Jump to content

What is your view on abortion ?


QuodHumana
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Beaujangles said:

I think tribal native Americans and their 'elder' system which consisted of revered elders and sages had value.

I wont digress from the topic again but...

 

I have all the books by a Native American author, Joseph M. Marshall III.

 

There's a few so cant quote exactly from which book. In it there is an account of a war between two local tribes. during this a young braves betrothed is kidnapped. He journeys on his own to rescue her.

When he arrives at the enemy village he decides recklessly to just enter. Act as though he's meant to be there. 

He sees an old lady struggling with firewood. As it is winter and because of the shared values of the tribes in the area, he stops to help her. Regardless of the risk.

It is observed by an enemy tribal elder, who upon seeing the old ways respected then lets the rescue go ahead unhindered.

 

I know its off topic but goes to show some great values revered by the tribes

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bombadil said:

I wont digress from the topic again but...

 

I have all the books by a Native American author, Joseph M. Marshall III.

 

There's a few so cant quote exactly from which book. In it there is an account of a war between two local tribes. during this a young braves betrothed is kidnapped. He journeys on his own to rescue her.

When he arrives at the enemy village he decides recklessly to just enter. Act as though he's meant to be there. 

He sees an old lady struggling with firewood. As it is winter and because of the shared values of the tribes in the area, he stops to help her. Regardless of the risk.

It is observed by an enemy tribal elder, who upon seeing the old ways respected then lets the rescue go ahead unhindered.

 

I know its off topic but goes to show some great values revered by the tribes

 

Yes, the old native ways were based on respect. Here, there are still tribes in Canada as well as in USA. Although they have been disregarded and treated poorly by the 'invading' powers, between themselves they have great respect still for each other. Cant speak for all...but from my experience I can see they have a unique loyalty that surpasses the current system by miles. It is quite sad to see how they are treated by authorities even now....right down to needed fresh water supplies. 😔

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a strict, spiritual—yet non-religious—sense, abortion is murder. Statistically, only 1% of abortions are performed with a claim of rape/incest.

Even in rape/incest cases, it is a myth that abortion is the best option in order to save the life of the mother. There are surgical procedure that can be done to save the life of the mother, but these procedures attempt to save both mother and child. If the child unfortunately dies, that is a tragedy, but it is not an outright abortion.

 

I am tempted, like many, to be open to the idea of very early abortions (pre-7 weeks), but even this leaning is only due to human selfishness. As I said before, in the strictest sense, it is a spiritual wrong, and can be no other way, since LIFE is sacred.

 

Those who support abortion are primarily ego-driven and oppose life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2022 at 10:05 PM, Beaujangles said:

we are responsible for our own bodies and our own beliefs.

 

We are also responsible for the bodies inside us, if we so happen to be pregnant with a child. A human's right to life does not somehow begin when it exits the birth canal. Modern women may not like to hear this, but it still makes perfect sense.

 

Do you support abortions up until the moment of birth?

Edited by barca
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, barca said:

 

We are also responsible for the bodies inside us, if we so happen to be pregnant with a child. A human's right to life does not somehow begin when it exits the birth canal. Modern women may not like to hear this, but it still makes perfect sense.

 

Do you support abortions up until the moment of birth?

 

Thanks for your opinion which I respect. I think everyone needs to respect other peoples opinions regarding this and all matters.

 

This topic is about a woman. Women should always have dominion over their body...pregnant or otherwise. This is why we are asked to sign consent forms prior to all medical procedures. It is up to the woman concerned what decisions she makes. You cannot dictate your views onto me or anyone else...no more than I wish to force my views on you. It is not up for debate as I have my views and you have yours....as it should be.

 

Modern women??? Not sure what that is supposed to mean. I am a mother and a grandmother so making a judgment call about me may not be the best call for you.

 

As a matter of fact, I have made my view clear insofar as viable fetuses. (Many times on here) Please feel free to go back and read. However, as a matter of giving you a further FYI  " No I do not support terminations once a fetus is a viable life. I have also explained a viable life...the facts of that statement. Once a human being is able to sustain its life with minimal invasion or can breathe be itself it will fight its way out of the host (Mother) by way of labour and subsequent delivery, whether a woman wants that or not. So at that point it becomes a viable life. It is also a viable life within its mother at a certain gestation period and I believe once it reaches that stage it is necessary to deliver. Based on my medical experience I would say 20 weeks should be the cut off and depending on the circumstance of mother and/or  fetus after that point a doctors assessment should be made as to later terminations or deliveries. There are many circumstances that can occur for both at this stage.

 

I have no interest in engaging in a debate that does not respect my or others opinions. We have the right to make our decisions and form our opinions without the dictates and manipulations of others. Hope my post explains my view, whether you agree with it or not.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, barca said:

In a strict, spiritual—yet non-religious—sense, abortion is murder. Statistically, only 1% of abortions are performed with a claim of rape/incest.

Even in rape/incest cases, it is a myth that abortion is the best option in order to save the life of the mother. There are surgical procedure that can be done to save the life of the mother, but these procedures attempt to save both mother and child. If the child unfortunately dies, that is a tragedy, but it is not an outright abortion.

 

I am tempted, like many, to be open to the idea of very early abortions (pre-7 weeks), but even this leaning is only due to human selfishness. As I said before, in the strictest sense, it is a spiritual wrong, and can be no other way, since LIFE is sacred.

 

Those who support abortion are primarily ego-driven and oppose life.

 

Again your opinion...when people become judge and jury I lose interest in their views...you are clueless it would seem to the facts and the many circumstances involved in these situations.

 

Your last line is the most idiotic and completely baseless...except for being based on outright judgment and sanctimonious presumption.... and yes that is also my opinion... which, like you, I am entitled to.

Edited by Beaujangles
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Beaujangles said:

 

Thanks for your opinion which I respect. I think everyone needs to respect other peoples opinions regarding this and all matters.

 

This topic is about a woman. Women should always have dominion over their body...pregnant or otherwise. This is why we are asked to sign consent forms prior to all medical procedures. It is up to the woman concerned what decisions she makes. You cannot dictate your views onto me or anyone else...no more than I wish to force my views on you. It is not up for debate as I have my views and you have yours....as it should be.

 

Modern women??? Not sure what that is supposed to mean. I am a mother and a grandmother so making a judgment call about me may not be the best call for you.

 

As a matter of fact, I have made my view clear insofar as viable fetuses. (Many times on here) Please feel free to go back and read. However, as a matter of giving you a further FYI  " No I do not support terminations once a fetus is a viable life. I have also explained a viable life...the facts of that statement. Once a human being is able to sustain its life with minimal invasion or can breathe be itself it will fight its way out of the host (Mother) by way of labour and subsequent delivery, whether a woman wants that or not. So at that point it becomes a viable life. It is also a viable life within its mother at a certain gestation period and I believe once it reaches that stage it is necessary to deliver. Based on my medical experience I would say 20 weeks should be the cut off and depending on the circumstance of mother and/or  fetus after that point a doctors assessment should be made as to later terminations or deliveries. There are many circumstances that can occur for both at this stage.

 

I have no interest in engaging in a debate that does not respect my or others opinions. We have the right to make our decisions and form our opinions without the dictates and manipulations of others. Hope my post explains my view, whether you agree with it or not.

Well, as I have stated earlier here, I don't have any personal investment in this issue per se.

 

But...your statement about "viable life" and whether it can "sustain itself" would also apply to any humans, humans that could not sustain their life without some kind of assistance,  you seem to be making a value distinction between older humans and humans at the beginning of their time here. Because we know that the so-called "health-care" industry claims as it's premise for being is the "saving of lives" and the repair and/or reduction of damages to the body...it contradicts itself(in many other ways too), it displays a hypocrisy, that can only be "justified"(covered up) by making a value judgement against humans at the beginning, and imposing that value-judgement upon them, and apparently because they are not yet in a position to agree or disagree with the idea to terminate their time here in an otherwise unnatural way, its okay , except then, it's also murder. Plain and simple.

 

What does "Do no harm" mean? I'm confused I guess. I'm just not "thinking" about it enough...must "think" more.. then I'll understand the proper understanding....do some more intellectuall somersaults and gymnastics....some more legalese too...

 

 

In this world we're free to murder. No big deal. But it's funny to see the twisted reasoning that is used to pretend it's something else though. Them in the white coats, clean and beautiful on the outside, but inside is all kinds of filth and corruption.

 

And then there's the issue of governmental subsidizings of these procedures...your tax-dollars at work...whether you "agree" with the procedure or not...you will contribute your money to it if you're paying taxes to a government that directs some of that money in that direction. So much for "free-choice".

 

Obviously abortion is a tool of the eugenicists. Soon there won't be any "traditional" pro-creation, so no one will have to concern themselves about this issue.

 

It's true, "death' ain't the worst thing that could happen.

In fact, it can be the release...

So, who cares? Hahaha!

 

Silly-assed game...this world.

 

 

for others reference

stages-of-fetal-development.jpg

Edited by novymir
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, novymir said:

Well, as I have stated earlier here, I don't have any personal investment in this issue per se.

 

Well you do if you keep coming back with something to say to attack anothers opinion.

 

1 hour ago, novymir said:

 

But...your statement about "viable life" and whether it can "sustain itself" would also apply to any humans, humans that could not sustain their life without some kind of assistance,  you seem to be making a value distinction between older humans and humans at the beginning of their time here. Because we know that the so-called "health-care" industry claims as it's premise for being is the "saving of lives" and the repair and/or reduction of damages to the body...it contradicts itself(in many other ways too), it displays a hypocrisy, that can only be "justified"(covered up) by making a value judgement against humans at the beginning, and imposing that value-judgement upon them, and apparently because they are not yet in a position to agree or disagree with the idea to terminate their time here in an otherwise unnatural way, its okay , except then, it's also murder. Plain and simple.

 

Yes, many older humans are unable to sustain life without assistance and next of kins have the job of consenting to removal of life support. I made a reference earlier of my sons friend whose mother had to do just that.

 

I am making no value distinction and I am not going to keep repeating myself. It is you who is surmising what I think, and surmising what i make distinct or indistinct. You are free to do that but without much to offer yourself it becomes nauseating having to read judgment calls...that are based on nothing more than personal belief. (Which you are free to have). 

 

1 hour ago, novymir said:

 

What does "Do no harm" mean? I'm confused I guess. I'm just not "thinking" about it enough...must "think" more.. then I'll understand the proper understanding....do some more intellectuall somersaults and gymnastics....some more legalese too...

 

Your veiled mental gymnastics at pointing fingers at me does not go unnoticed. I would advise you to scroll on past my posts as I will yours. I have said my belief and that is that. Being attacked with belief systems that the owners feel are superior is of no interest to me. Calling something murder is where you are at... I believe your modus operandi begans and ends with that. Can you even see what anyone else says? You must believe what you believe and thats fine with me....I have nothing more to say on the matter. The topic is "What is your view". I gave mine. If you dont like it...move on... I dont give two shits one way or the other what you think...tbh. Try attacking someone who does.

 

1 hour ago, novymir said:

In this world we're free to murder. No big deal. But it's funny to see the twisted reasoning that is used to pretend it's something else though. Them in the white coats, clean and beautiful on the outside, but inside is all kinds of filth and corruption.

 

 

Judgment calls again...

 

1 hour ago, novymir said:

And then there's the issue of governmental subsidizings of these procedures...your tax-dollars at work...whether you "agree" with the procedure or not...you will contribute your money to it if you're paying taxes to a government that directs some of that money in that direction. So much for "free-choice".

 

In Canada every homeowner pays property tax toward public school or Catholic school education. Many dont have children at school. many dont agree with education system....but they still pay the tax. Car taxes, gasoline, etc paying for roads?  Yet many road travellers use buses, taxis, bicycles which do not use gasoline - should car owners refuse to pay the tax for others to use the roads without paying for them? Lets be realistic here... your only gripe is abortion... yet you have no understanding of the situations that it involves. As you say in your own words:

 

''Silly-assed game...this world.''

 

Yes it is...because many people that make a noise are clueless.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, novymir said:

Soon there won't be any "traditional" pro-creation, so no one will have to concern themselves about this issue.

 

Oh really? So life created in a test tube or a petrie dish wont have the pro lifers demanding all petrie dish/test tube contents be preserved and baptised for the next life?

 

1 hour ago, novymir said:

 

It's true, "death' ain't the worst thing that could happen.

In fact, it can be the release...

So, who cares? Hahaha!

 

 

 

Negative, judgmental ism, and unwillingness to let others lead their lives and make their own decisions is what causes many suicides... but who cares right???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, novymir said:

No, actually, I'm talking about any human outside of the womb. Any human that cannot sustain themselves without some kind of assistance, not just "elderly", anyone for any reason. You made that a "viability" qualification. Not me.

 

You could clearly see that I was talking about people on life support as I mentioned it and also posted a few pages back about my sons friend in such a circumstance. Trying to bait me with ignorance doesn't work. I certainly was not referring to elderly as you well know. I am beginning to question the intelligence of life on earth as it seems even the obvious flies over many  peoples heads.

 

3 hours ago, novymir said:

 

Yeah, who cares.

 

You think you own your body? You "think" you make your own decisions?...yeah, yeah, sure you do.

 

 

 

Well you sure as hell don't own my body... so your opinion means nothing to me on that front.

 

 

 

If you want to talk suicide...maybe find a relevant thread...or create you own... but then... 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Beaujangles said:

 

You could clearly see that I was talking about people on life support as I mentioned it and also posted a few pages back about my sons friend in such a circumstance. Trying to bait me with ignorance doesn't work. I certainly was not referring to elderly as you well know. I am beginning to question the intelligence of life on earth as it seems even the obvious flies over many  peoples heads.

 

 

 

 

Well you sure as hell don't own my body... so your opinion means nothing to me on that front.

 

 

 

If you want to talk suicide...maybe find a relevant thread...or create you own... but then... 🙄

 

No, you were talking about "fetuses" in the post I quoted and responded to. As to "viability". As to the "viability" of a life.

Meaning: "capable of living". Or, viability: "the ability to live, grow, and develop".

 

What's that "fetus"? Hmmm? When did that get added to the definition of "viable"/"viability"?

 

There's no doubt this abortion bullshit got popularized, institutionalized, and industrialized by the eugenicists and "scientific" materialists--the "saviors of mankind" from all the "superstitious nonsense"(spirituality) that was before...the "illuminated ones" infiltrated the spheres of influence(and invented new ones) in the various countries and cultures. Problem-reaction-$olution. The problem-$olvers are the problem creator$.

 

 

You can complain about my mode of operation all you want, and project some paranoid this or that,,, there are those that can see what you cannot.

 

Your investment blinds you.

 

I don't hope or expect to convince you of anything, my posts are simply offerings of a perspective on this public website, that's all.

 

Oh, there's this too( for others to see):

 

What is "iatrogenesis"?

 

Table Of Iatrogenic Deaths In The United States

(Deaths induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures)

Condition Deaths Cost
Billion $s
Author
Adverse Drug Reactions 106,000 12 Lazarou (1) Suh (49)
Medical error 98,000 2 IOM (6)
Bedsores 115,000 55 Xakellis (7) Barczak (8)
Infection 88,000 5 Weinstein (9) MMWR (10)
Malnutrition 108,800 Nurses Coalition (11)
Outpatients 199,000 77 Starfield (12) Weingart (1, 12)
Unnecessary Procedures 37,136 122 HCUP(3, 13)
Surgery-Related 32,000 9 AHRQ(8,5)
TOTAL 783,936 282

We could have an even higher death rate by using Dr. Lucien Leape's 1997 medical and drug error rate of 3 million. (14) Multiplied by the fatality rate of 14% (that Leape used in 1994 (16) we arrive at an annual death rate of 420,000 for drug errors and medical errors combined. If we put this number in place of Lazorou's 106,000 drug errors and the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) 98,000 medical errors, we could add another 216,000 deaths making a total of 999,936 deaths annually.

 

ADR/med error 420,000 $200 billion Leape 1997(14)
TOTAL 999,936

Annual Unnecessary Medical Events

Unnecessary Events People Affected
(Millions)
Iatrogenic Events
(Millions)
Hospitalization 8.9 (4) 1.78 (16)
Procedures 7.5 (3) 1.3 (40)
TOTAL 16.4 3.08

The enumerating of unnecessary medical events is very important in our analysis. Any medical procedure that is invasive and not necessary must be considered as part of the larger iatrogenic picture. Unfortunately, cause and effect go unmonitored. The figures on unnecessary events represent people ("patients") who are thrust into a dangerous health care system. They are helpless victims. Each one of these 16.4 million lives is being affected in a way that could have a fatal consequence. Simply entering a hospital could result in the following (out of 16. 4 million people):

  • 2.1% chance of a serious adverse drug reaction (186,000) (1)
  • 5% to 6% chance of acquiring a nosocomial [hospital] infection (489,500) (9)
  • 4% to 36% chance of having an iatrogenic injury in hospital (medical error and adverse drug reactions) (1.78 million) (16)
  • 17% chance of a procedure error (1.3 million) (40)

All the statistics above represent a one-year time span. Imagine the numbers over a 10-year period. Working with the most conservative figures from our statistics we project the following 10-year death rates.

Medical Intervention

Projected Ten-Year Death Rates
Condition 10-Year Deaths
Adverse Drug Reaction 1.06 million
Medical error 0.98 million
Bedsores 1.15 million
Nosocomial Infection 0.88 million
Malnutrition 1.09 million
Outpatients 1.99 million
Unnecessary Procedures 371,360
Surgery-related 320,000
TOTAL 7,841,360 (7.8 million)

Our projected statistic of 7.8 million iatrogenic deaths is more than all the casualties from wars that America has fought in its entire history.

Our projected figures for unnecessary medical events occurring over a 10-year period are also dramatic.

Unnecessary Intervention

Projected Ten-Year Statistics
Unnecessary Events 10-Year Number Iatrogenic Events
Hospitalization 89 million 17 million
Procedures 75 million 13 million
TOTAL 164 million 30 million

These projected figures show that a total of 164 million people, approximately 56% of the population of the United States, have been treated unnecessarily by the medical industry — in other words, nearly 50,000 people per day.

 

 

 

Edited by novymir
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, novymir said:

 

No, you were talking about "fetuses" in the post I quoted and responded to.

 

Yes, of course I was talking about fetuses, this is a thread pertaining to abortion. What do you think is going to be the topic? Then I said this:

''Yes, many older humans are unable to sustain life without assistance and next of kins have the job of consenting to removal of life support. I made a reference earlier of my sons friend whose mother had to do just that.''

 

3 hours ago, novymir said:

 

 

 

As to "viability". As to the "viability" of a life.

Meaning: "capable of living". Or, viability: "the ability to live, grow, and develop".

 

 

An early fetus is not capable of growing without a 'host'. That would be it's mother. It has the ability to live, grow and develop only with its mother, not as a separate life until it becomes viable with life without a host. Like I said before I will not continually  repeat myself. So kindly block me. You are becoming ridiculous in your inability to be rational.

3 hours ago, novymir said:

 

There's no doubt this abortion bullshit got popularized, institutionalized, and industrialized by the eugenicists and "scientific" materialists--the "saviors of mankind" from all the "superstitious nonsense"(spirituality) that was before...the "illuminated ones" infiltrated the spheres of influence(and invented new ones) in the various countries and cultures. Problem-reaction-$olution. The problem-$olvers are the problem creator$.

 

I couldnt give a rats ass about eugenicists. Please stay on topic your posts go way off from staying on topic. Dont bring me into your ranting either. My posts here are about the topic and I will not respond to your off topic rants about'infiltrated spheres of influence'.

 

3 hours ago, novymir said:

 

 

You can complain about my mode of operation all you want, and project some paranoid this or that,,, there are those that can see what you cannot.

 

Your investment blinds you.

 

 

 

haha, my investment blinds me....okay then...( I will stay polite - as difficult as it is)

I also do not care about your modus operanti enough to continue this nonsense, so as I have stated...block me. You dont like my opinion...then block me. Scroll on by... I welcome it.

 

 

3 hours ago, novymir said:

 

What is "iatrogenesis"?

 

Why not start a topic on iatrogenic situations. You could probably fill the thread with your own views and opinions on it.. I'll make sure to keep my distance, so as not to distract you. Ciao.

 

 

Edited by Beaujangles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Beaujangles said:

 

Yea, sure. Certainly not bent out of shape..lol. Just dont like my words twisted to effect a reaction.I love the bait and switch tactic. But you have a wonderful day🤠

I don't think I'm the one who is using "bait and switch" actually, I think that is more like something the abortion industry and the so-called "health-care"(they are actually not separated, but compartmentalized) industry uses. And I'm sure those that are employed by those entities get very unhappy when evidence of it is made available.

 

Especially since they are projected by media and government as being some kind of Holy entity of whom blasphemy is unthinkable and heretics are not tolerated, placing their employees in some kind of privledged position above all others, like Holy priests and priestess' beyond reproach. In their special uniforms...that set them apart...and make it known....they are members of that Holy class...(the "heroes", "scientists"..etc...).

 

bait and switch

noun
 

To save this word, you'll need to log in.

 
 
Definition of bait and switch

 

1 : a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one
2 : the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (such as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
fraud.
 
Edited by novymir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned the so-called "health-care" industry includes the abortion industry, and cannot be separated. As far as I'm concerned eugenics cannot be separated from abortion. As far as I'm concerned the so-called "health-care" industry is a cancerous entity---75-80% malignant(like government). An expression of inversion, passed off and sold as the opposite of what it is: pseudo-science, sorcery, and nutcases "researching" and fucking with people and animals doing shit they got no business doing, they got NO business doing! Fucking with people and animals under false pretenses, for "the greater good", bullshit, it's make-it-up make-believe bullshit for PROFIT and CONTROL.

 

This covid bullshit never would have been pulled off if it wasn't for the expansion and employment of so many by this fraudulent industry, their livelihood is tied to turning a blind eye to this fraud, conflict of interest abounds. Between "health-care" workers, government workers, and universities,, the privledged ones, the inverted ones, they won't be willing to give up their positions and situations and get a real job, based on actually producing something of value or a service of value, no, they'll just keep playing their "educated" game of self-deceit and lick the hand that feeds them.

 

Metropolitan areas are a cancer that spreads it's toxicity outward. Abortion is a part of that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2022 at 7:28 AM, barca said:

Statistically, only 1% of abortions are performed with a claim of rape/incest.

in this data set 

 

rape was 0.085%

incest was 0.001%

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2022 at 6:44 PM, novymir said:

.

 

 

for others reference

stages-of-fetal-development.jpg

visually, from these representations upto maybe 5weeks *could* be argued does not look like a baby therefore is ok for abortion but then..... they know that it would lead to problems of 

1. better testing early doors

2. faster medical services

3. faster psychological evaluations

 

IMG_20220730_054420.jpg.0dd3a84463a658d253b073ab0ff4f3bc.jpg

 

 

43% were medical abortions rather than vacuum, induction or dilation (sick words but so is the word abortion and 'miscarriage')

 

and here is my bugbear the tick box acceptance by trained staff. 98% of abortions is ground C

FS .... thats some bollocks right there. The trained staff must love the entire thing.

 

speak to any parent about their mental and physical health having a child. ....its a life long mental and physically challenging escapade

 

maybe 92%(6% probably fit ground c) of these women should visit parents with disabled children to see a proper challenge rather than the 'inconvenience' rewritten by abortion staff as 'Risk'

Screenshot_2022-07-30-05-55-46-241_com.android.chrome.jpg.b4aac1800f43093926943597288999f8.jpg

 

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zArk said:

in this data set 

 

rape was 0.085%

incest was 0.001%

 

 

My part of Cornwall incest has got to be  above 90%. its probably fairly accurate in reality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bombadil said:

My part of Cornwall incest has got to be  above 90%. its probably fairly accurate in reality

but they want the babies for the annual Wickerman ? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I had only heard of Planned Parenthood in the USA ...

there is a lot of information on the website including on climate change as edited below...

 

International Planned Parenthood Foundation

 

UK government publishes long-awaited international development strategy but it will be little more than lip service until it returns to the 0.7% target

 

https://www.ippf.org/media-center/uk-government-publishes-new-international-development-strategy

 

Take forward our work on climate change, nature and global health. We are putting the commitments of our Presidency of G7 and COP26, our global leadership in science and technology, and our COVID-19 response, at the core of our international development offer.


Dr Alvaro Bermejo, Director-General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, said:


"While, in theory, the UK’s new international development strategy prioritizes women and girls, it is unclear how the government will provide ‘the freedom they need to succeed’ while simultaneously cutting billions from the very things that help achieve this, including unhindered access to life-saving sexual and reproductive healthcare which helps keep girls in school, protects them from a lifetime of poverty and helps prevents untimely maternal deaths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

https://fp2030.org/covid-19

 

Covid 19 and Family Planning 

 

FP2030 is the only global partnership centered solely on family planning. This singular focus allows us to bring together the widest possible range of partners across disciplines and sectors, while situating family planning at the crossroads of the global health, development, and gender equality agendas.

FP2030 is the successor to FP2020, a global initiative that ran from 2012 to 2020. Over the course of those eight years, FP2020 emerged as the central platform for family planning, providing an unparalleled space for stakeholders to convene, align, share knowledge, broker resources, and advance the field. [See Our history.]

 

Please submit additional resources to include here using our online form. If you would like to contribute to the COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund, created by the UN Foundation and WHO, click here.

 

Edited by Observations
Added bold text to Covid 19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We gave up the right to say no to abortion when we let the system get so out of control there is no possible way the average single mother can support multiple children and have some standard of quality of life.

 

Arguing about abortion is as dumb as feminism. What we should be fighting for is a licence for people to have children and proper support systems to check and make sure children are getting the correct upbringing.

 

Sadly these things don't make money for the elite and wealthy and would entice more young women to have more children, younger, and claim benefits off said system. So it should be obvious to anyone they created a catch 22 system, a dog eat dog world which means consequences they think they can control but they can't clean up, it's either that or they simply don't care. Destruction of the entire truth is immenent. Humans either take control or be controlled, that's life. Its inefficient and saddening to see the pinnacle of humanity fighting over specific rights when most don't share very basic rights like access to quality food and water. The way planet earth is run by humans is a joke, and we are the laughing stock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...