Abortion

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Ciaran said:
How many times did you edit this ya ****ebag

Why did you delete your thread off the Celtic board earlier btw?
Click to expand...

<laugh> I edited in case folk thought I was agreeing you too much <laugh>

Cause it was a load of pish!!
 
Gambol said:
Pud disny know what to think about anything until the rest of us tell him what he's thinking
Click to expand...

[video=youtube;rh0ray9JnS0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh0ray9JnS0[/video]
 
Jip Jaap Stam said:
For what it's worth, I don't like abortion. But I don't like the killing of adults either, and sometimes that's necessary too.

One thing I would say is that how can they be sure the child will have zero quality of life forever? How many times do doctors proclaim that someone will probably never walk again and said cripple goes on to recover? How do we know a cure or treatment for this disability won't be developed?

What would Muhammad do? Apart from marry the kid when it reaches infant school age, of course.
Click to expand...

These are fair points. It's an imperfect world and mistakes can get made.

My point was that abortion and euthenasia should be legal options. An option that is not being forced on anyone, but neither should it be denied them on religious grounds.

My own view, as I've restated on here, is that when quality of life approaches zero, or as in the case of a foetus where severe abnormality is detected, these options should be considered and without religious/legal hindrance.
 
Gambol said:
These are fair points. It's an imperfect world and mistakes can get made.

My point was that abortion and euthenasia should be legal options. An option that is not being forced on anyone, but neither should it be denied them on religious grounds.

My own view, as I've restated on here, is that when quality of life approaches zero, or as in the case of a foetus where severe abnormality is detected, these options should be considered and without religious/legal hindrance.
Click to expand...

It is being forced on the child though. Children should be protected, not killed.
 
Ciaran said:
<laugh>

Your country is ****ing riddled with *****s ya tube, it has been non stop outings this last while.

Fact is England has gone to hell in a hand cart son, the place is a mess, especially among the coloured population.
Click to expand...

See that high ground your standing on, is it one of the peace walls? <laugh>
 
Ciaran said:
<laugh>

Your country is ****ing riddled with *****s ya tube, it has been non stop outings this last while.

Fact is England has gone to hell in a hand cart son, the place is a mess, especially among the coloured population.
Click to expand...

1: Your ****ty island is riddled with kiddly-fiddling priests, proportionally to the population it's ****ed.

2: You ****s throw petrol bombs and bricks at each other on a monthly basis, all because of some dudes wanting to walk down several streets.

Your pathetic attempts at 'doing an ER' and trying to state bullshit facts as true is tired. ER has been doing it for years and it's never been funny, the sad thing is you're not even as witty as a senile 60 year old <doh>
 
Ciaran said:
It is being forced on the child though. Children should be protected, not killed.
Click to expand...

When there is zero quality of life, like a severe brain abnormality as in the OP, then what exactly are you protecting it from? A living death as opposed to an actual death.

Nobody said they were pleasant options. But the options should be there.
 
Gambol said:
These are fair points. It's an imperfect world and mistakes can get made.

My point was that abortion and euthenasia* should be legal options. An option that is not being forced on anyone, but neither should it be denied them on religious grounds.

My own view, as I've restated on here, is that when quality of life approaches zero, or as in the case of a foetus where severe abnormality is detected, these options should be considered and without religious/legal hindrance.
Click to expand...

Very eloquently put Gambol. Apart from your continued disregard for the Queen's English.
 
Can we cut out the personal attacks please, guys?

People expect a certain decorum and etiquette on GC and we should maintain those fine standards which Not606 has became renowned for.

Thanks :)
 
Gambol said:
These are fair points. It's an imperfect world and mistakes can get made.

My point was that abortion and euthenasia should be legal options. An option that is not being forced on anyone, but neither should it be denied them on religious grounds.

My own view, as I've restated on here, is that when quality of life approaches zero, or as in the case of a foetus where severe abnormality is detected, these options should be considered and without religious/legal hindrance.
Click to expand...

We made a decision to have the full range of tests done - if any sort of disability, including Downs Syndrome was detected, we would terminate on the gounds that we would not knowingly bring a disabled child into this world.
 
Shameless said:
We made a decision to have the full range of tests done - if any sort of disability, including Downs Syndrome was detected, we would terminate on the gounds that we would not knowingly bring a disabled child into this world.
Click to expand...

What if they missed something? Would you keep it chained up in the attic? I'd imagine it's like having a wee Orangutan for a pet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back