Who will the next Tory leader

[Albumen]

I don't honestly know. At up to what stage in pregnancy is abortion legal now? Scientific advancements happen so often a baby can survive much earlier now than they did even 10 years ago.

24 weeks. But later if there is risk to baby or mother, or severe disability. Luckily 99% of mothers know they're pregnant before the 24 weeks so they still have a choice, albeit an emotionally difficult one.

 

[GreersElbow]

A strange argument to make. So what if they differ from the law?

Then you may need to learn what an argument is because what i state is not an argument.

 

[GreersElbow]

I don't think it's irrelevant in the slightest. I'll leave it here though, as I really don't want to waste any of my time arguing against Rees-Mogg. I have far more interesting things to do.

If you have more interesting things to do, you'd stop commenting, wouldn't you....

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

My experience of trying to adopt is only through friends that have tried. I have a friend that is a partner at a law firm and her husband is a naval officer. A perfect picture of middle class family. When they tried to adopt/foster they were declined as they had no children. Now they have children of there own it would appear that they can adopt easily. They were very frustrated at the time. I don't know what makes them suitable now and they were not before.

The will of the mother I think doesn't matter. As I've said numerous times on here, It's either a life or it isn't, depending on your view point. When does life begin etc? I've no idea.

I doubt very much that the only reason your friends were declined was that they don't have children seeing as MOST people that adopt don't have children (that's the primary motivation for adopting)


my wife works in adoption from a social services perspective. I can assure you that there is a national shortage otherwise her job would be MUCH easier! They have thousands of children waiting to be adopted- that's thousands of vulnerable children looking for a home and family to call their own. Many of them have complex needs due to abuse, neglect and trauma and, without nurturing, are going to have those needs unaddressed. Now what you're proposing is adding to that number by telling already traumatised, raped women to simply "give it up for adoption"

 

[seagulls99]

As unpopular as his personal beliefs are, at least he's being honest and is willing to share them. JRM is a principled man and he did make the point that democracy is stronger than his personal beliefs as potential PM meaning none of these laws will/could change under his premiership.

 

[Rod Marsh]

I doubt very much that the only reason your friends were declined was that they don't have children seeing as MOST people that adopt don't have children (that's the primary motivation for adopting)


my wife works in adoption from a social services perspective. I can assure you that there is a national shortage otherwise her job would be MUCH easier! They have thousands of children waiting to be adopted- that's thousands of vulnerable children looking for a home and family to call their own. Many of them have complex needs due to abuse, neglect and trauma and, without nurturing, are going to have those needs unaddressed. Now what you're proposing is adding to that number by telling already traumatised, raped women to simply "give it up for adoption"

Yes. But what others are suggesting is kill the baby because of this or because it's difficult to find it a home.

 

[Rod Marsh]

That's not true: not having children would not be a factor in adoption - I know about 20 families who have adopted kids without having children of their own. There's plenty about criteria here

What may be the case is that you will be declined if you're trying to conceive a child (and the fact that your friends do have kids suggests that this may be the case). When you start the adoption process, you have to sign a form saying that you're not trying for children of your own but the fact that you don't have kids, won't count against you.

It's also true that agencies prefer adoptive parents to have some experience of children - but that could be working as a nurse/teacher or baby sitting for family members.

Thanks for the update. Why trying to conceive a child should have a negative impact on adopting I don't know and having any experience. Millions of people every year have children with no experience. Whatever though, they are the rules for now.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

Thanks for the update. Why trying to conceive a child should have a negative impact on adopting I don't know and having any experience. Millions of people every year have children with no experience. Whatever though, they are the rules for now.

adoption is very different to simply having a baby. You're taking over the parenthood of a child who is likely to have been subjected to either neglect, abuse, trauma or all 3. Some are born with various physical or mental needs due to the actions of their biological parents (alcohol or drug use during the pregnancy for example) They are likely to have complex needs and if so will require a different, let's say 'method' of parenting to a child who hasn't been subjected to all of that. That's why it is important to have some kind of child based experience when adopting- it's not hard to get either but it is an area where many potential adopters fall short and struggle with the adoption process- because they don't understand the difference between giving birth to your own child and taking over the parenting of a child with pre-existing issues and are unwilling to take the time to do research and gain experience to improve their knowledge base.

as for why trying to conceive whilst going through the adoption process being an issue: if a couple are trying to conceive and adopt at the same time and become successful in conceiving then they are likely to drop out of the adoption process- which is a waste of precious time and resources. If they were to carry on they'd have their own (biological) child and their own (adopted) child- I'd argue that they would not be able to given the required attention to both

 

[Gwylan]

Thanks for the update. Why trying to conceive a child should have a negative impact on adopting I don't know and having any experience.

It's because there's plenty of research that suggests that there should be age gap between birth children and an adopted child - the general advice is that children should be older than two when bringing another child into the family. As it can easily take two years from the start of the process to bringing a child home, adoptive parents should not be conceiving kids during this period.

BTW, the reason I know about all this is that we adopted our kids so I know about all the hoops. And it took 20 months between the start of the process and bringing our children home.

 

[Rod Marsh]

It's because there's plenty of research that suggests that there should be age gap between birth children and an adopted child - the general advice is that children should be older than two when bringing another child into the family. As it can easily take two years from the start of the process to bringing a child home, adoptive parents should not be conceiving kids during this period.

BTW, the reason I know about all this is that we adopted our kids so I know about all the hoops. And it took 20 months between the start of the process and bringing our children home.

Cool. Nice one.

 

[beorhthelm]

Yes. But what others are suggesting is kill the baby because of this or because it's difficult to find it a home.

no one is advocating killing a baby. people support the notion of terminating fetus in some circumstances.

 

[Rod Marsh]

no one is advocating killing a baby. people support the notion of terminating fetus in some circumstances.

As I've continually said on this thread. It's either a life or it isn't. Whatever you decide it is that's fine with me. You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[jakarta]

This thread seems (in true NSC Fashion) to have meandered off the original point.

JRM won't be the next Tory Leader because the spin doctors will insist on a gay/female/ethnic candidate to prove how they have 'modernised' the Party and it's not full of Toffs anymore.

A bit like the Call Me Dave era...

 

[Buzzer]

My biggest criticism of JRM as PM isn't his views on abortion or same-sex marriage, I suspect Tony Blair holds very similar views seeing as they are both mainstream Catholics. It's to do with the fact that he simply doesn't have the experience or knowledge of what life is like for the majority of us and how the decisions they make will affect us. I've nothing at all against uber-posh people in politics, we're in a democracy after all, but I think the leader of the country should have a good understanding and experience of modern British culture, values and so on. His life has been lived in such a bubble that I really don't think he has even the smallest clue of what the rest of us do.

Case in point is George Osborne's cuts to disability benefit. I don't think they were deliberately cruel but cruel they were nonetheless. And I think if Osborne had understood the effect of a cut of £15 a week to someone living on £100 a week benefits then he might just have rethought the whole sorry plan. Osborne's never lived a hand to mouth existence, he doesn't know anyone who lives like that, there's just no frame of reference for him and therefore how can anyone in that situation make an informed decision - they can't.

This actually raises a wider point about our politicians generally and the very small circles they are plucked from.

 

[sjamesb3466]

My biggest criticism of JRM as PM isn't his views on abortion or same-sex marriage, I suspect Tony Blair holds very similar views seeing as they are both mainstream Catholics. It's to do with the fact that he simply doesn't have the experience or knowledge of what life is like for the majority of us and how the decisions they make will affect us. I've nothing at all against uber-posh people in politics, we're in a democracy after all, but I think the leader of the country should have a good understanding and experience of modern British culture, values and so on. His life has been lived in such a bubble that I really don't think he has even the smallest clue of what the rest of us do.

Case in point is George Osborne's cuts to disability benefit. I don't think they were deliberately cruel but cruel they were nonetheless. And I think if Osborne had understood the effect of a cut of £15 a week to someone living on £100 a week benefits then he might just have rethought the whole sorry plan. Osborne's never lived a hand to mouth existence, he doesn't know anyone who lives like that, there's just no frame of reference for him and therefore how can anyone in that situation make an informed decision - they can't.

This actually raises a wider point about our politicians generally and the very small circles they are plucked from.

Most sensible post I have seen this side of the transfer window

 

[vegster]

Valid points from Buzzer. It always seems strange that so many Tories want to cut all sort of benefits yet their own standards of upbringing cost immeasurably more ?

 

[Badger]

My biggest criticism of JRM as PM isn't his views on abortion or same-sex marriage, I suspect Tony Blair holds very similar views seeing as they are both mainstream Catholics. It's to do with the fact that he simply doesn't have the experience or knowledge of what life is like for the majority of us and how the decisions they make will affect us. I've nothing at all against uber-posh people in politics, we're in a democracy after all, but I think the leader of the country should have a good understanding and experience of modern British culture, values and so on. His life has been lived in such a bubble that I really don't think he has even the smallest clue of what the rest of us do.

Case in point is George Osborne's cuts to disability benefit. I don't think they were deliberately cruel but cruel they were nonetheless. And I think if Osborne had understood the effect of a cut of £15 a week to someone living on £100 a week benefits then he might just have rethought the whole sorry plan. Osborne's never lived a hand to mouth existence, he doesn't know anyone who lives like that, there's just no frame of reference for him and therefore how can anyone in that situation make an informed decision - they can't.

This is exactly my thinking on the subject. Having seen his appearances on HIGNFY, it's quite clear that he hasn't got a clue about modern British culture.

This actually raises a wider point about our politicians generally and the very small circles they are plucked from.

Is their perhaps a big problem with making politics an appealing career for people with different life experiences?

 

[OvingdeanSeagull]

As I've continually said on this thread. It's either a life or it isn't. Whatever you decide it is that's fine with me. You are entitled to your opinion.

I just can't comprehend how you can possibly classify it as a life. They have no sentience at the stage up to when it's legal to abort, no feeling whatsoever. They are a blob with about as much of a life as a dandelion. To me, abortion should be legal full stop - but the thought that people believe that a woman should be put through the immense struggle of birthing a child EVEN when they were conceived through as traumatic an experience as a rape absolutely disgusts me.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What a weird thread. Its like Dusty Springfield in one ear and Extreme Noise Terror in the other. I like the post by [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION].

 

[Buzzer]

What a weird thread. Its like Dusty Springfield in one ear and Extreme Noise Terror in the other. I like the post by [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION].

I'm somewhere in between then? Wendy James, Skunk Anansie, Shirley Manson maybe?