Jump to content


THE Election - Made your mind up yet ??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5038 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

My closest/best friend has a very serious heart condition, and had to have major heart surgery at 25 which now means no pregnancy as it would kill her, she has had her tubes tied as a result. Luckily she had already managed to have children. Another of my friends went through the menopause at 23. I myself have health conditions and due to them I may not be able to concieve, and if I do I may not be able to carry to full term (if I was to manage to concieve in the first place), but I don't feel I want to have a child anyway. Granted I was rather upset whe first told, as anyone would be, making a decision yourself is different to having the decision made for you, but I still don't personally believe that it's someone's 'right' to have a child. It should be everyone's right to have treatment that could save their life or improve their illness, above all isn't that what the NHS is supposed to be there for? I do have very deep sympathy for those who struggle with fertility, I've seen how difficult it can be, I just think there should be other priorities when it comes to the NHS. I'm not saying it shouldn't ever be available, I'm saying I feel they need to spend money on the sick first and foremost.

 

I'm glad you got better BB. You did give us all quite a scare. And I'm glad you do have your daughter. *Hugs*.

Edited by Mungypup
more info added

Mungy Pup

 

I want to live in a world where chickens are free to cross the road without their intentions being questioned. :razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry to hear about your own particular situation:(

 

by Mungypup:

...making a decision yourself is different to having the decision made for you..."

 

The point is, women who have lost their wombs due to Cancer, have lost their choice;

they have no decision to make, unless they can follow the IVF route!

 

I personally know one young woman who was diagnosed with Cancer when she was only 22 and underwent radical surgery at the same age. She had no children at that time, thus her choice was taken away. 10 years down the line and she wants to have her eggs frozen, in oder that she may possibly have a child in the future.

 

There are many others like her!

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

Would any of you agree to:

 

"lowering the age of consent in homosexual relationships to 16?

 

I think NOT.

then you'd be too late, as it IS 16 now, regarldess of Ms. May's disapproval.

 

Secondly, as pointed higher up, it is not about what age you think having sex is acceptable, it's about the fact that a heterosexual couple aged 16 are not committing an offence, whereas a homosexual couple would have. Therefore, inequalioty in the eyes of the law, discrimination on the grounds of sexual preferences etc... THAT's what was for debate, not whether kids should be having sex at 16 or not! Nothing to do with a moral high ground, all to do with equal treatment.

 

 

 

Booky also quotes that Theresa May also voted "against Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which would give homosexual couples the ability to receive fertility treatment."

 

There are so many, women who either by disease/cancer or, biological problems that are unable to give birth to a child biologically! These women go through tortuous screening to obtain IVF; it is a nightmare for them and their families...

And it isn't for women who can't conceive a child because having a man touching them is as abbhorent to them as it would be to you -I'm guessing- to have a woman making love to you?

 

Please do not misunderstand me, I am not insensitive to gay couples.

I'll let your words speak for themselves on the subject.

 

 

 

Just saying how it is
The get-out sentence for people to say outrageous things and think it justifies them. Well, it's not how it is. The desire to have a child can be as powerful to any person, regardless of their sexual orientation, and the barrier to conception as unrealistic to a cancer victim as it can be to a homosexual, although for different reasons, and neither you nopr I have the right to say who should get it and who shouldn't. The very fact that you would even think of prioritising it according to sexual preference is in itself prrof of how discrimnatory you are being, and the worse thing is you don 't even seem to realise it!

 

As for Ms. May, if you don't see why I pick and choose some of her voting patterns, it's because there IS a pattern, one of opposition to anything which differs from the "normal" 2 parents (1 male, 1 female) nuclear family and values, and one which needs to get highlighted when you see the post she has been given, in the same way that giving Nick Griffin the post of Foreign Secretary would also raise questions should anyone be that daft to ever do so! :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

then you'd be too late, as it IS 16 now, regarldess of Ms. May's disapproval.

 

Secondly, as pointed higher up, it is not about what age you think having sex is acceptable, it's about the fact that a heterosexual couple aged 16 are not committing an offence, whereas a homosexual couple would have. Therefore, inequalioty in the eyes of the law, discrimination on the grounds of sexual preferences etc... THAT's what was for debate, not whether kids should be having sex at 16 or not! Nothing to do with a moral high ground, all to do with equal treatment.

 

 

 

And it isn't for women who can't conceive a child because having a man touching them is as abbhorent to them as it would be to you -I'm guessing- to have a woman making love to you?

 

I'll let your words speak for themselves on the subject.

 

 

 

The get-out sentence for people to say outrageous things and think it justifies them. Well, it's not how it is. The desire to have a child can be as powerful to any person, regardless of their sexual orientation, and the barrier to conception as unrealistic to a cancer victim as it can be to a homosexual, although for different reasons, and neither you nopr I have the right to say who should get it and who shouldn't. The very fact that you would even think of prioritising it according to sexual preference is in itself prrof of how discrimnatory you are being, and the worse thing is you don 't even seem to realise it!

 

As for Ms. May, if you don't see why I pick and choose some of her voting patterns, it's because there IS a pattern, one of opposition to anything which differs from the "normal" 2 parents (1 male, 1 female) nuclear family and values, and one which needs to get highlighted when you see the post she has been given, in the same way that giving Nick Griffin the post of Foreign Secretary would also raise questions should anyone be that daft to ever do so! :-(

 

 

It brings to mind 'The Right is right, right.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

by Bookworm:

The get-out sentence for people to say outrageous things and think it justifies them. Well, it's not how it is. The desire to have a child can be as powerful to any person, regardless of their sexual orientation, and the barrier to conception as unrealistic to a cancer victim as it can be to a homosexual, although for different reasons, and neither you nopr I have the right to say who should get it and who shouldn't. The very fact that you would even think of prioritising it according to sexual preference is in itself prrof of how discrimnatory you are being, and the worse thing is you don 't even seem to realise it!"

 

I can assure you that I am not being discriminatory and am fully aware and realise that the desire to have a child is powerful to any person, especially women!

 

I guess, it is up to the various NHS trusts who (which couples) they will provide IVF funding to.

 

This topic started with the discussion about, Theresa May and what she had voted against...

 

Best I leave it there, as clearly the subject is emotive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best I leave it there, as clearly the subject is emotive

 

Don't let an emotive issue stop you! Nothing wrong in free speech - I loathe it being muted without good reason. If it upsets or not is subjective; we all have our stances! Out and out offence is bad, IMO, but you haven't done that AFAIC.

 

However, whilst you made a comment that said 'I think NOT' in regard to the age of homosexual consent, I would ask that you explain it. I'm glad bookie posted - because, yes, the red mist had descended after reading it. All the posts after stating there was no offence meant fell on deaf ears because, I don't understand why you said it.

 

So, please tell me why you felt the upper case was neccessary, and the whole 'think NOT' thang just smacks of 'isn't it obvious'.

 

If you don't agree that's fine, but I would like to know why 16 is so, um, 'not'. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was watching the riots in Greece on TV today-The people are angry at the ultimatums.

One woman said-"We are being asked to take a 30% cut in our wages-yet our country is spending millions on 2 new Warships from France"...why do we need Warships when we cant afford to live ?

 

She makes a good point.

 

France of course is the biggest exporter of weapons so will obv want to see Greece survive so they get their money.

 

Germany meanwhile says that Greece should comply with the IMF package or leave the EU-but its not so simple.

 

When the EU's membership was only 8 or 9 then things were a little different-and hop long did it take Italy to get membership ?

The Mafia had to abandon their guns and come to the table-much the same as happened with Adams and McGuinness.

 

We have UKIP and the BNP saying that we are better out of Europe-yet we still have our Pound and in spite of that suffer the same as the rest.

 

We would do better out of Europe if we still had a good manufacturing base and did not rely on China-but no one can complain that a set of knife and forks from China cost a fiver less than those made in Sheffield.

 

Our Government paid Nissan millions in grants to build a factory in the North East-they allowed the Indians to get Jaguar Landrover for a song,our British Mini to go to BMW and Rolls and Bentley to go to VW and BMW.

Our heritage.

Our manufacturing base has gone-ok replaced by IT but we dont even have a look in there-LG was given millions in grants from the GOV to open a factory in Wales !

 

We have trained Doctors and nurses to people from abroad at a cost of millions-only to see them leave the UK for better wages later.

 

Whichever party or leader gets in-is unlikely to change much-we are stuck with Europe and if we do pull out then we would prob be worse off in the long run.

 

Chinas economy grows by the minute-and props up the US debt mountain of trillions-Russia s cosying up to China and supplying them with millions of tons of wood from its forrests,steel,and Oil.

 

Anyone who thinks the recent talks of cutting back on nukes has been a success between Putin and Obama will prob be unaware that Putin has increased defence spending by 800%-builds new subs,re-introduces flights over Europe with the menacing blackjacks,and orders new ships from France-so to hear Clegg talk about scrapping our deterrent which has kept the Russians off limits since the 70s will no doubt be a blessing to Vladimir.

 

Many Eastern Europeans will be praying for a hung result-knowing that the Dollar will prob rise against the £

 

The Poles here in particular since the dollar is still favoured against their currency as it is in Russia and Ukraine.

 

In fact the only problem will come with their flights....if the ash cloud stops Ryan Air or Easyjet cheap flights to Krakow or Warsaw-then they will have to spend a few more nights watching Jeremy Paxman grilling the winner.;)

 

This seems a bit all over the place. Check out A World to Win | no to corporate power - yes to people's power

 

the industrial base has shifted for a number of reasons, but lets just take one aspect of what was said; as to; we have trained Dr, etc. Just the Indian Drs and Nurses trained in India contribute greatly both to the NHS and to the private care and nursing home sectors. The deterent is the backbone of a very opressive foriegn policy and as to Adams et al, they didn't abandon their weapons and come to the table they had been at the table since the early 70's; Britain's failed Irish policy needed a compromise and a way to still retain influence in Ireland. And it's criminality (murdering a solicitor while destroying the industrial base to note one) was well exposed. That is all record. But the rest of what is said makes a lot of sense, but to me it is the gaps in the argument that will alow as much mischief as whitehall can get away with. the greek workers are us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't let an emotive issue stop you! Nothing wrong in free speech - I loathe it being muted without good reason. If it upsets or not is subjective; we all have our stances! Out and out offence is bad, IMO, but you haven't done that AFAIC.

 

However, whilst you made a comment that said 'I think NOT' in regard to the age of homosexual consent, I would ask that you explain it. I'm glad bookie posted - because, yes, the red mist had descended after reading it. All the posts after stating there was no offence meant fell on deaf ears because, I don't understand why you said it.

 

So, please tell me why you felt the upper case was neccessary, and the whole 'think NOT' thang just smacks of 'isn't it obvious'.

 

If you don't agree that's fine, but I would like to know why 16 is so, um, 'not'. :confused:

 

I take the view that 16 is too young to make the decision about being either; ? or, Homosexual!

Call me old fashioned if you like but that is my view.

 

Young people in that age group have not had enough experience in life.

Call me old fashioned if you will

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not emotive to me, I'm not gay, I have kids, and don't have any emotional connection to the subject.

 

Surely, if you have no connection to the subject, you cannot understand!

 

I am however passionate about equal rights and its ugly counterpart, discrimination.

 

One of my best friends is homosexual; a darling man.

 

Therefore, I do not discrimate and never had.

 

What I have had, is large dealings with a Consumer Cancer Group; many of the women on that group and there husband's, partners and families had their lives torn apart by the cruel disease known as Cervical Cancer:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's you're problem. It being your use of the word 'decision'. There is none. Yes, you are 'old-fashioned' and that was never any excuse by the way.

 

Still, it's your view and you are welcome to keep it to yourself, lol.

 

Very pleased you admitted that. I knew when I was about 7 for the record, and hearing that tainted view is beyond annoying me anymore - it is plausable you fell foul of ridiculous stereotypes and listened to people who knew nothing about it. I ain't having a go - but you are incredibly incorrect in your view. I'm not being funny with you, because I understand why you think that, but you need to stop that now. ;) (IMO, of course).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst you keep providing reasons for not being a homophobe, you still seem blissfully unaware of how hurtful the things you seemingly believe and say can be. Not for me anymore, but I remember. Does your darling man not tell you it is not about choice? Just asking.

 

Also, it is too hard a concept for us all to just not make assumptions about others? (too young, yes). I'm not having a pop, I loathe religion and I don't exactly love those that follow it...but that is about something that is truely held by belief, not reality, and young 16 year old homosexuals are ruled by their feelings - something that is not easy considering how others think - I should know, I remember those dark days.

 

I remember at 10 feeling awful about it, only to find out 16 is still taboo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LMFAO! No, just a trainee. :D

 

I want to go pro, but people who have never lived it seemingly know more than me about it, and due to these thoughts, or passed on thoughts, I think I'm going to fail and 'choose' to be straight. HURRAH!! Normality resumes...

 

I would have gave up my wage as a boy to be straight - if only I'd known. Meh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK this is an issue around only Theresa May. I personally think politicians don't live in the real world and need to try "real life" before they comment. Can we move from the homophobic issue? I'm sure there are bigots on both sides of the fence at any rate! There is plenty more to pick on from the ConDem's about I'm sure :p

 

One issue close to my heart is the "political reform" that the Lib Dems had put forward (and this seemed to be a key issue for the coalition)

 

So, here is what the coalition has put forward:-

Political Reform

The parties agree to the establishment of five-year fixed-term parliaments. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015.

Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed-term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.

The parties will bring forward a referendum bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the alternative vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their parliamentary parties in both houses to support a simple majority referendum on the alternative vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.

The parties will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a byelection where an MP was found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a byelection signed by 10% of his or her constituents.

We agree to establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with draft motions by December 2010. It is likely that this bill will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current peers. In the interim, lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.

The parties will bring forward the proposals of the Wright committee for reform to the House of Commons in full – starting with the proposed committee for management of programmed business and including government business within its scope by the third year of the parliament.

The parties agree to reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.

We have agreed to establish a commission to consider the "West Lothian question".

The parties agree to the implementation of the Calman commission proposals and the offer of a referendum on further Welsh devolution.

The parties will tackle lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists. We also agree to pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics.

The parties will promote the radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups. This will include a full review of local government finance

 

Personally I don't think "Alternative vote" goes far enough, and I am disappointed (but not surprised!) at the Lib Dems for accepting this.

Check this link BBC News - Q&A: Electoral reform and proportional representation

Now if you compare "1st past the post" with "Alternative vote" you will see that it only benefits the lib dems (as they have positioned themselves at the middle of the road, and so they would be the party chosen by "compromise"). It lowers the Conservatives and the Labour Party. What the people really need is "Single Transferable Vote" or "proportional representation." That would give the voters who live in a "stronghold" and don't like the party with the "stronghold" a reason to vote!

 

OK enough from me on that one. Leave it for someone else to chew over :p

 

P.S. Alternative Vote is the one that labour was going to go for aswell, so looks like that is as far as we the voters were going to get :(

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...