H mom claim The only way to remove a fetus at 17 weeks is called "abortion."

B

BMS

Well-known member
Electric Skeptic said:
I do not. I have nowhere stated or implied what you claimed - you completely made it up. I'm sure there's a word for making up something that is not true...I just can't come up with it at the moment...
Click to expand...
Of course you imply it. Since only women can be pregnant and men cant, your refusal to say women instead if persons implies it.
What reason do you gave to deny it?
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
BMS said:
Like what? 😀 we have given you all the medical knowledge. All you have to offer is imagination, posturing and bluster.
Click to expand...
You have given nothing but ignorance and closed minds. You are impervious to learning, because like all Dunning-Kruger subjects, you think you know it all already.
 
B

BMS

Well-known member
Temujin said:
You have given nothing but ignorance and closed minds. You are impervious to learning, because like all Dunning-Kruger subjects, you think you know it all already.
Click to expand...
In what way ignorance? What learning have you got that indicates why you cant define the women you refer to?
 
A

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Over on the politix board the pro-deathers are pushing their "terminate the pregnancy" buzzwords.

All the CARM members are the result of terminated pregnancies.

They don't want to mention terminate the baby which a specific abortion version of terminate the pregnancy.

D&E is the medical expression of abortion.

It is not common in hospitals because they are not abortion chambers.

D&C is a medical procedure done in hospitals including Catholic when a Pregnancy was interrupted via miscarriage.
A reminder the pro-abortion clubs are not here to learn.
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
Authentic Nouveau said:
Over on the politix board the pro-deathers are pushing their "terminate the pregnancy" buzzwords.

All the CARM members are the result of terminated pregnancies.

They don't want to mention terminate the baby which a specific abortion version of terminate the pregnancy.

D&E is the medical expression of abortion.

It is not common in hospitals because they are not abortion chambers.

D&C is a medical procedure done in hospitals including Catholic when a Pregnancy was interrupted via miscarriage.
A reminder the pro-abortion clubs are not here to learn.
Click to expand...
Most abortions are performed using medication, no surgery at all.
A D&E is not the medical expression of abortion. Abortion is the medical expression of abortion. It may be a spontaneous abortion, aka a miscarriage, or an induced abortion, which may be surgical or medical. A D&E is a possible abortion procedure but is also used when the foetus is already dead. Both D&E and D&C are just acronyms for different ways of clearing the uterus and its lining. Neither of them is exclusive to abortions nor do either of them mean the same thing as abortion.

It is true that nobody reads your posts in order to learn. This is because your ignorance and inaccuracy are so well-known that you are incapable of teaching. As you demonstrate in your post, your medical knowledge is miniscule and is limited to a hurried misreading of what you have gleaned from the Internet.
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
BMS said:
www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org

Woman with Down's syndrome loses abortion law appeal - BBC News

Campaigner Heidi Crowter says she will keep fighting and take her case to the Supreme Court.
www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org

Compare the news with the thinking of the pro-choice people.
Also, France for example allows 12 or 13 weeks as a legal limit. What 17 weeks?
Click to expand...
Not sure what your point here is. The case here revolves around the conflict between the rights of a pregnant woman and the rights of an unborn child. Since the latter has no legal rights, the result was a foregone conclusion. There's no discrimination against disabled people.
 
B

BMS

Well-known member
Temujin said:
Not sure what your point here is.
Click to expand...
The article was linked so you could respond to that. Have you read the article?

The case here revolves around the conflict between the rights of a pregnant woman and the rights of an unborn child.
Click to expand...
Obviously it involves specific unborn child having Downs syndrome. Since you didn't get it you discriminate against disabled people.
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
BMS said:
The article was linked so you could respond to that. Have you read the article?

Obviously it involves specific unborn child having Downs syndrome. Since you didn't get it you discriminate against disabled people.
Click to expand...
Since no unborn children have rights of any sort, disabled unborn children cannot have fewer rights than any other. Therefore all unborn children are treated equally. The difference is in what pregnant woman are permitted to do with regard to termination. Parliament has determined that with regard to serious disability in general, and Downs Syndrome in particular, that termination should be permitted up to birth. This is because such conditions are typically diagnosed late in the pregnancy. The appeal court has upheld the judgement of the high court that the law is not discriminatory.

It's a contentious and important issue, which will probably go to the ECHR, but the legal position is quite clear.
 
B

BMS

Well-known member
Temujin said:
Since no unborn children have rights of any sort, disabled unborn children cannot have fewer rights than any other. Therefore all unborn children are treated equally. The difference is in what pregnant woman are permitted to do with regard to termination. Parliament has determined that with regard to serious disability in general, and Downs Syndrome in particular, that termination should be permitted up to birth. This is because such conditions are typically diagnosed late in the pregnancy. The appeal court has upheld the judgement of the high court that the law is not discriminatory.

It's a contentious and important issue, which will probably go to the ECHR, but the legal position is quite clear.
Click to expand...
obviously not since disabled unborn such as with Downs can get aborted up until birth but other unborn are protected after 24 weeks in the UK.
 
B

BMS

Well-known member
Temujin said:
Since no unborn children have rights of any sort, disabled unborn children cannot have fewer rights than any other. Therefore all unborn children are treated equally. The difference is in what pregnant woman are permitted to do with regard to termination. Parliament has determined that with regard to serious disability in general, and Downs Syndrome in particular, that termination should be permitted up to birth. This is because such conditions are typically diagnosed late in the pregnancy. The appeal court has upheld the judgement of the high court that the law is not discriminatory.

It's a contentious and important issue, which will probably go to the ECHR, but the legal position is quite clear.
Click to expand...
Why did you say 'unborn children' Temujin? Children have personhood dont they?
 
B

BMS

Well-known member
Temujin said:
Since no unborn children have rights of any sort, disabled unborn children cannot have fewer rights than any other. Therefore all unborn children are treated equally. The difference is in what pregnant woman are permitted to do with regard to termination. Parliament has determined that with regard to serious disability in general, and Downs Syndrome in particular, that termination should be permitted up to birth. This is because such conditions are typically diagnosed late in the pregnancy. The appeal court has upheld the judgement of the high court that the law is not discriminatory.

It's a contentious and important issue, which will probably go to the ECHR, but the legal position is quite clear.
Click to expand...
Your society and the BBC celebrate para olympic medal winners who have Downs syndrome so why allow them to be killed in the womb up to birth as opposed to all other unborn just to 24 weeks?
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
BMS said:
Your society and the BBC celebrate para olympic medal winners who have Downs syndrome so why allow them to be killed in the womb up to birth as opposed to all other unborn just to 24 weeks?
Click to expand...
Our society (you live here too) celebrates the achievements of all people, of all levels of ability, of all faiths and none, of all genders and none, of all sexualities and none. We allow unborn children to be killed, subject to conditions, because they have no rights and are not people, and because the person who is pregnant has the right to terminate that pregnancy. If you want to know why, look up Hansard for 1967 and read the arguments put forward on both sides. You will discover why a majority of parliamentarians, on a free vote, decided to make this the case. The Abortion Act 1967 is one of the most successful acts of Parliament passed in modern times. It took a highly contentious and divisive issue and dealt with it, deciding the issue. The legalization of abortion and homosexuality, and the abolition of the death penalty , were examples of parliament showing real leadership to the country, giving clear direction and shaping social mores and expectations for generations to come. Of course there will be a few individuals who disagree with these measures, but thankfully their objections have been buried to the point where they are amusing, if distasteful caricatures rather than serious opposition to established policy.
 
B

BMS

Well-known member
Temujin said:
Our society (you live here too) celebrates the achievements of all people, of all levels of ability, of all faiths and none, of all genders and none, of all sexualities and none. We allow unborn children to be killed, subject to conditions, because they have no rights and are not people, and because the person who is pregnant has the right to terminate that pregnancy. If you want to know why, look up Hansard for 1967 and read the arguments put forward on both sides. You will discover why a majority of parliamentarians, on a free vote, decided to make this the case. The Abortion Act 1967 is one of the most successful acts of Parliament passed in modern times. It took a highly contentious and divisive issue and dealt with it, deciding the issue. The legalization of abortion and homosexuality, and the abolition of the death penalty , were examples of parliament showing real leadership to the country, giving clear direction and shaping social mores and expectations for generations to come. Of course there will be a few individuals wdisagree with these measures, but thankfully their objections have been buried to the point where they are amusing, if distasteful caricatures rather than serious opposition to established policy.
Click to expand...
Waffle. Can you see the discrimination against Downs syndrome or are you still blind to the reality? If the latter your judgement will be impaired on the Abortion Act 1967
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top