Jeremy Hunt Backs 12-Week Abortion Limit

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeanF1989
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This week women’s minister argued for lowering the abortion rate to 20 weeks. Hopefully there is movement in the law in lowering the limit with these 2 influencing policy
 
_Abyssinia said:
This week women’s minister argued for lowering the abortion rate to 20 weeks. Hopefully there is movement in the law in lowering the limit with these 2 influencing policy
Click to expand...
The UK has the highest abortion cut off date:( 24 weeks. :gopray:
 
Sorry to disappoint, but there is no possibility of the current abortion limit being changed in the foreseeable future. It’s not on the agenda for any of the parties.

As for Hunt,no matter what he says about abortion, he is an utterly smug ex-public school boy who remains a minister only because Cameron cannot admit he made a mistake by promoting the usless lump in the first place. He is so well preened I used to think he was gay! Apparently not, but still useless.
 
philial said:
As for Hunt,no matter what he says about abortion, he is an utterly smug ex-public school boy who remains a minister only because Cameron cannot admit he made a mistake by promoting the usless lump in the first place. He is so well preened I used to think he was gay! Apparently not, but still useless.
Click to expand...
YIKES! And I thought we spoke ill of our politicians here in the U.S. At least you Brits do it with a bit more panache.
 
Currently the earliest a baby has survived is at 21 weeks, and it was a girl. Boys have no chance at that early stage, being their lungs develop slower than a female by an average of 2 weeks.

Also, there’s a +/- tolerance on the dating. In other words, the 21 week old fetus could be 23weeks which is impossible for it to be 19 weeks.

My son was born in Boston Women’s Hospital in 1981, at 27 weeks. When he was in the neonatal intensive care unit, I saw girl twins who were born at 24 weeks, At that time, that was the best they could do.

Today, they won’t bother trying to save a fetus born before 20 weeks knowing it’s impossible.

dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1380282/Earliest-surviving-premature-baby-goes-home-parents.html
 
Whether abortion should be legal should not depend whether if the baby can survive outside of the womb, otherwise people would argue that born children would be allowed to be killed until they can live on their own because their parents have to take of them. Both a born child and unborn child are at a different stage of development, it does not mean neither is life

Jeremy Hunt said
Everyone looks at the evidence and comes to a view about when they think that moment is, and my own view is that 12 weeks is the right point for it
Click to expand...
It’s just my view about that incredibly difficult question about the moment that we should deem life to start
Click to expand...
A fetus is fully human. It is a product of its parents. It is a unique individual with 23 chromosomes, it has its own genetics code of 46 chromosomes, the genetic make up is established at conception, hair colour, eye colour etc. For growth and development It needs oxygen food, water etc. Each of us experiences developmental changes, from a child to an adult, this has not imparted us to our humanity

People ought to look to look at the science more and relying on personal opinion less on this issue. There is a scientific consensus that life starts at conception. The idea that life magically starts at 12 weeks is absurd
 
The ridiculous notion based on religious propaganda that the “rights” of a parasite living inside a host’s body trumps the rights of a host wont be accepted by the majority of normal people.
It is against Nature and rational sense.

And i dont mean “parasite” in a derogatory way. Anyone who knows bilology do know that fetus leads parasitic existence. There is nothing here to be offended by.
 
Aphrodite_Chain said:
The ridiculous notion based on religious propaganda that the “rights” of a parasite living inside a host’s body trumps the rights of a host wont be accepted by the majority of normal people.
It is against Nature and rational sense.

And i dont mean “parasite” in a derogatory way. Anyone who knows bilology do know that fetus leads parasitic existence. There is nothing here to be offended by.
Click to expand...
Wow. So isn’t a newborn basically a parasite as well?
 
Aphrodite_Chain said:
The ridiculous notion based on religious propaganda that the “rights” of a parasite living inside a host’s body trumps the rights of a host wont be accepted by the majority of normal people.
It is against Nature and rational sense.

And i dont mean “parasite” in a derogatory way. Anyone who knows bilology do know that fetus leads parasitic existence. There is nothing here to be offended by.
Click to expand...
When a baby is delivered the baby is still attached to the unblical cord. Is the baby still a parasite to you then? Wha about a breast fed baby? A born baby needs the help of somebody else to change their diaper, feed them etc. What about a child, teenager or adult that needs who needs care of others? Who is truly self sufficient? Very few
 
Aphrodite_Chain said:
The ridiculous notion based on religious propaganda that the “rights” of a parasite living inside a host’s body trumps the rights of a host wont be accepted by the majority of normal people.
It is against Nature and rational sense.

And i dont mean “parasite” in a derogatory way. Anyone who knows bilology do know that fetus leads parasitic existence. There is nothing here to be offended by.
Click to expand...
Religious propaganda? Normal people? All of your posts have been rude, hostile and uncharitable. It seems your only intent is to provoke many of us here at CAF, since we here are generally the religious people that you keep insulting with every post (though atheists post here too). Just thought I’d tell you that we do have conduct rules, so if you want to continue posting, it might be a good idea to read them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top