UKIP candid Geoffrey Clark calls for disabled foetuses to be aborted

[Green Web 10]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/18/ukip-geoffrey-clark-compulsory-disability-abortion-_n_2322798.html

 

Some may say this a step too far even for a extreme right wing nutjob but removing the emotional attachement is there anything wrong with wanting to improve the gene pool? Surely this can only be advantageous for all humans in the long run?

 

---------- Post added 20-12-2012 at 05:17 ----------

 

And euthanasia for the over-80s and the deportation of 'riff-raff.'

Edited December 20, 2012 by Green Web

[ronthenekred 10]

Steps aside and makes way for Conrod and Jeffery.

[SevenRivers 10]

This isn't UKIP policy, it's taken from the personal blog of one of their candidates who has been suspended from the party.

[Ms Macbeth 73]

This isn't UKIP policy, it's taken from the personal blog of one of their candidates who has been suspended from the party.

 

Spot on, and as titles should reflect the content of a thread I've changed it. This is a quote from the link posted by the OP:

 

'UKIP reject the abhorrent views expressed in the personal manifesto of Mr Geoffrey Clark'.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Ms Macbeth

[LeMaquis 10]

Spot on, and as titles should reflect the content of a thread I've changed it. This is a quote from the link posted by the OP:

 

'UKIP reject the abhorrent views expressed in the personal manifesto of Mr Geoffrey Clark'.

 

This debate has been had on another thread. It should be pointed out though that UKIP initially supported Clark until the outrage got too much. Jeffrey Shaw was also defending him till I pointed out that by that time UKIP had done a u-turn and denounced Clark.

 

Why UKIP attracts nutters like this is another debate.

Edited December 20, 2012 by LeMaquis

[alchresearch 214]

Are there any figures on how many foetuses are aborted when Downs is detected? It does happen and the option is made known for anyone pregnant with a higher risk (weight and age).

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

This debate has been had on another thread. It should be pointed out though that UKIP initially supported Clark until the outrage got too much. Jeffrey Shaw was also defending him till I pointed out that by that time UKIP had done a u-turn and denounced Clark.

Er, no- but I defended his right (and yours!) to hold opinions from which I dissent.

Democracy, you see.

[Green Web 10]

 

Why UKIP attracts nutters like this is another debate.

 

Like attracts like hence why the party is just full of bitter nutjobs.

[LeMaquis 10]

Er, no- but I defended his right (and yours!) to hold opinions from which I dissent.

Democracy, you see.

 

You defended his right to express those opinions. Anyone can hold any opinion they want. When public candidates express the views he did and get support from fellow UKIP members then that is wrong.

[Green Web 10]

The BNP always used to use that line 'I'm defending their right to free speech' but would never use their right to free speech and condem their vile opinions.

[Eater Sundae 12]

You defended his right to express those opinions. Anyone can hold any opinion they want. When public candidates express the views he did and get support from fellow UKIP members then that is wrong.

 

Democracy is OK as long as it doesn't conflict with your views.

[cressida 1,564]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/18/ukip-geoffrey-clark-compulsory-disability-abortion-_n_2322798.html

 

Some may say this a step too far even for a extreme right wing nutjob but removing the emotional attachement is there anything wrong with wanting to improve the gene pool? Surely this can only be advantageous for all humans in the long run?

 

---------- Post added 20-12-2012 at 05:17 ----------

 

And euthanasia for the over-80s and the deportation of 'riff-raff.'

 

I think UKIP would be doing their party a favour if they aborted Geoffrey Clark before he becomes even more of a loose cannon