Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Lyaiera

bruschi wrote: »

if you want me to retract I will. And I see other posters have since said they want abortions available all over. But again, that is not the issue in this case. this wasnt a woman who wanted it on demand. it shouldnt be a case of if you allow some, it will mean the whole thing falls down, regardless of either of our positions on it.

I think it's because of the famous "give them an inch" precedent in law. If they legalise abortions for medical necessities the "give them an inch" precedent legally means I'm allowed kill anything up to toddler age, and kick any child in junior or senior infants in the face.

Zulu

bruschi wrote: »

the point being that the pro choice campaigns state that no abortion is right.

I didn't miss that point. I amn't part of those campaigns. I've nothing to do with them. Why should I answer for them?

the point that the vast majority on here, and myself, are not talking about abortions on demand,

I don't think it's fair to say the "vast majority" are not talking about abortions on demand. A significant amount of posters have come out and said that's exactly what they are looking for.

so I fail to see why there should be a problem.

Fair enough: if you fail to recognise those posters who've come out and said they want abortion on demand; if you choose to ignore them, it would be difficult to see where the problem lies. However, burying your head in the sand isn't worth much.

with regards to this specific case, abortions on demand is a completely serperate issue, and I still dont see people clamouring for that.

Read the posts on this thread. You're burying your head in the sand.

The vast majority are talking specifically about medical conditions where the mothers life is in danger.

And I think (trolls aside) we're all in agreement on that point.

abortions on demand should not be a factor in allowing medically advised abortions.

They shouldn't be, but sadly, as long as "pro-choice" campaigners strive for abortion on demand, they always will be.

LeeHoffmann

I find it inherently disrespectful to condone abortion on demand Lee, if that's ok and on that basis consider it a pretty ridiculous point actually.

no let´s be clear here. You don´t like his opinion. You can label his opinion disrespectful on the ground that you don´t like it, but he did not express himself in an offensive or disrespectful way - he did not disrespect you. On the contrary, you disrespected him by ironically labeling him a ´charming individual´.

For one, I'd like to know how Brain Stroking would go about differentiating between who is 'mentally capable' enough to make decisions 'as to their own body' (??) and who is not.

He didn´t differentiate - perhaps you misread his post. He was making the point that adults are mentally capable beings and have a right to make decisions about their own body. Clearly people do have that right so the point is relevant. Whether they have the right to make decisions about the bodies within their bodies is a further point

Zulu

Lyaiera wrote: »

What does abortions for all have to do with your position?

Please read the thread Lyaiera, I've posted my position.

You're against savings someone life because of something totally unrelated?

Nope, I never once said that. :rolleyes:

Again, please read the thread.

bruschi wrote: »

if you want me to retract I will. And I see other posters have since said they want abortions available all over. But again, that is not the issue in this case. this wasnt a woman who wanted it on demand. it shouldnt be a case of if you allow some, it will mean the whole thing falls down, regardless of either of our positions on it.

Yeah, I heard you. But sadly it does. If we could just get the urgent medical cases sorted, everyone would be better off, this woman would be alive, and her poor husband wouldn't have lost his whole family in one tragic blow.

gimmick

I wonder will India organise a boycott of Ireland for our countries murder of this innocent woman???

Zulu

Lyaiera wrote: »

I think it's because of the famous "give them an inch" precedent in law. If they legalise abortions for medical necessities the "give them an inch" precedent legally means I'm allowed kill anything up to toddler age, and kick any child in junior or senior infants in the face.

Yeah! Productive & topical. What input. Clearly this nugget of wisdom will progress the conversation into new & challenging grounds. :rolleyes:

Lyaiera

Zulu wrote: »

They shouldn't be, but sadly, as long as "pro-choice" campaigners strive for abortion on demand, they always will be.

THOSE EVIL BASTARDS! I knew it was their fault! They're for abortions for all EXCEPT when they're medically necessary. They're so trixy! :mad:

ejmaztec

ibarelycare wrote: »

Of course it has made the Indian papers. It's made news world wide. There have been two separate threads on the front page of Reddit about it for the past 6 hours at least, so plenty of Americans will be waking up to it as well.

The same place where one or two abortion clinics got blown up. I wouldn't expect universal outrage from that neck of the woods.

revz

Regardless of if people are "abortion for all" or "abortion for some" is not the point of this.
The topic on issue here is that people want it stated in law that a termination of pregnancy can be carried out if the mother is at risk of losing her life, as has happened in this case.
Stop nit-picking on this abortion-on-demand nonsense, that is for another day.
I'm pretty sure everyone on the "pro-choice" side would be happy with a referendum on the scenario I said above and that scenario alone, regardless of how "severely" pro-choice they are (for want of a better term).
It needs to be introduced to stop this rare occurrence from ever happening again.
RIP Savita

Nonoperational

gimmick wrote: »

I wonder will India organise a boycott of Ireland for our countries murder of this innocent woman???

Can I just ask how you can call this murder?

Are you saying the doctors knew from the start that she would develop septicaemia and die (which would be manslaughter) and ignored it?.

Are you saying somebody planned the whole thing and injected her with E.Coli while in hospital (which would be murder)?

What % of these cases end up like this? What were the chances of her miscarrying herself and being physically OK after it?

Did the doctors know that there was a real risk of death if they did nothing? Or did the situation take a suddon nasty unexpected turn?

Was it just a dinosaur of a doctor who adopted a position that most wouldn't?

I don't agree with what went on, and my views on the matter are strongly leaning towards pro-choice, but really? Murder? Just too many questions...

bruschi

Zulu wrote: »

I didn't miss that point. I amn't part of those campaigns. I've nothing to do with them. Why should I answer for them?

I don't think it's fair to say the "vast majority" are not talking about abortions on demand. A significant amount of posters have come out and said that's exactly what they are looking for.

Fair enough: if you fail to recognise those posters who've come out and said they want abortion on demand; if you choose to ignore them, it would be difficult to see where the problem lies. However, burying your head in the sand isn't worth much.
Read the posts on this thread. You're burying your head in the sand.

And I think (trolls aside) we're all in agreement on that point.

They shouldn't be, but sadly, as long as "pro-choice" campaigners strive for abortion on demand, they always will be.

fari enough, and at least some on both sides can have civil debates on the matter. I'm not sure though how it could perceived that I'm burying my head in the sand, but in any case, it doesnt really bother me if you think that.

with regards to the last point though, I really dont get that viewpoint, and I know it may not be yours, but I can not understand how pro life campaigns will still fight for no abortions at all just because they are afraid that if medical abortions get passed, then it opens the gates. Surely if pro life is the agenda, then they need to see that it could in some cases be a viable option to abort. Again, I'm not adressing this at you as you have made your case known, I just dont get this argument. Its like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Zulu

Lyaiera wrote: »

THOSE EVIL BASTARDS! I knew it was their fault! They're for abortions for all EXCEPT when they're medically necessary. They're so trixy! :mad:

Yeah, again: productive. :rolleyes:

bruschi wrote: »

fari enough, and at least some on both sides can have civil debates on the matter. I'm not sure though how it could perceived that I'm burying my head in the sand, but in any case, it doesnt really bother me if you think that.

Apologies Bruschi, you are not burying your head in the sand. That was in reference to your position (that a vast majority were not looking for abortion on demand) prior to your acknowledgement otherwise.

Again, I'm not adressing this at you as you have made your case known, I just dont get this argument. Its like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I don't much get it either! But then I don't get how some people are so adamant that it's only a womans choice! Like the child doesn't exist, or that the fathers couldn't care/aren't entitled to care about the welfare of their children.

Lyaiera

Zulu wrote: »

Yeah, again: productive. :rolleyes:

I think it's extremely productive to highlight how hilarious what you're saying is.

HellFireClub

revz wrote: »

Regardless of if people are "abortion for all" or "abortion for some" is not the point of this.
The topic on issue here is that people want it stated in law that a termination of pregnancy can be carried out if the mother is at risk of losing her life, as has happened in this case.
Stop nit-picking on this abortion-on-demand nonsense, that is for another day.
I'm pretty sure everyone on the "pro-choice" side would be happy with a referendum on the scenario I said above and that scenario alone, regardless of how "severely" pro-choice they are (for want of a better term).
It needs to be introduced to stop this rare occurrence from ever happening again.
RIP Savita

Well it's a relevant point in my opinion because this tragedy will be thrown out there now to argue as to why abortion isn't legal here in any case where a mother chooses, as is already happening on the thread. Provision for this has been rejected by the people of this country, but yet we still have the left wing loo laa brigade who keep chipping away at it year after year after year, with the "my body my choice" argument.

Zulu

Lyaiera wrote: »

I think it's extremely productive to highlight how hilarious what you're saying is.

...by displaying your ignorance to the salient point? Interesting.

I guess who needs a conversation when you can have an audience (of one at least)?

Lyaiera

Zulu wrote: »

...by displaying your ignorance to the salient point? Interesting.

I guess who needs a conversation when you can have an audience (of one at least)?

The salient point being that people won't support something they believe in because other people who support it have other views they disagree with.

You're right, if I take that kind of attitude I could have a huge following.

hatrickpatrick

Conservatives support the right to life - until such time as you are born.

Zulu

Lyaiera wrote: »

The salient point being that people won't support something they believe in

close, but not quite.

because other people who support it have other views they disagree with.

...it's almost like you are trying not to get it.

Are you ready? See if you can keep up now. I don't support abortion, I do accept that it should be available in certain circumstances (namely if the mothers life is at risk).

Lyaiera

Zulu wrote: »

close, but not quite.
...it's almost like you are trying not to get it.

Are you ready? See if you can keep up now. I don't support abortion, I do accept that it should be available in certain circumstances (namely if the mothers life is at risk).

Zulu wrote: »

They shouldn't be, but sadly, as long as "pro-choice" campaigners strive for abortion on demand, they always will be.

Because you know, it's terrible to agree with someone on one thing and not another thing.

strandroad

gpf101 wrote: »

Can I just ask how you can call this murder?

Are you saying the doctors knew from the start that she would develop septicaemia and die (which would be manslaughter) and ignored it?.

From the timeline the Irish Times posted it seems that she was showing signs of septicaemia at least a day before her foetus's heartbeat stopped. She could have better chance if she received termination then; at this stage she has been admitted and monitored for a while.

Had she received termination earlier, right after she was admitted when it was established her foetus was inviable, she probably would not have developed septicaemia at all.

I won't call it murder, but clearly some act of refusal of help with fatal consequences took place.

mud

Pro-Choice.

Choice is the operative word.

If you don't want one. Don't have one.

kylith

Why do YD keep bringing this up/

It is also vitally important to acknowledge at this time that Ireland, without induced abortion, is recognised by the UN and World Health Organisation as a world leader in protecting women in pregnancy and is safer than places like Britain and Holland where abortion is widely available."

It sounds like they're trying to say that if abortion were legalised we'd suddenly stop caring whether women lived or died, or that we'd actively start killing them. Just because abortion would be legislated for doesn't mean that the rate of maternal death would skyrocket, the two things are completely overrated.

Nonoperational

mhge wrote: »

From the timeline the Irish Times posted it seems that she was showing signs of septicaemia at least a day before her foetus's heartbeat stopped. She could have better chance if she received termination then; at this stage she has been admitted and monitored for a while.

Had she received termination earlier, right after she was admitted when it was established her foetus was inviable, she probably would not have developed septicaemia at all.

I won't call it murder, but clearly some act of refusal of help with fatal consequences took place.

And that's the big thing that needs to be investigated. Because it seems pretty clear that terminations can occur and do occur if they will save a life. If in this case something different happened then it's a whole different ball game and it needs to never happen again.

Yes, if she had a termination earlier then maybe she wouldn't have developed septicaemia at all... but under currant interpretation of the constitution would that be legal? Was her life in real danger when she didn't have the septicaemia? What does "real and substantial risk" even mean? It's not defined. That's why there needs to be a clear law.

I agree with you btw, if the fetus was not viable then it would seem obvious what should be done.

ilovesleep

This news has gone international which is good news because hopefully it will force those in the dail to give us a much need refrendum on something that will help bring Ireland into the 21st century.

RIP Savita and condolences to her family.

HellFireClub

mud wrote: »

Pro-Choice.

Choice is the operative word.

If you don't want one. Don't have one.

When we can get an opinion from the healthy child who will be killed, I'll run with your logic. Until that day, there is no such thing as pro-choice, because we can't consult with one of the parties involved, who is in no position to state what their choice would be, so until then, you'll be pro-abortion in my language.

Min

She went to the hospital on the Sunday but did not receive any antibiotics until the Tuesday.

Two days with what basically an open womb, it seems like the problem here is negligence rather than anything else.

Professor John Bonnar, then chairman of Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which represents 90%-95% of Ireland's obstetricians and gynaecologists, explained the situation to an all party report to the Oireachtas as follows:

'In current obstetrical practice rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention is required at a stage in pregnancy when there will be little or no prospect for the survival of the baby, due to extreme immaturity. In these exceptional situations failure to intervene may result in the death of both the mother and baby. We consider that there is a fundamental difference between abortion carried out with the intention of taking the life of the baby, for example for social reasons, and the unavoidable death of the baby resulting from essential treatment to protect the life of the mother.'

'We have never regarded these interventions as abortion. It would never cross an obstetrician’s mind that intervening in a case of pre-eclampsia, cancer of the cervix or ectopic pregnancy is abortion. They are not abortion as far as the professional is concerned, these are medical treatments that are essential to protect the life of the mother. So when we interfere in the best interests of protecting a mother, and not allowing her to succumb, and we are faced with a foetus that dies, we don’t regard that as something that we have, as it were, achieved by an abortion.

Abortion in the professional view to my mind is something entirely different. It is actually intervening, usually in a normal pregnancy, to get rid of the pregnancy, to get rid of the foetus. That is what we would consider the direct procurement of an abortion. In other words, it’s an unwanted baby and, therefore, you intervene to end its life. That has never been a part of the practice of Irish obstetrics and I hope it never will be.'

krudler

HellFireClub wrote: »

When we can get an opinion from the healthy child who will be killed, I'll run with your logic. Until that day, there is no such thing as pro-choice, because we can't consult with one of the parties involved, who is in no position to state what their choice would be, so until then, you'll be pro-abortion in my language.

So you're anti-choice? Other people should live by your morals and not be able to make their own decisions?

ash23

HellFireClub wrote: »

When we can get an opinion from the healthy child who will be killed, I'll run with your logic. Until that day, there is no such thing as pro-choice, because we can't consult with one of the parties involved, who is in no position to state what their choice would be, so until then, you'll be pro-abortion in my language.

Very few people are pro-abortion. The term is pro-choice and there is a massive difference between the two.

SafeSurfer

It is possible to be pro abortion and pro life at the same time. The existing life I believe should take precedence over the non viable life.

Min

ilovesleep wrote: »

This news has gone international which is good news because hopefully it will force those in the dail to give us a much need refrendum on something that will help bring Ireland into the 21st century.

RIP Savita and condolences to her family.

21.4 of Ireland's guide to professional conduct and ethics for registered medical practitioners:

'In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.'

There was no excuse, legislation is not needed. It is people need to follow what is there which would have allowed the unborn to be removed, but it is the lack of antibiotics which most likely killed her.

Madam_X

HellFireClub wrote: »

When we can get an opinion from the healthy child who will be killed, I'll run with your logic. Until that day, there is no such thing as pro-choice, because we can't consult with one of the parties involved, who is in no position to state what their choice would be, so until then, you'll be pro-abortion in my language.

In the case of early termination, the *potential* child. Why "healthy"?

Andy-Pandy

I have to say that i am ashamed to be Irish today. I hope whoever her doctor was is struck off at the very least. May she RIP.

robman60

Firstly, my condolences to her family and friends, this is a terrible tragedy. I believe she actually worked in a business in my home town.

The fact that I'm pro-life doesn't mean I think events should have unfolded as they did. The pro-life thing to do in this situation is to save one of the two lives at stake when one (the unborn child) was beyond recovery. I believe most pro-lifers (me included) agree that the correct legislation would allow the unpreventable tragedy of the child's death in this scenario, as it was either one or both, and sadly in this case it's lead to both.

Also, I'd appreciate if people would stop branding anyone who's pro-life as a religious fundamentalist, as I'm certainly not. It means I'm opposed to abortion on demand. It definitely does not mean that I think this women's case should have been dealt with as it was.


RIP Savita

spank_inferno

robman60 wrote: »

Also, I'd appreciate if people would stop branding anyone who's pro-life as a religious fundamentalist, as I'm certainly not. It means I'm opposed to abortion on demand. It definitely does not mean that I think this women's case should have been dealt with as it was.

RIP Savita

Good post Robman.

I think the majority of us posting on this tragedy wouldn't want to compare someone who is anti-abortion being a religious zealot.

(though those types certainly are out there).

ibarelycare

HellFireClub wrote: »

Well it's a relevant point in my opinion because this tragedy will be thrown out there now to argue as to why abortion isn't legal here in any case where a mother chooses, as is already happening on the thread. Provision for this has been rejected by the people of this country, but yet we still have the left wing loo laa brigade who keep chipping away at it year after year after year, with the "my body my choice" argument.

You've used this phrase at least twice in this thread. How on earth are those who support giving women a choice on what to do with their bodies "loo laa"? Yes, provision for this has been rejected by the country...20 years ago. Since then the country has become a lot more liberal, and people are rejecting the Catholic Church and its teachings and opinions in a steady stream.

If people believe in something so strongly, why shouldn't they keep fighting for it?

IMO it's the Youth Defence and staunch right wing fundies who are much more "loo laa" than anyone else.

Ellis Dee

gimmick wrote: »

I wonder will India organise a boycott of Ireland for our countries murder of this innocent woman???

Highly unlikely, because that is not the Indian way, but the shabby manner in which this young woman's life was wasted to pander to the foibles of religious maniacs will certainly not do much to enhance the image of Ireland in a country where there has traditionally been a lot of goodwill towards us.

Here is a fairly typical comment from a reader in the Deccan Herald:
[PHP]"It brings shame to the Catholics who have brought death to an innocent mother in the name of the religion."[/PHP]

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/291923/karnataka-woman-dies-being-refused.html

The obstacles that the so-called pro-life zealots have placed in the way of legislation being enacted in line with the wishes of the Irish people and the judgement of the Supreme Court are the equivalent of a defeated army poisoning wells as it retreats. They know the have lost the war, but resort to every delaying tactic, every act of mischief. And now they have sacrificed a young Indian woman on the altar of their twisted dogma.

Morag

ilovesleep wrote: »

This news has gone international which is good news because hopefully it will force those in the dail to give us a much need refrendum on something that will help bring Ireland into the 21st century.

RIP Savita and condolences to her family.

We don't need another referendum we need legislation.

Dodge

ibarelycare wrote: »

Yes, provision for this has been rejected by the country...20 years ago. .

Actually what they rejected 20 years ago was specifically this

It shall be unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction.

That last line went against the Supreme Court ruling in the X case and as such nearly all pro-choice groups lobbied for a no vote.

Likewise ten years later the people voted NOT to 'tighten' the ban on abortion (in terms of suicide)

There's been 4 refenda on abortion rights since the 1983 ban, and the pro-choice lobby has 'won' them all

Madam_X

HellFireClub wrote: »

we still have the left wing loo laa brigade who keep chipping away at it year after year after year, with the "my body my choice" argument.

Wow. Yes, that's it - there's no real substance to it, it's just people wanting to show how left-wing they are. You're using the language of The Sun ffs.

So dismissive of the genuinely desperate situations some pregnant women find themselves in - you obviously don't think about them too much.

ilovesleep

ibarelycare wrote: »

You've used this phrase at least twice in this thread. How on earth are those who support giving women a choice on what to do with their bodies "loo laa"? Yes, provision for this has been rejected by the country...20 years ago. Since then the country has become a lot more liberal, and people are rejecting the Catholic Church and its teachings and opinions in a steady stream.

If people believe in something so strongly, why shouldn't they keep fighting for it?

IMO it's the Youth Defence and staunch right wing fundies who are much more "loo laa" than anyone else.

The same catholic church where condoms were viewed as bad for some reason or another and thus illegal until when? 1980

The same church that viewed homosexuality as bad and sick and thus being gay was illegal.

The catholic church and institution is rotten.

HellFireClub

ash23 wrote: »

Very few people are pro-abortion. The term is pro-choice and there is a massive difference between the two.

There is no difference in my opinion, not when you take out the people who agree that abortion is sometimes necessary to save a woman's life, as is the tragic case under discussion here. I agree with abortion being permitted where a woman's life is at risk (as was the case here or so it appears), but I do not agree that the idiots that occupy the left in this country should be allowed direct a debate with sane and rational people on this subject of abortion, about this apparent abundance of mothers out there who will commit suicide if they are not allowed have an abortion.

This is what Labour in this country want and this is what those in the United Left Alliance want, they want abortion on demand for any reason or no reason at all. A lot of people in this country, regardless of their religious persuasion, don't want to see that kind of service being offered in this country and have stated so in several referendums.

robman60

Wait, am I overlooking something here?

Wasn't this ignorance of the law on the doctors part? As far as I know, this is from the doctor rules of practice:

'In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.'

Isn't this what's currently allowed? I think you guys may be missing this, but I'm pretty sure that's legally permitted. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Madam_X

Left-wing = insane and irrational apparently.

And all whose politics are left-leaning are ULA types.

ash23

HellFireClub wrote: »

There is no difference in my opinion, not when you take out the people who agree that abortion is sometimes necessary to save a woman's life, as is the tragic case under discussion here. I agree with abortion being permitted where a woman's life is at risk (as was the case here or so it appears), but I do not agree that the idiots that occupy the left in this country should be allowed direct a debate with sane and rational people on this subject of abortion, about this apparent abundance of mothers out there who will commit suicide if they are not allowed have an abortion.

This is what Labour in this country want and this is what those in the United Left Alliance want, they want abortion on demand for any reason or no reason at all. A lot of people in this country, regardless of their religious persuasion, don't want to see that kind of service being offered in this country and have stated so in several referendums.

That's your opinion but as someone who is very much pro-choice and not pro-abortion, you are wrong.

I would also say that the idiots that occupy the right in this country should not be allowed direct a debate with sane and rational people on this subject of abortion, about this apparent abundance of mothers out there who will have an abortion every other month should abortion become legal. There are extremists on every side not just the side that happens to oppose you.

HellFireClub

Madam_X wrote: »

Wow. Yes, that's it - there's no real substance to it, it's just people wanting to show how left-wing they are. You're using the language of The Sun ffs.

So dismissive of the genuinely desperate situations some pregnant women find themselves in - you obviously don't think about them too much.

Nonsense, I believe the woman who is the subject of this thread should have been allowed have a procedure in this state that saved her life without any politics or rubbish getting involved.

ZeRoY

where there is a real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health)

What sort of mad statement is that. I do miss France sometimes. Retarded laws.

Madam_X

You're the one bringing in politics (in a very Fox News manner).

Angie_Baby

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Highly unlikely, because that is not the Indian way, but the shabby manner in which this young woman's life was wasted to pander to the foibles of religious maniacs will certainly not do much to enhance the image of Ireland in a country where there has traditionally been a lot of goodwill towards us.

Here is a fairly typical comment from a reader in the Deccan Herald:
[PHP]"It brings shame to the Catholics who have brought death to an innocent mother in the name of the religion."[/PHP]

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/291923/karnataka-woman-dies-being-refused.html

The obstacles that the so-called pro-life zealots have placed in the way of legislation being enacted in line with the wishes of the Irish people and the judgement of the Supreme Court are the equivalent of a defeated army poisoning wells as it retreats. They know the have lost the war, but resort to every delaying tactic, every act of mischief. And now they have sacrificed a young Indian woman on the altar of their twisted dogma.

but think how many 10s of 1,000s of lives they have saved.

ZeRoY

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Well done to the scum in Youth Defence, they have blood on their hands.

But dont you know they are Pro Lif... oh no wait.

HellFireClub

HellFireClub wrote: »

This is what Labour in this country want and this is what those in the United Left Alliance want, they want abortion on demand for any reason or no reason at all.

Is anybody demanding legislation to allow for a viable foetus to be aborted in the third trimester? I doubt it. Although I do not associate with any of the left organisations, I am on the left (not that it's in any way relevant to whether I'm pro-choice), and I would be willing to debate abortion with you.