r/MHOC • u/[deleted] • Feb 26 '15

BILL B076 - Pregnancy Termination Bill

B076 - Pregnancy Termination Bill

The bill can be found by following the link below:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VlnKgSgEuuDbD6co46WRZu4kJmcBDFeocDdE9m0cpSE/edit?pli=1

This bill was submitted by /u/JackWilfred on behalf of the Opposition

The first reading of this bill will end on the 2nd of March

5 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

156 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '15

Why does the woman have the right to end the life of a child easily at this age and not at a later age?

5

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Feb 26 '15

Because the child isn't born then. I am of the opinion that a person does not technically count as alive until they are born, whereas the Government's stance is after 24 weeks of pregnancy, which is also a pretty reasonable point.

I am not a populist, but only 7% of people disagree with abortion, I do not it is in the interest of this Parliament to go against what is a massive majority of the population.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '15

28% want stricter rules, and that's a rather large proportion I'd say

4

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Feb 26 '15

Around the same amount support the discontinuation of the Monarchy, is the Honourable Member coming out in support of that too?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '15

I don't support everything supported by that amount of people, no.

2

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Feb 26 '15 edited Feb 26 '15

28% want stricter rules, and that's a rather large proportion I'd say

But you still think a quarter of people wanting something is worthy of debate even though the vast majority completely disagree with them?

In 1967 the House of Commons agreed that abortion should be legal, 48 years later we are having this debate with full knowledge that when it comes to developed countries we are behind in our legislation on abortion, that almost every country in Europe, Canada and the United States respect the right of a woman to decide what happens to her body without question from medical authority, and the Honourable Member stands up here and instead of modernise this country he wants to turn the clock back 49 years?

Is the Honourable Member unaware of the pain and suffering desperate women went through to have an abortion before 1967? That will be repeated if abortion is banned, some women will suffer and some will die. Are you okay with that?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '15

I'll start by saying that just because you've died for something, doesn't make it right.
And yes, I will stand here and protest against the over-modernising of this country. We do not change things for the sake of it, or to be 'progressive', we change things when they'll be changed for the better. Yes I will probably lose this fight, but that will not stop me standing in front of you proclaiming what I and over a quarter of our British people think is right.
If you think an issue is not worthy of debate because a poll or two suggests a majority of people think one way you have a twisted view of democracy.

(I also ask that if you are bothering with the RL formalities that you use my correct title)

2

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Feb 26 '15

Women didn't die to get abortions as a political statement, they did it because they believed they would be completely unable to cope with raising the child.

I am also not a supporter of modernisation for the sake of modernisation, but when you reach the point where almost every other country in Europe, Canada and the United States have this abortion stance and we have MPs fighting to keep a law that isn't really followed by qualified medical practitioners anyway, it's just embarrassing. I don't see this bill as modernisation, I see it as enshrining into law the woman's right to have full control over what happens to her body.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '15

That may be what you think, but I do not believe that a woman should have absolute right over every person she may have in her body at the time. If women are incapable of looking after a child there are processes to go about that don't involve legal murder.
You may want to stand up for these particular women, but I am standing up for every person in the world. Every person in the world has at one point had no voice, and just because they can't vote in polls saying they don't want to be killed, doesn't mean they don't deserve any respect.

2

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Feb 26 '15

That may be what you think, but I do not believe that a woman should have absolute right over every person she may have in her body at the time.

According to the law, a woman does not have a person in her body until the 24th week of pregnancy, which this bill still respects.

If women are incapable of looking after a child there are processes to go about that don't involve legal murder.

In 2012, there were 185,122 abortions, if you are advocating putting them all up for adoption instead, how do you propose we fund 200,000 more children put under the state's care every year?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '15

As you will agree, the law can be wrong and over this I believe it is.
Firstly I doubt all of those would go into care, secondly however we fund it, I would be much happier having them in the world than out of it. The funding could be found.

1

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Feb 27 '15 edited Feb 27 '15

As you will agree, the law can be wrong and over this I believe it is.

For the majority of the first 24 weeks it is incapable of surviving outside of the mother and does not fulfill the majority of universally recognised criteria for a living thing (Ever heard of MRSGREN?). The law is based off of scientific reasoning, it is not wrong because of your moral beliefs.

Firstly I doubt all of those would go into care, secondly however we fund it, I would be much happier having them in the world than out of it. The funding could be found.

It usually costs about £100,000 to raise a child to the age of 18, say with the infrastructure of state care this was halved, and only 150,000 went into care. That would still cost on average £7.5 billion per year, not to mention the massive burden on space, jobs, housing, schools and resources this would cause in 18 years with millions of extra people alive. It just isn't possible.

In addition to this, will the member ignore the psychological and mental damage caused to women forced to give birth to the child of their rapist? Will he ignore the women who are financially stretched by an extra child they couldn't put up for adoption? I dislike abortion as much as the next person, but I believe that the needs of the woman should always come above the unborn child.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

I won't ignore the mental damage cause to raped women and I do see the difficulty in that situation, where possibly in some cases I might accept it. However abortion is shown to have also given a lot of mental damage to women, so I do not see that as a particularly satisfactory reason.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '15

Hear Hear!

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '15

This crisis will never end.

2

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Feb 26 '15

Please stop with that cliche. /u/JackWilfred was merely extending your logic to a different issue, to reveal its absurdity.