Jump to content

Recommended Posts

IIRC, one of the initial legal changes following the Bolshevik revolution was abortion being made legal. I also beleive that Homosexuality was de-criminalised.


As time went on, these rights were eroded or just plain reversed by such forward thinkers as Hitler , Stalin & Ceaucescu - usually with the implicit backing of those other ever present lumaries, the Catholic church.


Have a think about the historical precedents and people involved in resticting abortion. Pretty scarey.


trying to comapre fox hunting is a straw man.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


>

>

> Just to stir it up a bit more, it always amazes me

> that people are so anti fox hunting and protest

> the rights of the fox yet have no qualms about

> cutting up babies. Queer world.


But what about people who care so much for the rights of unborn foetuses and the "miracle of life", etc., but do f-all when it comes to the real suffering of millions of already living people around the world? Are the anti-abortion lot also protesting outside weapons manufacturers' premises, for example? Are they working to turn the world into an egalitarian utopia free of starvation, need or disease?

I've never been on a rally or protest of any sort in my life which possibly makes me a hypocrite.


I can't speak for all of those who are against abortion, just me and I hold all life sacred. For example, I am deeply saddened by the rise in the killing of young people lately, this is a mad generalisation I know, but it seems to indicate a lack of respect for life in some quarters.

Well I guess we're back to original sin, as long as you're born and blessed you can die safely.

Temporal suffering is of course of no import or concern and doubtless thoroughly deserved as a very shouty man on the tube insisted on telling me and the rest of the carriage this morning.

c**t

snorky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> IIRC, one of the initial legal changes following

> the Bolshevik revolution was abortion being made

> legal. I also beleive that Homosexuality was

> de-criminalised.

>

> As time went on, these rights were eroded or just

> plain reversed by such forward thinkers as Hitler

> , Stalin & Ceaucescu - usually with the implicit

> backing of those other ever present lumaries, the

> Catholic church.


Just a historical point here but.

Neither Hitler, Stalin nor Ceaucescu were influenced by the Catholic Church. In fact they all opposed the church in their different ways.

The Bolshevik Revolution happened in Russia long before Germany or Romania came under its sway.



I do get the point you are trying to make though.

The words 'respect' and 'responsible' shine through here.


I think it no more helpful for an angry 'moral' mob to chastise women who choose to abort than a so-called 'feminist' suggesting it's just another means of birth control akin to popping a pill.


I also think we all are entitled to a view on this issue. The liberation of women movement was not about giving exclusivity to women on abortion issues. It was/is about taking away exclusivity from men on the issue. How we deal with our newborns and nearly deads are the mark of a civilised society.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've never been on a rally or protest of any sort

> in my life which possibly makes me a hypocrite.

>


PGC - I don't want to accuse you of hypocrisy. I had in mind more the people who protest outside abortion clinics and spend their lives fighting for the rights of the unborn, but seem to care not a jot about the rights and dignity of those already alive.


Likewise, anti-foxhunting/vivisection types will protest for the rights of animals but human rights seem to have passed them by ...

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> snorky Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > IIRC, one of the initial legal changes

> following

> > the Bolshevik revolution was abortion being

> made

> > legal. I also beleive that Homosexuality was

> > de-criminalised.

> >

> > As time went on, these rights were eroded or

> just

> > plain reversed by such forward thinkers as

> Hitler

> > , Stalin & Ceaucescu - usually with the

> implicit

> > backing of those other ever present lumaries,

> the

> > Catholic church.

>

> Just a historical point here but.

> Neither Hitler, Stalin nor Ceaucescu were

> influenced by the Catholic Church. In fact they

> all opposed the church in their different ways.

> The Bolshevik Revolution happened in Russia long

> before Germany or Romania came under its sway.

>

>

> I do get the point you are trying to make though.


ish


The lateran pact was an agreement brtween the fascists and the Catholics.


Hitler was a catholic and aftyer he came to power, the Catholic church removed a ban on catholics joining teh nazi party - Adolf wasnt a chrisitn as suchm, but him & the church were bedfellows for the duration


Stalin was a failed orthodox priest



BUT


byes, my point is that intriducing further limits on perosnal choice on matters like this isnt a good omen

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> trying to comapre fox hunting is a straw man.

>

> Possibly but interesting to look at how MPs have

> voted on the two issues.



Dont want to deride your input PGC, but MPs are on the whole, pigs.

The point I was trying to make re suffering in the world, was much better made by BarryM and Snorky. When horrendous things are being done in our name to innocent people all around the world who are already living, why do some people get obbsessed about trying to save an unwanted feotus? Who is going to then ensure this feotus has a happy life, or has it's needs met - or does the anti-choice work finish as soon as the baby is born?


Also trauma is relative. Many people make life-changing decisions of huge magnitude, and may not feel that deciding to have a termination comes anywhere near this e.g soldiers having to shoot someone in front of them, someone having to make a choice to save some but not all of their kids in a fire/famine/war zone etc.


I was not traumatised by having a termination, because it was not as traumaric as other things I have had to live through, e.g being an unwanted child.


Something else; it seems to me that the very people who blame kids for being out of control when they have appalling lives, are the very same ones who would prefer their mothers to keep another unwanted baby to allow to become out of control.


When you help those already born, then you have more moral weight in your anti-abortion stance. I am someone who always wants to help people whose lives are messed up for whatever reasons, and this is why I know you should not force people who cannot cope, to have babies they cannot look after.

Snorky I got your point and I agree with it. I was just being pedantic and questioning the direct links between the leaders and events you mentioned.


Oh and the Lateran pact was between the fascist administration of Italy and the Catholic Church. The Nazi?s were not party to it.


Officially the pope opposed the Nazis but in practice there was varied support, opposition and apathy towards them from the Catholic Church in Germany. At one stage during the war Hitler tried to close down all the convents and monasteries but stopped because he was worried about loosing the support of the catholic part of the population.

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Snorky I got your point and I agree with it. I was

> just being pedantic and questioning the direct

> links between the leaders and events you

> mentioned.

>

> Oh and the Lateran pact was between the fascist

> administration of Italy and the Catholic Church.

> The Nazi?s were not party to it.

>

> Officially the pope opposed the Nazis but in

> practice there was varied support, opposition and

> apathy towards them from the Catholic Church in

> Germany. At one stage during the war Hitler tried

> to close down all the convents and monasteries but

> stopped because he was worried about loosing the

> support of the catholic part of the population.


Word!

Just to be equally pedantic brendan, snorky said "The lateran pact was an agreement brtween[sic]* the fascists and the Catholics."


He didn't mention the nazis for that point, though very easy to infer that as it was followed by the word Hitler, but in a new paragraph**. Mussolini may not have been a nazi, but he practically invented fascism (well, actually the romans were pretty good at it in the first place, spartans too really, but I really digress now).


Incidentally have we Godwinned this debate now?


*I gather some coffee and biscuits not mixing well with technology may be responsible for erratic typing today.

** remind me to get a life ... or a new job.

Chav while I don't actually disagree with many of your points here, I think my ongoing issues of fundamentally not agreeing with your slant to offer a blanket pardon to 'poor souls' who shouldn't face the consequences of their decisions because of the 'evil (mostly white), western, male dominated world' who brazenly bulldoze them at every corner.


Sometimes we have to take individual responsibility for our behaviour/choices and the consequences. Blaming others may even be valid, but it shouldn't be our default.

Mockney Piers said:


"Temporal suffering is of course of no import or concern and doubtless thoroughly "


Au contraire - its exactly because of what a foetus suffers physically that causes my concern. I have no doubt that God is capable of embracing all the unshriven babies without my input.

Maurice - not a pardon, an explanation and does that personal responsibility also extend to finding out the provenance of the goods we buy, the services we use and the level of exploitation used to produce them? Or what about taking responsibility for other acts that may make make our life more pleasant, but may adversely impact someone elses life, eg campaining against drug services or trying to keep our road blocked off from traffic?

barrymarshall Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Likewise, anti-foxhunting/vivisection types will protest for the rights of animals but human rights seem to have passed them by ...


Slightly off topic, but I f**king hate those people! Don't get me wrong, I think fox hunting and a lot of animal testing is terrible, but these extreame campaigners that will hurt people, and dig up dead old ladies, what the fcuk is that about?


Anyway, back to abortion.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

its exactly because of what a foetus suffers physically that causes my concern.


Do foetuses (foetii?) suffer physically in an abortion or are they swiftly killed without knowing what's happening?

There is medical abortion (tablets) and surgical abortion (chop up and suck out).


Here is a link to the processes WARNING do not click on it if you are sensitive. It is by a pro-life organisation so someone might want to post a link from pro-abortion to even it up.


http://www.lifesite.net/abortiontypes/

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...