shall we?
church. ///
Immoral????????? that is a little harsh, what would the present Mrs Hughes say, her being a devout catholic and all that? //
You may say my view is a little harsh, I assure you it was seriously understated, so as not to divert the thread away from its main point.
I can tell you what the present Mrs Hughes will say - she will say that my views are my own, and I am entitled to them, as is she.
As to her level of devotion, that is a matter for her alone, I have never ever referred to her as a 'devout Catholic' - not for the first time you are assuming something I have not said, but let's not get derailed on that shall we?
Talbot - // So ... Andy, jack & Islay if my wife was pregnant and out of the blue said "I'm having an abortion" it would have zero % to do with me? //
I did not say that an abortion would have nothing to do with the father of the pregnancy, I said that the decision is down to the woman concerned, and I believe that to be right.
In a marriage, or any relationship, I would hope that a discussion would take place, but if you wanted to keep the child, and she did not, then I believe that her decision is the one that stands, for obvious reasons.
I did not say that an abortion would have nothing to do with the father of the pregnancy, I said that the decision is down to the woman concerned, and I believe that to be right.
In a marriage, or any relationship, I would hope that a discussion would take place, but if you wanted to keep the child, and she did not, then I believe that her decision is the one that stands, for obvious reasons.
I understand JTM's view on this, that the developing child has no fewer rights simply because of the situation that brought them into existence: but I feel such an extreme position is difficult to justify because many moral situations is about finding the least worse moral stance rather than finding a right one.
If he is against the morning after pill too then it is particularly extreme, as at that point one can not seriously consider the result an individual yet, but just human cells multiplying. However the encouragement not to deliberately rely on that form of late "contraception" would be fair enough. There are other methods.
If he is against the morning after pill too then it is particularly extreme, as at that point one can not seriously consider the result an individual yet, but just human cells multiplying. However the encouragement not to deliberately rely on that form of late "contraception" would be fair enough. There are other methods.
So far as I can see J.R-M accepts the law of the land. He has personal and religious doubts, but these do not affect anyone else. A non-starter as a story, I think. Being female, I have felt the horror of an 'Oh, please, No!' scare (bet most of us ladies can identify with that!).
The one and only abortion of which I can approve was a friend(already had 2 children) accidentally conceived No. 3 in later life. Things weren't smooth and about the 5th month it was discovered that the foetus was so badly spina bifida that, had the pregnancy been allowed to continue, then my friend's life was at dire threat from the escape of fluids or something - I know it was a horrible time.
So, the baby was going to die anyway and, had the pregnancy continued, would have killed my friend. Termination was still a horrible decision to make, but I think it was the only one to make.
Short of that sort of situation, I am opposed to abortion - but women must be given huge help in the case of rape and other unavoidable situations. The law of the land says otherwise and I reluctantly accept that.
The one and only abortion of which I can approve was a friend(already had 2 children) accidentally conceived No. 3 in later life. Things weren't smooth and about the 5th month it was discovered that the foetus was so badly spina bifida that, had the pregnancy been allowed to continue, then my friend's life was at dire threat from the escape of fluids or something - I know it was a horrible time.
So, the baby was going to die anyway and, had the pregnancy continued, would have killed my friend. Termination was still a horrible decision to make, but I think it was the only one to make.
Short of that sort of situation, I am opposed to abortion - but women must be given huge help in the case of rape and other unavoidable situations. The law of the land says otherwise and I reluctantly accept that.
No, I don't agree with him.
However I also have a similar view to that I held about Corbyn a couple of years ago, he is honest in his views and is not saying the 'right thing' just to appeal to the electorate and that in the political world, takes courage.
He probably has scuppered his chances of becoming leader, the public prefer someone who says the 'right thing', whatever they may actually think to someone who is honest.
However I also have a similar view to that I held about Corbyn a couple of years ago, he is honest in his views and is not saying the 'right thing' just to appeal to the electorate and that in the political world, takes courage.
He probably has scuppered his chances of becoming leader, the public prefer someone who says the 'right thing', whatever they may actually think to someone who is honest.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.