Your view on abortion?

[Benjamin]

Just seen a few comments in another thread in regards to abortion. I just wondered what people's views on it were.

I'm not one for it, but I believe in certain circumstances it is acceptable.

[Ramsay]

nah im not for it
if you dont want the kid just give it up for adoption

[Smithy]

I have nothing against it, but I think the period of time where you can have an abortion should be shortened

[Benjamin]

nah im not for it
if you dont want the kid just give it up for adoption

What about if the woman was raped? Would you still expect her to go through with the pregancy?

[Kerry]

Completely a circumstance thing but those who use it as a form of contraception are beyond disgusting

[Princess]

I'd never have one but I'm not gonna shove my opinion on anyone else,obviously circumstances come into account. Argeed about the cutoff time though,it's ridiculous.

[MTVN]

Yeah I'm for it, for a couple of reasons really. Firstly I think there is a big difference between a fetus and a human being and they shouldnt be treated the same, a fetus is not a living entity.

I also think the ownership of body argument is important; I think we all have aboslute control over ourselves and our own bodies. So I would think that woman have the right to abort what is essentially an unwanted parasite living within them.

And if we want to go to extremes, then in cases of rape and even forced incest or something like that, not allowing the woman to abort her baby could shatter two lives as it isnt fair on the mother or the baby to be brought up in those circumstances, while aborting a fetus I would consider to be the lesser evil.

Although I can see the arguments against it. Like I said in the other thread, considering how contentious an issue it is I think it is best to be free from government involvement, and not have either view imposed on anyone. It should be left to the individual to make a personal decision on whether they consider it right or wrong.

[Ramsay]

What about if the woman was raped? Would you still expect her to go through with the pregancy?

yeah i understand that but still its not the babys fault to be denied life like

[Jords]

Shouldnt be used as a form of contraception.

Obviously I wouldnt stop anybody having an abortion, but there are preventions, use them.

[Shaun]

totally for them.

Obviously people having them willy nilly is irresponsible but it's a far more disgusting thing to force people to have babies they don't want to have. (And yes, of course contraception would be the answer to that, if all women (and men) were responsible...)

[Benjamin]

yeah i understand that but still its not the babys fault to be denied life like

But there is a difference between a week/few week old feutus and an actual baby. As much as it's harsh, I would rather the woman abort than have to bear another 9 months of constant reminder of the pain as it's not her fault either.

['Conor]

depends how old the mother is and what life the baby will have if she does have the baby

[Kerry]

But there is a difference between a week/few week old feutus and an actual baby. As much as it's harsh, I would rather the woman abort than have to bear another 9 months of constant reminder of the pain as it's not her fault either.

A lifetime reminder if she didn't give the baby up for adoption. Not good for either the baby or mother

[Ninastar]

Depends on the circumstances. If your having a baby thats going to be brought up with parents that can't financially support the baby then I think they should be able to abort it. Or if the baby is a result of rape then it should be allowed.

I agree with smithy though, the period of time should be shortened.

[Stu]

You are dealing with a life here. I hold life as something sacred that clearly starts when Mr. Sperm meets Mr. Egg. That's where it starts and that's where it continues from. If you are basing your argument on things like 'well a baby and foetus are two different things' then you are looking at it from - in my opinion - a weird 'how many cells does it have? how intelligent is it?' standpoint. It's a life. Any arguments about how well the baby could be brought up etc are answered by adoption. Plenty of couples are crying out to take in and love a child.

I'm pro choice though. I'm not going to force my beliefs on others. That's how I would describe my views. Anti abortion, pro choice.

[GypsyGoth]

I'm pro choice.

[joeysteele]

I have altered my view on this,I was dead against it but always felt it had to be the Woman's decision and that her wishes should be supported.
I now find myself more in step with the view expressed by MTVN above and he makes very valid points very eloquently.

[Stacey.]

I'm for it, like for whatever reason an abortion might be the best thing.

[Vicky.]

Pro choice. Forcing a woman to have a child she doesnt want will never end well. Even if said child is put up for adoption (after the woman is forced to carry it for 9 months)...theres a lot more to it than just giving a baby away, and it could cause the child stress later in life too. That said, it should never be used as a form of contraception. Thats just sick :/

[Tom4784]

I'm pro choice, can't say anything more then that really. It's the individual's choice at the end of the day, no one else's (unless the father is around, then it should be a joint decision). I don't judge either way.

[Shasown]

I'm pro choice, can't say anything more then that really. It's the individual's choice at the end of the day, no one else's (unless the father is around, then it should be a joint decision). I don't judge either way.

Interesting point there you raised Dezzy, about the father I mean. I can see a day coming that the father whether he is around or not has to be consulted as to his opinion. Farcical I know but it would be fair under equality laws, after all he is financially liable simply by fathering the child.

My own opinion, its the womans decision, so long as there is a valid reason for it and not just used as a form of failsafe contraceptive. Though I agree the current time limits should be amended

[Angus]

I, personally, would never have had an abortion under any circumstances, but I don't think anyone has the right to insist that a woman should carry a baby against her wishes. The only thing I would have an issue with is the gestational age at which a fetus can be aborted which, in my own opinion, shouldn't be any later than 20 weeks. There does come a point when a fetus becomes an actual baby, a potential, viable human being, and I can't see why it is not possible to decide on an abortion long before that point.

However, to say that a woman should go through 40 weeks of carrying a child just to have it adopted is ridiculous. There are not necessarily suitable parents just waiting to adopt. There are also so many complications to the mother's health that can occur during a pregnancy that also have to be considered. I find it repugnant that other people feel they have the right impose their own set of beliefs on anyone else about such a very personal and emotive decision.

I am totally repelled by women who just use abortion as a means of birth control, there is no need for that in this day and age when we now have so many methods available to prevent pregnancies occurring. However, the one thing we all possess, that are ours alone, are our bodies and women should have the right to decide whether they wish to carry a baby or not.

[Pyramid*]

A totally personal choice. Whilst I understand the 'pro life' agruements - that's forcing that opinion onto others in the hope that a massive guilt trip will stop women from chosing that option.

Am I against them? Absolutely not - that choice is for the woman concerned (and the man if they are still involved). Outside of that - it's nothing to do with anyone else.

(I am speaking from non medical reasons such as extreme disability detected, pregnancy from rapes etc - of which I firmly believe others who are not, or have never been in that situation, should really back off critising anyone who has found themselves in that situation) - Not targeted to posts here necessarily - I mean generally.

[BB_Eye]

I don't think there should be an absolute limit on the time of the abortion, but that different circumstances should be considered.

I'd like to think a good GP would refuse any such consultation unless all other options would mean serious harm to the mother.

I think the system is fine as it is.

[Rob]

I'm against it, unless you get information that having the baby would pose a large risk to your life or it would be born severely disabled.

[Jessica.]

I think abortion is murder.

[arista]

I think abortion is murder.


No thats the way you are brought up.


It is Legal.

[Ninastar]

I think abortion is murder.

I see where your coming from but I think that sometimes its for the best

[Tom.]

Wrong. And the limit needs bringing back to about 15 weeks. If she doesn't realise shes pregnant by then then she doesn't know her body and tough luck if she doesn't want it.

Babies can survive if born at 20 weeks. The abortion limit is 24 weeks, so there is some degree of murder involved imo. Sorry that its an inconvenience but if you don't want to get pregnant then dont have sex. Simple.

[Pyramid*]

No thats the way you are brought up.


It is Legal.

This is so true Arista. some may view it as murder as that is their belief.


Personal opinions and belief is not the same as what is legal in the UK and many other countries - so you are infact, correct. It is not murder.

[InOne]

It is just a shame that some women have such a disregard for life and use abortion cos they just dont want it at the time or it's the easy option. (I'm not including the legal reasons, Rape, Disability, threat to mothers life etc)

[Tom.]

I also don't like how women have the overall control. If the father doesn't want the baby but the mother does then she gets to keep it and can force him to pay for it even though he doesn't want it, but if she doesn't want it and he does then she can still get rid of it. It might be her body but the baby is just as much a part of him as it is her.

[InOne]

And it often happens too late. Either she has got rid of the baby and then decides to tell you, or turns up at your door with the baby and says "It's yours, pay for it"

[Pyramid*]

I also don't like how women have the overall control. If the father doesn't want the baby but the mother does then she gets to keep it and can force him to pay for it even though he doesn't want it, but if she doesn't want it and he does then she can still get rid of it. It might be her body but the baby is just as much a part of him as it is her.

Much as I can understand totally what you are saying: in reality though: how many 'fathers to be', would say: Have the baby, I will look after it 24/7?

In reality: there really wouldn't be that many - I honestly believe there are very few out there who would.

[Vicky.]

I really wonder if some mens opinions on this would change if it was THEIR body they were ruining for life, them who had chances of complications during pregnancy, them who could potentially be left alone to deal with a child that they may not be able to actually support financially or emotionally.

Yeah fair enough, dont want to get pregnant, dont have sex...or use contraception, but its not always as easy as that. Many people do use all methods of contraception, and it still happens sometimes :/

I agree that the limit should be lowered drastically though. 24 weeks is ridiculous.

[Tom.]

Much as I can understand totally what you are saying: in reality though: how many 'fathers to be', would say: Have the baby, I will look after it 24/7?

In reality: there really wouldn't be that many - I honestly believe there are very few out there who would.

You can flip that around and ask how many women have kids against the fathers wishes, only to force the father to pay up or have some involvement when they don't want to. Its not fair and easier for women to get out of.

I really wonder if some mens opinions on this would change if it was THEIR body they were ruining for life, them who had chances of complications during pregnancy, them who could potentially be left alone to deal with a child that they may not be able to actually support financially or emotionally.

Yeah fair enough, dont want to get pregnant, dont have sex...or use contraception, but its not always as easy as that. Many people do use all methods of contraception, and it still happens sometimes :/

I agree that the limit should be lowered drastically though. 24 weeks is ridiculous.

If you think contraception will stop you having a baby then you're very naive and shouldn't be having sex. It reduces your chances, but doesn't eliminate it and you need to accept it can still happen.

And even through pregnancy doubts, both mothers and fathers often change their minds and bond with their babies almost straight away whether they wanted it or not.

[Vicky.]

You can flip that around and ask how many women have kids against the fathers wishes, only to force the father to pay up or have some involvement when they don't want to. Its not fair and easier for women to get out of.

Paying money is a lot different to the emotional problems of being forced to have a child that you dont want though. Massive difference.

The comparison would be a bit more even if...say...it was legal for a woman to force the man to see a child 24/7 that she had against his wishes.


If you think contraception will stop you having a baby then you're very naive and shouldn't be having sex. It reduces your chances, but doesn't eliminate it and you need to accept it can still happen.

And even through pregnancy doubts, both mothers and fathers often change their minds and bond with their babies almost straight away whether they wanted it or not.

However, some may not. What then?

[Tom.]

Paying money is a lot different to the emotional problems of being forced to have a child that you dont want though. Massive difference.

The comparison would be a bit more even if...say...it was legal for a woman to force the man to see a child 24/7 that she had against his wishes.

Courts can enforce similar things.

However, some may not. What then?

And some parents don't take to their babies straight away no matter how excited they were during pregnancy. Should we kill those babies too?

[Vicky.]

And some parents don't take to their babies straight away no matter how excited they were during pregnancy. Should we kill those babies too?

Yeah, because thats the same thing isnt it...

[Tom.]

Yeah, because thats the same thing isnt it...

Whats different about parents rejecting a child after birth, whether it was wanted during pregnancy by both parents or not?

A lot of womens maternal instinct kicks in after birth regardless of whether they initially wanted the baby or not. Sometimes it doesn't kick in even if they did want it.

[Vicky.]

Whats different about parents rejecting a child after birth, whether it was wanted during pregnancy by both parents or not?

Chances are, if the parents did not want the child through the pregnancy, they arent really going to take to it after the birth. I am aware that people who are really happy about being pregnant sometimes reject the child, but I think its pretty safe to say that of people were forced to have children that they dont want from the outset...that more children would end up 'rejected'

Anyway, its not always just emotional reasons. Some people are not financially capable of bringing up a child. Yeah, these days that doesnt matter, as you could just go on the dole and let the state bring up your kid, but is that really any better?

[Tom.]

Chances are, if the parents did not want the child through the pregnancy, they arent really going to take to it after the birth. I am aware that people who are really happy about being pregnant sometimes reject the child, but I think its pretty safe to say that of people were forced to have children that they dont want from the outset...that more children would end up 'rejected'

Its not as simplistic as that, maybe you should do a bit of reading around the subject.

[Zippy]

I don't like the idea of a 24 week baby being aborted unless for medical reasons. For a woman to leave it that long to abort I would have to question whether she had a conscience. Even I know that a baby is significantly formed at that point so you are actually ending a real human life. Even though Im not sure how developed its feelings are or whether it registers any suffering in death. But it must actually look like a baby at that point and to know youve let it grow that much and then sanctioned its death must be hard to live with. Assuming she has a conscience.

But Im definitely pro-choice. It can't be any other way as you just can't legally force any woman to carry a baby she doesnt want. She would just go elsewhere to get it done or, even worse, try some dangerous method herself to abort it.

but why women can't just use contraception in this day and age is beyond me. Relying on the man to provide it seems pretty stupid considering you're the ones that suffer the consequences.

[Niall]

I have nothing against it, but I think the period of time where you can have an abortion should be shortened

This.

[Tom.]

But Im definitely pro-choice. It can't be any other way as you just can't legally force any woman to carry a baby she doesnt want. She would just go elsewhere to get it done or, even worse, try some dangerous method herself to abort it.

Good, then she can share the pain her dead baby will have.

Abortions should be limited per person as well to stop people using it as a form of contraception.

[Vicky.]

Its not as simplistic as that, maybe you should do a bit of reading around the subject.

I would imagine it is actually(not genuine post-natal depression cases...).

Being forced to carry a child that you do not want for 9 months, the stress of knowing you cant look after it, then eventually having the child...fair or unfair you are likely feel some form of resentment towards the child, even though it is not the childs fault at all. I cant see how anyone could possibly see it any differently :conf:

[Vicky.]

Good, then she can share the pain her dead baby will have.

Abortions should be limited per person as well to stop people using it as a form of contraception.

Its nice to know we have people with such simplistic views on here :D

I ask, what if the mother does want the child, but the father wants her to abort it...would it then be fair to chop his penis off? After all, that should equal the amount of suffering that you seem to think that the mother should go through for the same thing. Fairs fair and that eh?



However, the second part I definitely agree with. Its easy to make a mistake once, but you learn from it.

[Tom.]

I would imagine it is actually(not genuine post-natal depression cases...).

Being forced to carry a child that you do not want for 9 months, the stress of knowing you cant look after it, then eventually having the child...fair or unfair you are likely feel some form of resentment towards the child, even though it is not the childs fault at all. I cant see how anyone could possibly see it any differently :conf:

But its not. Its all psychological. Parental instincts often override the initial resentment.

I ask, what if the mother does want the child, but the father wants her to abort it...would it then be fair to chop his penis off? After all, that should equal the amount of suffering that you seem to think that the mother should go through for the same thing. Fairs fair and that eh

She probably wouldnt abort it in the first place

[Zippy]

Good, then she can share the pain her dead baby will have.

Abortions should be limited per person as well to stop people using it as a form of contraception.

think you're being a bit unrealistic with all this thinking.

a woman aborting her own child will probably be a damn sight more painful for the baby than a hospital method. Assuming you actually care about how the unborn baby dies?

Limiting abortions will not stop abortions. It will just stop legal abortions.

[MTVN]

I'm not especially clued up on this but surely barely anyone actually uses it as a form of contraception; who really thinks "ah dont bother with a condom, I'll just get an abortion", it's not like you can get an abortion just by clicking your fingers

[Vicky.]

But its not. Its all psychological. Parental instincts often override the initial resentment.

Yeah, maybe but this would hardly be a normal case really would it?

Do you know many people who have been forced to have a baby that they dont want?

[Tom.]

think you're being a bit unrealistic with all this thinking.

a woman aborting her own child will probably be a damn sight more painful for the baby than a hospital method. Assuming you actually care about how the unborn baby dies?

Limiting abortions will not stop abortions. It will just stop legal abortions.

In the real world, limiting then would make people more cautious, even if it results in higher uptake of morning after pill. If you need to repeatedly have abortions then obviously the message isn't getting through and other help is needed.

[Vicky.]

She probably wouldnt abort it in the first place

Lets say for arguments sake though, that she listened to him, and did it. Would it then be fair, in your eyes...to chop his bits off or severely mutilate them at least?

[Tom.]

Yeah, maybe but this would hardly be a normal case really would it?

Do you know many people who have been forced to have a baby that they dont want?

No because they have the option not to, but as I said if you look around the subject you'll find plenty of case studies where what I'm saying is true. I know it sounds illogical but its not.

[Vicky.]

No because they have the option not to, but as I said if you look around the subject you'll find plenty of case studies where what I'm saying is true.

Well no they wouldnt, in your ideal world by the sound of it :/

[Pyramid*]

You can flip that around and ask how many women have kids against the fathers wishes, only to force the father to pay up or have some involvement when they don't want to. Its not fair and easier for women to get out of.

.

the 'flip that around' scenario doesn't quite work though. The mother is the one who cares for the child 90% of the time - if the father isn't interested.

I put it to you earlier in reply to your post about the woman not wanting the child, but the father wanting it- that very very few men would take the baby from birth and have the baby 24/7. I still stand by that.

the flip side above that you mentioned? If the man doesn't want to be a father - he takes responsibility for the contraception. That's not rocket science - takes two you know....if the man doesn't take protection and the woman falls pregnant - he has a responsibility to provide for the child his sperm created if the woman choses not to abort.

[Vicky.]

I'm not especially clued up on this but surely barely anyone actually uses it as a form of contraception; who really thinks "ah dont bother with a condom, I'll just get an abortion", it's not like you can get an abortion just by clicking your fingers

I dont think its common, but there are some sick ****s around that do do that.

Also its a lot easier than you would think to get an abortion...

I dont know about multiples though, never known anyone who has had many...I would HOPE that its harder to get the more you have

[Tom.]

the 'flip that around' scenario doesn't quite work though. The mother is the one who cares for the child 90% of the time - if the father isn't interested.

I put it to you earlier in reply to your post about the woman not wanting the child, but the father wanting it- that very very few men would take the baby from birth and have the baby 24/7. I still stand by that.

the flip side above that you mentioned? If the man doesn't want to be a father - he takes responsibility for the contraception. That's not rocket science - takes two you know....if the man doesn't take protection and the woman falls pregnant - he has a responsibility to provide for the child his sperm created if the woman choses not to abort.

Sometimes the mum wouldn't take 100% responsibility for a child either, and in a lot of cases can force the dads to be involved whether financially or physically. A man has no control over an abortion, so is it really fair that he is dragged into it? Whereas if the woman doesn't want it, she can just get rid and thats it.

I'm not saying that women should be forced by the men to keep the baby, I just don't like how women have full control over it. Other situations i've outlined are just hypothetical.

[Pyramid*]

Sometimes the mum wouldn't take 100% responsibility for a child either, and in a lot of cases can force the dads to be involved whether financially or physically. A man has no control over an abortion, so is it really fair that he is dragged into it? Whereas if the woman doesn't want it, she can just get rid and thats it.

I'm not saying that women should be forced by the men to keep the baby, I just don't like how women have full control over it. Other situations i've outlined are just hypothetical.

He was happy to have sex - and take his chances. So yes, it is really fair that he is dragged into it. Babies don't happen just with wishful thinking. If he didn't want dragged into anything, he should have made sure he took every precaution to ensure the woman didn't fall pregnant.

[Zippy]

the flip side above that you mentioned? If the man doesn't want to be a father - he takes responsibility for the contraception. That's not rocket science - takes two you know....if the man doesn't take protection and the woman falls pregnant - he has a responsibility to provide for the child his sperm created if the woman choses not to abort.

many women lie to men about taking contraception. Then they have all the say in whether to keep a child or abort it.

this idea that men and women have equal responsibility is BS. After the point of conception a man virtually has no rights or say whatsoever. It's all about what the woman wants.

ultimately women have to take control of their own body and not rely on any man to prevent a pregnancy.

and men are not always thinking straight when horny and/or don't have contraception handy so it wouldnt be too difficult for a woman to catch him in a weakened moment then force him to be a Daddy even though he may not be ready to be one.

[Vicky.]

Sometimes the mum wouldn't take 100% responsibility for a child either, and in a lot of cases can force the dads to be involved whether financially or physically. A man has no control over an abortion, so is it really fair that he is dragged into it? Whereas if the woman doesn't want it, she can just get rid and thats it.

I'm not saying that women should be forced by the men to keep the baby, I just don't like how women have full control over it. Other situations i've outlined are just hypothetical.


Thing is though in most cases, it IS the woman left 'holding the baby'

I do agree that potential fathers should get a say too, but ultimately I do think it should be up to the woman, unless the father can PROVE in some way that he will be there for that child...and if the woman wants nothing to do with it, be prepared to take on the baby on his own fulltime. But still, even then, it is the woman who has to actually carry/give birth...so its a bit murky for me :/

My partners ex aborted his child...he didnt even know she was pregnant. She rang him afterwards, telling him, and laughing about it...saying he should never have left her...the definition of evil that one.

[Tom.]

He was happy to have sex - and take his chances. So yes, it is really fair that he is dragged into it. Babies don't happen just with wishful thinking. If he didn't want dragged into anything, he should have made sure he took every precaution to ensure the woman didn't fall pregnant.

Right, but now flip the situation over and if he wants it and she doesn't, she can just go and get it aborted, ie woman wins either way (as usual :joker:). So going back to the initial argument, why is it different with the shoe on the other foot, and why should what the man wants be overruled by what the woman wants? If she didn't want to get pregnant then she should have took precautions.

[Zippy]

If she didn't want to get pregnant then she should have took precautions.

Yes. Unless raped, a woman is always responsible for being pregnant because its her body and she should take full responsibility for what happens to it.

she can't blame a man for getting her pregnant because if he wasn't wearing a condom she could have still just refused to have sex.

[Vicky.]

Yes. Unless raped, a woman is always responsible for being pregnant because its her body and she should take full responsibility for what happens to it.

she can't blame a man for getting her pregnant because if he wasn't wearing a condom she could have still just refused to have sex.

That same argument can go for an earlier thing too. About men having to pay for their children. If they dont want to be stung for child support, they should refuse to have sex(without contraception) also :spin:

Meh, this is kinda going in circles now anyways. I think imma leave it for now :p

[Pyramid*]

many women lie to men about taking contraception. Then they have all the say in whether to keep a child or abort it.

this idea that men and women have equal responsibility is BS. After the point of conception a man virtually has no rights or say whatsoever. It's all about what the woman wants.

ultimately women have to take control of their own body and not rely on any man to prevent a pregnancy.

and men are not always thinking straight when horny and/or don't have contraception handy so it wouldnt be too difficult for a woman to catch him in a weakened moment then force him to be a Daddy even though he may not be ready to be one.

It takes a female egg and male sperm to make one baby - iit takes two people - basic biology. Both are equally responsible.

[Pyramid*]

Right, but now flip the situation over and if he wants it and she doesn't, she can just go and get it aborted, ie woman wins either way (as usual :joker:). So going back to the initial argument, why is it different with the shoe on the other foot, and why should what the man wants be overruled by what the woman wants? If she didn't want to get pregnant then she should have took precautions.

If he wanted a child so badly - he should be with a woman that is prepared to give him one.

[Tom.]

If he wanted a child so badly - he should be with a woman that is prepared to give him one.

From a personal view, its not something you realise you want until it happens.

[Angus]

Nobody has the right to tell a woman she MUST carry a child she does not want - the father has made his brief contribution and can carry on his merry way. The woman has 9months ahead, then the actual labour (which is something most men would NOT go through twice), then are expected to be automatically nurturing and prepared to put their lives on hold for several years whilst bringing up the child. Most men think they're amazing because they change the occasional nappy, or once in a while do the night-time feed. Women have to do all that with sore nipples, often painful stitches in places you don't want to know about, and constant exhaustion from lack of sleep. On top of that, they are also expected to maintain the usual housekeeping duties because "that's their job".

Also, just because childbirth is viewed as an everyday occurrence, does not negate the fact that it is an extremely dangerous event for both mother and baby. A woman has the right to decide whether she wants to put her body through the trauma of pregnancy and childbirth if she really doesn't want the baby. What right does anyone have to make that decision for her, and as for a father having the right to "jointly"make the decision, why should he when he doesn't have to face any potential hazards to HIS body?

You can't have it both ways - on the one hand saying that a fetus is NOT a baby until a certain gestation period has passed, and on the other hand saying that it's a baby from day one and therefore a man has an equal right to make the decision to abort.

As I said earlier, the only issue I have is with the age at which an abortion is allowed. I think up to 20 weeks is more than enough time for a woman to make up her mind, for whatever reason, that she wants an abortion, and it should be nobody else's business but her own.

[Zippy]

That same argument can go for an earlier thing too. About men having to pay for their children. If they dont want to be stung for child support, they should refuse to have sex(without contraception) also :spin:



yes, but when it comes to sex we all know men are not rational thinkers in the heat of the momoent. Women know this so should write this into the equation and take the ultimate responsibility.

Again, it is YOUR bodies that have to suffer the consequences ultimately not the mans so he isnt gonna give it the same amount of thought. We all know men are gonna have stupid unprotected sex at times without thinking of any consequences. Its not right but it's the reality.

when women have stupid unprotected sex at least they still have options open afterwards. Men do not.

[Vicky.]

yes, but when it comes to sex we all know men are not rational thinkers in the heat of the momoent. Women know this so should write this into the equation and take the ultimate responsibility.


Heh, nice generalization there :p

Not all men think with their penises (or I would like to think that D: )

And not all women are these responsible sensible thinking things you seem to have us down for you know. Even we get caught up in the heat of the moment sometimes you know :tongue:

[Tom.]

I reckon women are secretly worse than men but can surpress it

[Zippy]

It takes a female egg and male sperm to make one baby - iit takes two people - basic biology. Both are equally responsible.

and the award for the most simplistic post of the week goes to....

Pyramid!!

actually it takes 9 months of incubation and nurturing to create a baby and Im pretty sure the man isnt part of that process.

he provides an essential ingredient, thats all.

[Tom.]

and the award for the most simplistic post of the week goes to....

Pyramid!!

actually it takes 9 months of incubation and nurturing to create a baby and Im pretty sure the man isnt part of that process.

he provides an essential ingredient, thats all.

Theres a lot more than just being an essential ingredient, men determine the sex of the baby amongst other traits

[Zippy]

Theres a lot more than just being an essential ingredient, men determine the sex of the baby amongst other traits

thats still down to the ingredient. He doesnt actively decide any of the babies traits...or sex.

[Zippy]

And not all women are these responsible sensible thinking things you seem to have us down for you know. Even we get caught up in the heat of the moment sometimes you know :tongue:

No, I know. But read my last line in that post; you have options available afterwards whereas men don't have any say at that point about becoming a father.

and, again, its your bodies that are at stake here so you should put the most thought into it and be the sensible ones. Thats really my point. :p

[Jessica.]

No thats the way you are brought up.


It is Legal.

It's nothing to do with how I was brought up, I form my own views and opinions.

[Jessica.]

This is so true Arista. some may view it as murder as that is their belief.


Personal opinions and belief is not the same as what is legal in the UK and many other countries - so you are infact, correct. It is not murder.

It's not just a belief, I'm not religious or anything, it's a life, then it is a murder, then there is no life. Simple.

[Liberty4eva]

At this time I don't have a lot of time to write my opinion so I'll refer you to this video. I subscribe to this guy's opinion on abortion.

Yk3tpX-8dvQ

[Pyramid*]

and the award for the most simplistic post of the week goes to....

Pyramid!!

actually it takes 9 months of incubation and nurturing to create a baby and Im pretty sure the man isnt part of that process.

he provides an essential ingredient, thats all.

I made it simplistic especially for you -seeing as you appear to have this vague idea that men don't have any responsibility for making babies.

I think you will find that a man is very much a part of the creation of a baby. :joker:

He providdes an essential ingredient, that's all. ROFL. Do you have any idea how contradictory your words are!!!

[Pyramid*]

It's not just a belief, I'm not religious or anything, it's a life, then it is a murder, then there is no life. Simple.

The Law clearly disagrees with you.

[Zippy]

ROFL. Do you have any idea how contradictory your words are!!!

No, please point them out(not that Im interested).

Or are you making your usual vague accusations?

[Pyramid*]

No, please point them out(not that Im interested).

Or are you making your usual vague accusations?


I don't throw around accusations, I'm far too mature for that.

If you aren't interested, I see no need to point out the very obvious contradictory words in your earlier post. You aren't interested...remember. ;)

[Niall]

Just one more thing I wanna say, I don't think life begins at conception. That idea is silly. After conception, what will become the child is little more than a fertilised cell. It can't think, feel, move or talk. Its just a cell. Nothing more nothing less imo. What I think though, is that a baby is alive when its heart starts to beat.

[Zippy]

I don't throw around accusations, I'm far too mature for that.



yeah your Kate moss has a wrinkly ass thread is really mature

and no surprise you can't point out my contradictions :whistle:

[Pyramid*]

yeah your Kate moss has a wrinkly ass thread is really mature

and no surprise you can't point out my contradictions :whistle:

She's a model - her body belies that fact - she's in the public eye and therefore open to scrutiny and comment.

__________________________________________________ _______

If you cannot see your own contradictory comment yourself, why on earth should I explain it to you - especially when you stated that you weren't interested - which was yet another contradictory comment of yours! :hugesmile:

[Vicky.]

Keep on topic please ;)

[Grimnir]

Murder is wrong
Once a baby has developed in the womb it should never be aborted
If the woman does not want the baby there are plenty of couples who want to adopt babies as they cannot have babies of their own

[Stephanie]

Murder is wrong
Once a baby has developed in the womb it should never be aborted
If the woman does not want the baby there are plenty of couples who want to adopt babies as they cannot have babies of their own
you can't just expect the people who don't want their baby, to go through the pregnancy and birth though.

[Angus]

Murder is wrong
Once a baby has developed in the womb it should never be aborted
If the woman does not want the baby there are plenty of couples who want to adopt babies as they cannot have babies of their own

So what? Why should any woman have to go through 9 months of pregnancy which, in case you're not aware, is not always just plain sailing for some, and then the pain and trauma of childbirth (in itself a dangerous event for mother and baby), just to hand the baby over to some random stranger? And we're not talking about "once a baby has developed in the womb" abortions - because those would be what's termed "viable", but about abortions carried out in the earlier stages when it is still a fetus. It is just your own personal belief that you are expressing which is all well and good, but it doesn't give you, or anyone else, the right to compel a woman to carry a baby to full term.

I sadly had 4 miscarriages, all before 15 weeks, so I know full well what a fetus at that gestational age looks like and I don't intend to be graphic about it. It was easier for me to deal with the pain of the loss because the pregnancies were still in the early stages. Each time, I remember envying every pregnant woman I saw, but there is no way in the world that I would have wanted THEIR child.

I used to be very anti abortion when I was younger (having been brought up as a Roman Catholic), but life teaches you that you have to walk in someone else's shoes before you start judging them. I would certainly never have had an abortion myself under any circumstances, but that was MY choice, MY decision and no-one else's.

The fact is that I would only be concerned about women aborting after the 20week mark. There is no need to have such a late abortion since, by that time, the woman has had over 4 months to decide. Once the baby becomes "viable", an abortion shouldn't really be an option unless there is some life threatening reason for the mother.

[Grimnir]

Abortion laws vary greatly throughout the world.
One extreme is places such as the Vatican where it is basically no no never never kind of laws
UK and US have the opposite extreme. Can basically terminate a baby for any reason and at any point.

My opinion is abortion should be legal if the baby has not developed yet and it is first few weeks or so.
Once baby has developed at a certain point then abortion should be illegal apart from under special circumstances.
Those special circumstances should be only health risk and complications.

If doctor thinks that mother's health is at risk then he should determine whether the baby will survive without the mother. If baby would die then the doctor should abort the baby to save the life of the mother.
If pregnancy is at the stage where the baby could survive outside the womb, doctor should advise the mother of this and she makes the decision.
Save the life of her baby or abort the baby to save her own life.
Each woman would choose differently under these circumstances.
Some women would terminate, some would save their baby.
Health risk to mother is the only exception in my opinion.
Anything to do with economic reasons or baby disability is murder and no different than killing baby after birth.

[Angus]

Abortion laws vary greatly throughout the world.
One extreme is places such as the Vatican where it is basically no no never never kind of laws
UK and US have the opposite extreme. Can basically terminate a baby for any reason and at any point.

My opinion is abortion should be legal if the baby has not developed yet and it is first few weeks or so.
Once baby has developed at a certain point then abortion should be illegal apart from under special circumstances.
Those special circumstances should be only health risk and complications.

If doctor thinks that mother's health is at risk then he should determine whether the baby will survive without the mother. If baby would die then the doctor should abort the baby to save the life of the mother.
If pregnancy is at the stage where the baby could survive outside the womb, doctor should advise the mother of this and she makes the decision.
Save the life of her baby or abort the baby to save her own life.
Each woman would choose differently under these circumstances.
Some women would terminate, some would save their baby.
Health risk to mother is the only exception in my opinion.
Anything to do with economic reasons or baby disability is murder and no different than killing baby after birth.

I agree that once a baby is viable after around 24 weeks, abortion should only be undertaken if there is severe health risk for the mother. Disabilities etc would usually have been picked up by scans and examinations earlier in the pregnancy so there is no excuse to wait till the later stages. As regards economic reasons, well in this country at any rate some stupid women see having babies as a career move since ensures they don't have to go out to work, and it can be quite lucrative for benefits, and those women who don't want children for career reasons are usually intelligent enough to take precautions. I doubt most women would abort a baby for economic reasons.

As I said earlier, abortion should never be cynically used as a means of birth control. There are plenty of preventative methods available so there is really no need to get pregnant if you don't want to. But what of rape victims, or victims of incest; what of women who are in abusive relationships; what of women who have alcohol, drug or mental health issues etc etc, there is really no hard and fast rule that covers ever eventuality. Any woman considering abortion should always be offered counselling, but they should ultimately be the ones who make the decision, within the parameters of the law.

[Vicky.]

Any woman considering abortion should always be offered counselling,

Unfortunately even this doesnt happen sometimes either :/

[Angus]

Unfortunately even this doesnt happen sometimes either :/

It's such a life changing decision to make that it beggars belief that counselling isn't always available. Some women have no idea how devastating a decision it can be and how it can affect the rest of their lives.

[Niamh.]

You are dealing with a life here. I hold life as something sacred that clearly starts when Mr. Sperm meets Mr. Egg. That's where it starts and that's where it continues from. If you are basing your argument on things like 'well a baby and foetus are two different things' then you are looking at it from - in my opinion - a weird 'how many cells does it have? how intelligent is it?' standpoint. It's a life. Any arguments about how well the baby could be brought up etc are answered by adoption. Plenty of couples are crying out to take in and love a child.

I'm pro choice though. I'm not going to force my beliefs on others. That's how I would describe my views. Anti abortion, pro choice.

I agree with this pretty much. I could never have an abortion myself as I don't think I could live with myself afterwards.

[Twilight]

I'm pro choice, can't really say anything else.

[Vicky.]

It's such a life changing decision to make that it beggars belief that counselling isn't always available. Some women have no idea how devastating a decision it can be and how it can affect the rest of their lives.

Indeed. But it is true in some cases. I know from experience :S

[Liberty4eva]

Ashamed to say we gotta be the only species where the females usually don't want to have children. Not only do they not desire children but they will go out of their way to murder their own when it is convenient to do so. That's why the population numbers in the west are in decline because women in society are raised and grow up to be weak, pathetic people.

Adoption? That's not an option for many because, whether they'll admit it or not, they fear they'll become emotionally attached to their baby and, as some have unashamedly commented here, they'll have to endure hours of pain to deliver. You'd rather kill your own than endure a few hours of pain. Can you hear yourselves?

And the "life doesn't begin at conception" theory is just a loophole they create so they can sleep at night and not feel like murderers. Whether or not there is a god, those who say life does not begin at conception will inevitably play god. And that's because life must begin at some point. There must be some point where it, for lack of a better word, graduates from a clump of cells and tissue with no rights to a human being with all rights that you and I have. If that moment is not at conception then perhaps it's the moment the baby is delivered? Perhaps it's the moment when the brain is fully developed? Perhaps it's the moment when it can recognize its mother's voice? Perhaps it's the moment the US Supreme Court ruled life begins which is when the baby could theoritically live outside of the womb? Perhaps it's, as someone commented here, 20 weeks after conception? Whatever it is, those of you who are arrogant enough to say "life doesn't begin at conception" have the responsibility to say when life truly does begin. Whatever that moment is YOU ARE PLAYING GOD. I, on the other hand, refuse to play god and will say life may begin at conception and, that being the case, this baby/fetus should be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Zippy]

Ashamed to say we gotta be the only species where the females usually don't want to have children. Not only do they not desire children but they will go out of their way to murder their own when it is convenient to do so....

Im sure there are many cases where animals reject their offspring.

and your language throughout your whole post is so emotive and inflammatory it's hard to even bother having a discussion. If you take the view that aborting at any stage(which you seem to) then there's not really room for debate is there?

All civilised countries are pro-choice when it comes to abortion. That should tell you something about the morality of it. But yeah, you know better.

My definition of meaningful life is when it develops feelings and has a sense of self. I think at 24 weeks that is the case and like most on here would feel happier if that time limit was lowered.

[Niamh.]

Im sure there are many cases where animals reject their offspring.

and your language throughout your whole post is so emotive and inflammatory it's hard to even bother having a discussion. If you take the view that aborting at any stage(which you seem to) then there's not really room for debate is there?

All civilised countries are pro-choice when it comes to abortion. That should tell you something about the morality of it. But yeah, you know better.

My definition of meaningful life is when it develops feelings and has a sense of self. I think at 24 weeks that is the case and like most on here would feel happier if that time limit was lowered.

abortion is still illegal in Ireland.

[Zippy]

abortion is still illegal in Ireland.

religious hang ups probably

they all just hop on a ferry and come here to get it done

[Niamh.]

religious hang ups probably

they all just hop on a ferry and come here to get it done

I'm in no way, shape or form religious, doesn't mean I don't value life.

[Zippy]

I'm in no way, shape or form religious, doesn't mean I don't value life.

so your anti abortion?

Pro-choicers value life too. But not life in any form or at any stage. We'd never swat a fly or eat chicken otherwise.

[Niamh.]

so your anti abortion?

Pro-choicers value life too. But not life in any form or at any stage. We'd never swat a fly or eat chicken otherwise.

I don't know what I am really, I do understand that most people who have abortions aren't evil and it probably was a very difficult decision to make but I know I personally could never do it because I would feel like I was murdering not only another human but my own child. I don't know when a life actually becomes a life but for me it would feel wrong.

[Iceman]

If people want to have an abortion then that's up to them, who is anyone to say No you cant. It's their decision at the end of the day. Just what I think on the topic...

[Zippy]

If people want to have an abortion then that's up to them, who is anyone to say No you cant. It's their decision at the end of the day. Just what I think on the topic...

exactly. you're pro-choice like all sensible people...and countries.

it's not like anybodies championing abortions. Just accepting that its the womans body and she and only she can make the decision. The foetus is a dependent part of her body after all.

[Liberty4eva]

All civilised countries are pro-choice when it comes to abortion.

Drilling a hole in the back of a baby's head and sucking its brains out. Countries where that is allowed to happen are civilized? I couldn't disagree more. Countries where that is allowed to happen are barbaric.

And of course I use and will continue to use inflammatory language. I have read enough partial birth abortion stories where for me to not be really pissed off would practically mean I'm inhuman.

[Vicky.]

Drilling a hole in the back of a baby's head and sucking its brains out. Countries where that is allowed to happen are civilized? I couldn't disagree more. Countries where that is allowed to happen are barbaric.

And of course I use and will continue to use inflammatory language. I have read enough partial birth abortion stories where for me to not be really pissed off would practically mean I'm inhuman.

Ive actually never heard of this

But I do know that if you get an abortion early enough, nothing like this is involved. Its more a 'tablet induced miscarriage'.

[Shasown]

Ashamed to say we gotta be the only species where the females usually don't want to have children. Not only do they not desire children but they will go out of their way to murder their own when it is convenient to do so. That's why the population numbers in the west are in decline because women in society are raised and grow up to be weak, pathetic people.



No we arent.

Female albatrosses will pair with another female and not lay eggs or rear young. Green iguanas will often eat their own eggs after laying fertilised or not. Female armadillos practice self induced abortion if conditions arent right after mating.

In herds or pack animals its not unheard of for lower ranked females to actively avoid mating when more dominant females will mate.

This serves two purposes, it allows them to stand in for the dominant female in a sort of childminder position while she is hunting etc. and also allows them to gain in strength and possibly challenge her after she is weak after birthing.

In some social groups of animals males will often stress a pregnant female to spontaneously induce abortion if the pregnancy was caused by a recently deposed leader

Lots of animals eat their young, I think that practice is generally frowned upon in humans nowadays but I am more than willing to be corrected on that one.

[Zippy]

Drilling a hole in the back of a baby's head and sucking its brains out.

now you're just being ridiculous

come back when you can have a sensible debate without horror tactics

[Vicky.]

Lots of animals eat their young, I think that practice is generally frowned upon in humans nowadays but I am more than willing to be corrected on that one.

One of gavs exes got the father of her child to eat the placenta after she gave birth. Apparently its for good luck. This just reminded me of sitting in horror listening to that story :yuk:

[Niamh.]

One of gavs exes got the father of her child to eat the placenta after she gave birth. Apparently its for good luck. This just reminded me of sitting in horror listening to that story :yuck:

oh yeah, I've heard of that before:yuk:

[Ninastar]

My science teacher said he tried placenta. he said its really chewy. but I don't believe him. he used to tell our class that he was trying for babies and it was like ewww

[Zippy]

One of gavs exes got the father of her child to eat the placenta after she gave birth. Apparently its for good luck. This just reminded me of sitting in horror listening to that story :yuk:

Eww your Gav must have weird taste in women

oh wait...



:joker:

[Vicky.]

Eww your Gav must have weird taste in women

oh wait...



:joker:

Pfft. Cheek :laugh:

[Enid]

I think it's sexy.

[Zippy]

Hi Enid :xyxwave:

no its not sexy. Go join Libertywhateva in the daft corner

[Benjamin]

One of gavs exes got the father of her child to eat the placenta after she gave birth. Apparently its for good luck. This just reminded me of sitting in horror listening to that story :yuk:

:shocked:


My friend wants to do that! :yuk:

[Liberty4eva]

Ive actually never heard of this
But I do know that if you get an abortion early enough, nothing like this is involved. Its more a 'tablet induced miscarriage'.

Well, it happens. The strange thing is that what I said is technically true. This is an excerpt from an article (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/RusePBAonTrial.pdf) titled Partial Birth Abortion on Trial.

Dr. Stephen Chasen... is associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University. He has done 500 abortions in his career, including 200 dismemberment and 75 partial-birth abortions. In his expert testimony he described the way he finds the place on the baby’s head to puncture: “I place a clamp on the front part of the cervix and, applying mild traction to this, it exposes the skin at the back of the fetal neck at the site through which I place the scissors. So I can in almost all cases actually visualize the spot through which I place the scissors.

On cross-examination, counsel for the Government walked him through the steps he takes in a partial-birth abortion:
Q. You wrap a small sterile towel around the fetus, because it is slippery, and after the legs are out you pull on the sacrum, or the lower portion of the spine, to continue to remove the fetus, right?
A. Right.
Q. When the fetus is out to the level of the breech, you place another, larger towel around the first small towel, right?
A. Right.
Q. You gently pull downward on the sacrum until the shoulder blades appear, right?
A. Right.
Q. Then, with your hand on the fetus’s back, holding it with the towel, you twist in a clockwise or counterclockwise motion to rotate the shoulder, right?
A. Right.
Q. The shoulder in front or the arm in front is swept out with your fingers, and then you rotate the other side of the fetus to sweep out the other arm, right?
A. Right.
Q. Then the fetus is at a point where only the head remains in the cervix, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. That is when you make the decision based on the gestational age and the amount of cervical dilation, whether the head will fit out intact, whether you can tuck the head of the fetus to its chest, or whether you have to decompress the skull to remove the fetus’s head, right?
A. It is based on the size of the fetal head and the cervical dilation. I don’t directly consider the gestational age.
Q. If you are able to deliver the head by flexing the chin against the fetal chest—and you have been able to do this several times . . . Doctor?
A. There have been a few occasions, yes.
Q. Then you remove the fetus with the towel, you put it on the table, and you turn back to the woman to deal with the placenta, right?
A. That’s right.
Q. If you can’t do that, you know you are going to have to crush the head, and so you take a clamp and you grasp the cervix to elevate it, and then your assistant there in the operating room will pull down on the fetus’s legs or back, gently lowering the fetus’s head toward the opening of the vagina, right?
A. Right.
Q. That is when you put two fingers at the back of the fetus’s neck at the base of the skull where you can feel the base of the skull, and then you puncture the skull with the scissors, right?
A. I usually can see it as well as feel it. But yes.
Q. At that point you see some brain tissue come out, and you are 100 percent certain that you are in the brain, so you open the scissors to expand the hole, remove the scissors, and put the suction device in the skull, right?
A. Correct.
Q. You turn on the suction, and typically the fetus comes right out with the suction device still in its skull, right?
A. Right

[Shasown]

Well, it happens. The strange thing is that what I said is technically true. This is an excerpt from an article (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/RusePBAonTrial.pdf) titled Partial Birth Abortion on Trial.

Lovely, but partial birth abortions are only one type of abortion option available for terminations after about 20 weeks.

Most abortions in the UK occur well before 20 weeks. After 24 weeks medical abortions are very rare. Whilst this procedure is not illegal its very difficult to find doctors who will admit that they do carry out this particular practice in the UK.

[Angus]

Ashamed to say we gotta be the only species where the females usually don't want to have children. Not only do they not desire children but they will go out of their way to murder their own when it is convenient to do so. That's why the population numbers in the west are in decline because women in society are raised and grow up to be weak, pathetic people.

Adoption? That's not an option for many because, whether they'll admit it or not, they fear they'll become emotionally attached to their baby and, as some have unashamedly commented here, they'll have to endure hours of pain to deliver. You'd rather kill your own than endure a few hours of pain. Can you hear yourselves?

And the "life doesn't begin at conception" theory is just a loophole they create so they can sleep at night and not feel like murderers. Whether or not there is a god, those who say life does not begin at conception will inevitably play god. And that's because life must begin at some point. There must be some point where it, for lack of a better word, graduates from a clump of cells and tissue with no rights to a human being with all rights that you and I have. If that moment is not at conception then perhaps it's the moment the baby is delivered? Perhaps it's the moment when the brain is fully developed? Perhaps it's the moment when it can recognize its mother's voice? Perhaps it's the moment the US Supreme Court ruled life begins which is when the baby could theoritically live outside of the womb? Perhaps it's, as someone commented here, 20 weeks after conception? Whatever it is, those of you who are arrogant enough to say "life doesn't begin at conception" have the responsibility to say when life truly does begin. Whatever that moment is YOU ARE PLAYING GOD. I, on the other hand, refuse to play god and will say life may begin at conception and, that being the case, this baby/fetus should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Whatever you may say about this issue, it is still just YOUR belief which you are trying to push onto others. I'm with the US Supreme Court on this, in that a baby is a baby once it is "viable", ie able to theoretically live independent from the woman outside of the womb. Meanwhile you still do not have the right to compel a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want (for whatever reason) for nine months, with all the potential attendant physical dangers and emotional traumas.

You might well refuse to play god, but being a man, you have the luxury of never having to be in a position to have to make that decision and live with it.

[Tom4784]

Ashamed to say we gotta be the only species where the females usually don't want to have children. Not only do they not desire children but they will go out of their way to murder their own when it is convenient to do so. That's why the population numbers in the west are in decline because women in society are raised and grow up to be weak, pathetic people.

Adoption? That's not an option for many because, whether they'll admit it or not, they fear they'll become emotionally attached to their baby and, as some have unashamedly commented here, they'll have to endure hours of pain to deliver. You'd rather kill your own than endure a few hours of pain. Can you hear yourselves?

And the "life doesn't begin at conception" theory is just a loophole they create so they can sleep at night and not feel like murderers. Whether or not there is a god, those who say life does not begin at conception will inevitably play god. And that's because life must begin at some point. There must be some point where it, for lack of a better word, graduates from a clump of cells and tissue with no rights to a human being with all rights that you and I have. If that moment is not at conception then perhaps it's the moment the baby is delivered? Perhaps it's the moment when the brain is fully developed? Perhaps it's the moment when it can recognize its mother's voice? Perhaps it's the moment the US Supreme Court ruled life begins which is when the baby could theoritically live outside of the womb? Perhaps it's, as someone commented here, 20 weeks after conception? Whatever it is, those of you who are arrogant enough to say "life doesn't begin at conception" have the responsibility to say when life truly does begin. Whatever that moment is YOU ARE PLAYING GOD. I, on the other hand, refuse to play god and will say life may begin at conception and, that being the case, this baby/fetus should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Wow, aren't you judgemental.

For once I pretty much agree with Angus here. Abortion isn't a black and white issue like Pro-lifers make it out to be and it's very easy for people to judge who have never been in that position.

[Jessica.]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/The-tiniest-survivor-How-miracle-baby-born-weeks-legal-abortion-limit-clung-life-odds.html

[Liberty4eva]

Whatever you may say about this issue, it is still just YOUR belief which you are trying to push onto others. I'm with the US Supreme Court on this, in that a baby is a baby once it is "viable", ie able to theoretically live independent from the woman outside of the womb. Meanwhile you still do not have the right to compel a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want (for whatever reason) for nine months, with all the potential attendant physical dangers and emotional traumas.

You might well refuse to play god, but being a man, you have the luxury of never having to be in a position to have to make that decision and live with it.

We're all connected in this world, honey. If I unintentionally impregnate a woman I certainly won't have any kind of luxury. Maybe next time we're deciding whether or not to go to war we should ignore the females since they have the "luxury" of not doing the fighting? Like I say, we're all connected.

In this day and age with the technology available, the "physical dangers" are at a minimum and if there is a potential danger the body will almost always abort it naturally. And "emotional traumas"? Come on. Like I said earlier, women are raised to be weak people.

You try to spin it like I'm trying to "compel" women like they all innocently and without reason just randomly become pregnant. I don't compel them to have sex so I don't see how I'm compelling them to do anything. You tell me: Are women stupid? Do they not know what may happen if they sleep with a guy? Whenever this debate occurs it's always framed around bodily freedom but it ought to be framed around the freedom to be a slut without consequence because that's what it, for the most part, is about. You show me a rabid pro-choice female freak, and I'll bet money that she's a bona fide slut.

And, yeah, I know I'm gonna get hell from you and others for what I've said here but whatever. I'll take it with a smile. :wavey:

[Zippy]

You show me a rabid pro-choice female freak, and I'll bet money that she's a bona fide slut.


wow you're really throwing out some outrageously dumb lines.

[Tom4784]

We're all connected in this world, honey. If I unintentionally impregnate a woman I certainly won't have any kind of luxury. Maybe next time we're deciding whether or not to go to war we should ignore the females since they have the "luxury" of not doing the fighting? Like I say, we're all connected.

In this day and age with the technology available, the "physical dangers" are at a minimum and if there is a potential danger the body will almost always abort it naturally. And "emotional traumas"? Come on. Like I said earlier, women are raised to be weak people.

You try to spin it like I'm trying to "compel" women like they all innocently and without reason just randomly become pregnant. I don't compel them to have sex so I don't see how I'm compelling them to do anything. You tell me: Are women stupid? Do they not know what may happen if they sleep with a guy? Whenever this debate occurs it's always framed around bodily freedom but it ought to be framed around the freedom to be a slut without consequence because that's what it, for the most part, is about. You show me a rabid pro-choice female freak, and I'll bet money that she's a bona fide slut.

And, yeah, I know I'm gonna get hell from you and others for what I've said here but whatever. I'll take it with a smile. :wavey:

:laugh3:

I'm sorry but that's absolutely ridiculous, I refuse to take anything else you say seriously as I think you must be pulling our legs. You can't be that outrageously ignorant.

[Liberty4eva]

wow you're really throwing out some outrageously dumb lines.

Last time you said something I said was "ridiculous" and "horror tactics" I posted an article that shows it actually happens. You gotta admit that excerpt sounds like it's fresh from a science fiction horror book about a future totalitarian society like 1984 and yet it's happening today. I cooked your humble pie, Zippy, and I'm waiting for you to eat it. :hugesmile:

[Zippy]

Last time you said something I said was "ridiculous" and "horror tactics" I posted an article that shows it actually happens. You gotta admit that excerpt sounds like it's fresh from a science fiction horror book about a future totalitarian society like 1984 and yet it's happening today. I cooked your humble pie, Zippy, and I'm waiting for you to eat it. :hugesmile:

Abortion is not about drilling holes into babies heads. The fact you need to resort to such sensationalism just shows that you do not have a sensible, reasoned argument.

Abortion is never gonna be made illegal. Never. You would be much better served just fighting to get the time limit reduced. But no, thats not good enough is it? You'd rather take a more extreme standpoint and parade yourself as some kind of warrior for all lifeforms. But then you seem quite hateful towards women who choose abortion. Hmm.

[Angus]

We're all connected in this world, honey. If I unintentionally impregnate a woman I certainly won't have any kind of luxury. Maybe next time we're deciding whether or not to go to war we should ignore the females since they have the "luxury" of not doing the fighting? Like I say, we're all connected.

In this day and age with the technology available, the "physical dangers" are at a minimum and if there is a potential danger the body will almost always abort it naturally. And "emotional traumas"? Come on. Like I said earlier, women are raised to be weak people.

You try to spin it like I'm trying to "compel" women like they all innocently and without reason just randomly become pregnant. I don't compel them to have sex so I don't see how I'm compelling them to do anything. You tell me: Are women stupid? Do they not know what may happen if they sleep with a guy? Whenever this debate occurs it's always framed around bodily freedom but it ought to be framed around the freedom to be a slut without consequence because that's what it, for the most part, is about. You show me a rabid pro-choice female freak, and I'll bet money that she's a bona fide slut.

And, yeah, I know I'm gonna get hell from you and others for what I've said here but whatever. I'll take it with a smile. :wavey:

Have you actually read any of my posts on this subject or are you so entrenched in rabid, bible bashing mode that you see absolutely no grey areas? Not all women get pregnant because they are sluts and are having unprotected sex with gay abandon! There are very many good, strong valid reasons why a woman might want or even need to have an abortion, none of which are any of your's or mine damn business.

The way you talk about women in general betrays your total lack of respect for them and I, for one, am not any sexist pig's "honey", especially one who is still wet behind the ears and hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

[Liberty4eva]

Abortion is not about drilling holes into babies heads. The fact you need to resort to such sensationalism just shows that you do not have a sensible, reasoned argument.

Abortion is never gonna be made illegal. Never. You would be much better served just fighting to get the time limit reduced. But no, thats not good enough is it? You'd rather take a more extreme standpoint and parade yourself as some kind of warrior for all lifeforms. But then you seem quite hateful towards women who choose abortion. Hmm.

Can you read? Abortion can very well be about drilling holes into babies heads because that's what sometimes happens. Babies getting their heads drilled and brains sucked out DOES happen and so it is very sensible and reasonable to throw that in. It does happen. And even if it happens rarely it's still disgusting and appalling how everyone involved acts like it's normal or nothing is wrong about it. You can't dismiss this or belittle this by saying that it happens rarely. This is a moral issue. If there is nothing wrong with one baby getting its skull crushed and its brains removed, then there's nothing wrong if that happens to a million babies.

I wouldn't argue for a time limit reduction because, like I said, I won't play God. Would it be better for the time limit to be reduced? Sure, but that ignores the principle of the matter. You'll call my position extreme but I call it consistent and not contradictory. Most people on abortion have contradictory positions, yourself included. For example, in some US states you'll find someone could be charged with two murders if they murder a pregnant woman and yet that same woman could have legally terminated her own baby on the same day according to state law. I think there are really only two positions you can hold on abortion that are truely consistent and not contradictory: those who think life begins at conception and, as such, abortion should be illegal and those who believe the baby can be aborted a minute before it's delivered because it's the woman's body. Both positions are the only truely principled positions a person could have on this issue even though I find the principles of the latter horrific.

Probably my personal favorite politician of all time, Doctor Ron Paul, wrote a book on his positions and his opinion on abortion was forged early in his life when he inadvertently walked in on an abortion. He saw a baby that was removed and was still alive and crying while everyone in the room acted like they didn't hear it as it slowly died. Someone said earlier that they agree with the US Supreme Court's decision that life only begins when the baby could theoretically live outside the womb. I would like nothing better than for this person and others who share this person's opinion to witness an abortion of a baby that is not developed enough to live outside the womb, but is developed enough to cry for its mother. Would you just sit there and act like nothing was wrong as it cried and slowly died?

[Tom4784]

Can you read? Abortion can very well be about drilling holes into babies heads because that's what sometimes happens. Babies getting their heads drilled and brains sucked out DOES happen and so it is very sensible and reasonable to throw that in. It does happen. And even if it happens rarely it's still disgusting and appalling how everyone involved acts like it's normal or nothing is wrong about it. You can't dismiss this or belittle this by saying that it happens rarely. This is a moral issue. If there is nothing wrong with one baby getting its skull crushed and its brains removed, then there's nothing wrong if that happens to a million babies.

I wouldn't argue for a time limit reduction because, like I said, I won't play God. Would it be better for the time limit to be reduced? Sure, but that ignores the principle of the matter. You'll call my position extreme but I call it consistent and not contradictory. Most people on abortion have contradictory positions, yourself included. For example, in some US states you'll find someone could be charged with two murders if they murder a pregnant woman and yet that same woman could have legally terminated her own baby on the same day according to state law. I think there are really only two positions you can hold on abortion that are truely consistent and not contradictory: those who think life begins at conception and, as such, abortion should be illegal and those who believe the baby can be aborted a minute before it's delivered because it's the woman's body. Both positions are the only truely principled positions a person could have on this issue even though I find the principles of the latter horrific.

Probably my personal favorite politician of all time, Doctor Ron Paul, wrote a book on his positions and his opinion on abortion was forged early in his life when he inadvertently walked in on an abortion. He saw a baby that was removed and was still alive and crying while everyone in the room acted like they didn't hear it as it slowly died. Someone said earlier that they agree with the US Supreme Court's decision that life only begins when the baby could theoretically live outside the womb. I would like nothing better than for this person and others who share this person's opinion to witness an abortion of a baby that is not developed enough to live outside the womb, but is developed enough to cry for its mother. Would you just sit there and act like nothing was wrong as it cried and slowly died?

I'd love to live in your black and white world where morality is simple and easily defined, I also love that your argument is based around such a small portion of abortions that have no impact on the larger picture. It'd be like me saying 'Abortion should be legal just because sometimes people get raped' which is stupid to base an entire argument on as it only covers a small part of why there should be a choice. You can't base your whole argument around extreme examples because they don't hold true to everyday life. Very few people go 'Oh don't bother using a condom, I can just go for an abortion LOL', most of the time it's an agonizing choice that has to be made and a decision that will live with the woman forever.

It'd be interesting to see if your own convictions would hold up if you were faced with the choice.

[Liberty4eva]

I'd love to live in your black and white world where morality is simple and easily defined, I also love that your argument is based around such a small portion of abortions that have no impact on the larger picture. It'd be like me saying 'Abortion should be legal just because sometimes people get raped' which is stupid to base an entire argument on as it only covers a small part of why there should be a choice. You can't base your whole argument around extreme examples because they don't hold true to everyday life. Very few people go 'Oh don't bother using a condom, I can just go for an abortion LOL', most of the time it's an agonizing choice that has to be made and a decision that will live with the woman forever.

It'd be interesting to see if your own convictions would hold up if you were faced with the choice.

The only grey area I would concede is when there is good reason to believe the mother's life is in jeopardy. Other than that and rape, I just can't understand how they could go through with such an unnatural and horrific process as abortion when adoption is a perfectly available option. And frankly that's the only humane option. If adoption was not a possibility, I would at least be able to see where people on this thread were coming from. Still maybe not agree with them but at least see where they're coming from.

And I actually am very much in favor of people's bodily freedom, men and women. I'm very Libertarian, hence the name. I think on all body issues, save this one, I'd probably fall into the bodily freedom camp. I think illegal drugs should be made legal. Heck, I think women should be allowed to walk around topless if they want to. But this is the one exception I make because it potentially involves someone else's life.

[Tom4784]

The only grey area I would concede is when there is good reason to believe the mother's life is in jeopardy. Other than that and rape, I just can't understand how they could go through with such an unnatural and horrific process as abortion when adoption is a perfectly available option. And frankly that's the only humane option. If adoption was not a possibility, I would at least be able to see where people on this thread were coming from. Still maybe not agree with them but at least see where they're coming from.

And I actually am very much in favor of people's bodily freedom, men and women. I'm very Libertarian, hence the name. I think on all body issues, save this one, I'd probably fall into the bodily freedom camp. I think illegal drugs should be made legal. Heck, I think women should be allowed to walk around topless if they want to. But this is the one exception I make because it potentially involves someone else's life.

Carrying a baby to full term might not be an option either, even if you plan to give the baby up you've still got to carry it for 9 months which some people can't afford to. Like I said before most people don't go into abortions lightly, it's an agonizing decision and a last resort. It's not an easy path.

I understand where you're coming from but I cant agree with it either.

[Niamh.]

The only grey area I would concede is when there is good reason to believe the mother's life is in jeopardy. Other than that and rape, I just can't understand how they could go through with such an unnatural and horrific process as abortion when adoption is a perfectly available option. And frankly that's the only humane option. If adoption was not a possibility, I would at least be able to see where people on this thread were coming from. Still maybe not agree with them but at least see where they're coming from.

And I actually am very much in favor of people's bodily freedom, men and women. I'm very Libertarian, hence the name. I think on all body issues, save this one, I'd probably fall into the bodily freedom camp. I think illegal drugs should be made legal. Heck, I think women should be allowed to walk around topless if they want to. But this is the one exception I make because it potentially involves someone else's life.

I think you make very good points actually and I do agree with you. Unfortunately though if abortion was made illegal people would resort to back street jobs again like they did in the past so I don't know is making it illegal the answer. I do however really believe the time limit on having an abortion should be changed. It's just far too high at the moment imo.

[Crimson Dynamo]

preventing unwanted babies is what the world should focus on

[Niamh.]

preventing unwanted babies is what the world should focus on

yeah, ideally.

[Shasown]

And the "life doesn't begin at conception" theory is just a loophole they create so they can sleep at night and not feel like murderers. Whether or not there is a god, those who say life does not begin at conception will inevitably play god. And that's because life must begin at some point. There must be some point where it, for lack of a better word, graduates from a clump of cells and tissue with no rights to a human being with all rights that you and I have. If that moment is not at conception then perhaps it's the moment the baby is delivered? Perhaps it's the moment when the brain is fully developed? Perhaps it's the moment when it can recognize its mother's voice? Perhaps it's the moment the US Supreme Court ruled life begins which is when the baby could theoritically live outside of the womb? Perhaps it's, as someone commented here, 20 weeks after conception? Whatever it is, those of you who are arrogant enough to say "life doesn't begin at conception" have the responsibility to say when life truly does begin. Whatever that moment is YOU ARE PLAYING GOD. I, on the other hand, refuse to play god and will say life may begin at conception and, that being the case, this baby/fetus should be given the benefit of the doubt.

If that is your belief, that life begins at conception you will also be against the use of some forms of the contraceptive pill, IUD and implanted contraceptives?

After all most of those devices work by making the womb an inhospitable place to the fertilised egg and preventing it from implanting itself into the lining of the womb. That means in your argument that the new life has already begun and the contraceptive pill etc. simply carries out a very early abortion.

The only contraceptives that you would then advocate would be ones that prevent fertilisation, condom, femidom, diaphragm, spermicides and the few pills that either prevent the egg from being released or destroy sperm en route to the unfertilised egg?

That's quite inconvenient for pro lifers who use the pill, isnt it?

[bananarama]

Abortion without proper medical justification is simply cold blooded murder on a par with the mentality of Hitlers Germany wanting to slaughter en mass......

All abortionists should be tried for murder and recieve the same fate as the victims.

We won the war but adopted Hitlers mentality......Modern polititions and supporters of cold blooded slaughter should hang their heads in shame......

[Shasown]

And the award for todays first Godwin goes to... :-

Abortion without proper medical justification is simply cold blooded murder on a par with the mentality of Hitlers Germany wanting to slaughter en mass......

All abortionists should be tried for murder and recieve the same fate as the victims.

We won the war but adopted Hitlers mentality......Modern polititions and supporters of cold blooded slaughter should hang their heads in shame......

[Angus]

Abortion without proper medical justification is simply cold blooded murder on a par with the mentality of Hitlers Germany wanting to slaughter en mass......

All abortionists should be tried for murder and recieve the same fate as the victims.

We won the war but adopted Hitlers mentality......Modern polititions and supporters of cold blooded slaughter should hang their heads in shame......


Melodramatic? Much. Sensationalist? Absolutely. Factually accurate? Not at all. Highly opinionated and judgmental? Obviously.

Fortunately, the fire and brimstone pro-lifers make themselves a laughing stock with these sorts of ridiculously, over the top, personal belief driven, bigoted statements.

[letmein]

Abortion without proper medical justification is simply cold blooded murder on a par with the mentality of Hitlers Germany wanting to slaughter en mass......

All abortionists should be tried for murder and recieve the same fate as the victims.

We won the war but adopted Hitlers mentality......Modern polititions and supporters of cold blooded slaughter should hang their heads in shame......

Goodwin's Law.:nono:

[Lee.]

I disagree with abortion, but wouldn't judge anybody who had resorted to such an act if they had very good reason.

I do however think that being able to abort ababy at 24 weeks (or whatever it is) is awful and think the limit should be reduced significantly!

[Angus]

I disagree with abortion, but wouldn't judge anybody who had resorted to such an act if they had very good reason.

I do however think that being able to abort ababy at 24 weeks (or whatever it is) is awful and think the limit should be reduced significantly!

Absolutely! The upper limit should be reduced down to around 16 weeks ideally, but anything over 20 weeks is really not on, considering that by that time a woman has had ample time to make an informed decision. As I've said before, I would NEVER ever have considered an abortion for myself, whatever the circumstances, but I would not presume to inflict my beliefs and opinions on other women, whose lives and circumstances I know nothing about.

[Liberty4eva]

Absolutely! The upper limit should be reduced down to around 16 weeks ideally, but anything over 20 weeks is really not on, considering that by that time a woman has had ample time to make an informed decision. As I've said before, I would NEVER ever have considered an abortion for myself, whatever the circumstances, but I would not presume to inflict my beliefs and opinions on other women, whose lives and circumstances I know nothing about.

But you just did. For a woman 21 weeks into gestation you would be inflicting your opinions and beliefs on them because of what you think should be the "upper limit". What if they want the baby and then 21 weeks into it they change their mind? If it was up to you, they wouldn't have the power to do it. So how is that not inflicting your opinions and beliefs on them?

And frankly I do think it is rather arrogant (and, again, playing god) when people pick and choose an arbitrary time when the right to life of the baby outweights the bodily rights of the woman (in your case, 16 weeks). As a mathematician interested in political issues, I spend a lot of time thinking about the small details of this issue and others. I do not believe I or anyone else has the right (or knowledge) to declare the moment when a clump of cells becomes a life, so I refuse to do it and I think everyone else should.

People here are telling me that abortion is not a black and white issue but I actually agree. The grey area is whether it is a human with a right to life or whether it is not. If it is not a life, the worst thing that will happen is the woman will lose 9 months of bodily freedom but she can adopt it immediately after. But if it is a life, it is murder of the innocent. So, which one is worse: the loss of 9 months of bodily freedom by a woman who knew exactly what may happen when she slept with that guy or the murder of the innocent? If there is any doubt, whatsoever, whether it is a life or not any civilized person ought to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is life. And so the "upper limit" ought to be 0 in any civilized country.

[Tom.]

Absolutely! The upper limit should be reduced down to around 16 weeks ideally, but anything over 20 weeks is really not on, considering that by that time a woman has had ample time to make an informed decision. As I've said before, I would NEVER ever have considered an abortion for myself, whatever the circumstances, but I would not presume to inflict my beliefs and opinions on other women, whose lives and circumstances I know nothing about.

If you're going to reduce it down to 16 weeks that immediately removes the choice for some people. My ex didn't find out she was pregnant until 5 months because she didnt show any signs at all, and there are plenty of other people that don't find out within the first 12-16 weeks. That removes the choice for them, or at least doesn't give them a good enough time frame to have a serious think. But I do agree it cannot remain at 24 weeks.

[Liberty4eva]

Abortion without proper medical justification is simply cold blooded murder on a par with the mentality of Hitlers Germany wanting to slaughter en mass......

All abortionists should be tried for murder and recieve the same fate as the victims.

We won the war but adopted Hitlers mentality......Modern polititions and supporters of cold blooded slaughter should hang their heads in shame......

I like your style. :cat:

[Stu]

Abortion without proper medical justification is simply cold blooded murder on a par with the mentality of Hitlers Germany wanting to slaughter en mass......

All abortionists should be tried for murder and recieve the same fate as the victims.

We won the war but adopted Hitlers mentality......Modern polititions and supporters of cold blooded slaughter should hang their heads in shame......
You're a ray of sunshine aren't you.

[Angus]

If you're going to reduce it down to 16 weeks that immediately removes the choice for some people. My ex didn't find out she was pregnant until 5 months because she didnt show any signs at all, and there are plenty of other people that don't find out within the first 12-16 weeks. That removes the choice for them, or at least doesn't give them a good enough time frame to have a serious think. But I do agree it cannot remain at 24 weeks.

That's just my personal opinion in an ideal world - but I would go along with an upper limit of 20 weeks. Most women DO know they are pregnant within the first 2-3 months, that is just a fact, so your ex is one of a minority whose cyle is perhaps not regular or is erratic. There are always going to be exceptions to every rule. However, at the end of the day it is not down to me or any other individual to decide what is best, I'll leave that job to the experts. But I certainly don't think it's helpful to demonise and persecute any woman who, for often very good reasons, is unable to go through with a pregnancy.

[Angus]

But you just did. For a woman 21 weeks into gestation you would be inflicting your opinions and beliefs on them because of what you think should be the "upper limit". What if they want the baby and then 21 weeks into it they change their mind? If it was up to you, they wouldn't have the power to do it. So how is that not inflicting your opinions and beliefs on them?

And frankly I do think it is rather arrogant (and, again, playing god) when people pick and choose an arbitrary time when the right to life of the baby outweights the bodily rights of the woman (in your case, 16 weeks). As a mathematician interested in political issues, I spend a lot of time thinking about the small details of this issue and others. I do not believe I or anyone else has the right (or knowledge) to declare the moment when a clump of cells becomes a life, so I refuse to do it and I think everyone else should.

People here are telling me that abortion is not a black and white issue but I actually agree. The grey area is whether it is a human with a right to life or whether it is not. If it is not a life, the worst thing that will happen is the woman will lose 9 months of bodily freedom but she can adopt it immediately after. But if it is a life, it is murder of the innocent. So, which one is worse: the loss of 9 months of bodily freedom by a woman who knew exactly what may happen when she slept with that guy or the murder of the innocent? If there is any doubt, whatsoever, whether it is a life or not any civilized person ought to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is life. And so the "upper limit" ought to be 0 in any civilized country.

FGS get a grip man. You don't see the hypocrisy of what you are saying - banging on about the sanctity of human life, but quite adamant and dogmatic that a woman should be treated merely as a breeder and incubator for 9 months, regardless of the physical and mental trauma for HER, and then, according to you, blithely hand over the baby for adoption - talk about simplistic and naive. And you haven't addressed those cases where a woman was raped or a victim of sexual abuse, nor of those cases where the baby will be born to live a "nominal" life of pain or disability or deformity for example. How convenient.

I don't believe in your God my dear so I have not been brainwashed by the bible bashing, fire and brimstone brigade. You don't seem to see how rigidly bigoted and judgmental you are. Thankfully, you and those who think like you will never be able to impose your draconian views about abortion onto free women - we've moved on considerably since the Middle Ages.

As regards an upper limit - it is unrealistic and ridiculous to suggest there should not be a legally agreed one, and MY opinion is that, in an ideal world, it would be no more than 16 weeks. However, I can go along with a limit of 20 weeks, any later than that and a baby is potentially viable outside the womb. I do believe that that gives women more than enough time to make such a life changing and difficult decision. You seem to believe such decisions are easily arrived at when in fact they are the result of much heart searching and heartache, based on all sorts of circumstances and often good reasons. So who the hell are YOU to decide for strangers whose lives you know nothing about? Now THAT is arrogance on a breathtaking scale. You might well be a mathematician, but women are human beings, not statistics.

And once again, not all bloody women are dirty little sluts who go around shagging anything in sight with no thought for the consequences - much as you might like to believe that, being the misogynist your posts reveal you to be.

[Liberty4eva]

FGS get a grip man. You don't see the hypocrisy of what you are saying - banging on about the sanctity of human life, but quite adamant and dogmatic that a woman should be treated merely as a breeder and incubator for 9 months, regardless of the physical and mental trauma for HER, and then, according to you, blithely hand over the baby for adoption - talk about simplistic and naive. And you haven't addressed those cases where a woman was raped or a victim of sexual abuse, nor of those cases where the baby will be born to live a "nominal" life of pain or disability or deformity for example. How convenient.

Talk about putting words in my mouth. Physical and mental trauma? It's a walk in the park compared to the physical and mental trauma that is put upon the thing that the abortion is done to. That is until it sometimes gets a hole drilled in its head and brains sucked, then I suppose it suffers no more physical and mental trauma.


I don't believe in your God my dear so I have not been brainwashed by the bible bashing, fire and brimstone brigade. You don't seem to see how rigidly bigoted and judgmental you are. Thankfully, you and those who think like you will never be able to impose your draconian views about abortion onto free women - we've moved on considerably since the Middle Ages.

My position on abortion is not derived from religion. My position comes from logic and the fact that we come from a society that at least professes to value human life. I am, by far, more of a humanitarian than a religious person but the fact that you would write off anyone with an opinion starkly different to yours as a member of the "bible bashing, fire brimstone brigade" reveals how little you consider the possibility that you may be wrong. That being the case this will be my last post addressed to you in this topic.

As regards an upper limit - it is unrealistic and ridiculous to suggest there should not be a legally agreed one, and MY opinion is that, in an ideal world, it would be no more than 16 weeks. However, I can go along with a limit of 20 weeks, any later than that and a baby is potentially viable outside the womb. I do believe that that gives women more than enough time to make such a life changing and difficult decision. You seem to believe such decisions are easily arrived at when in fact they are the result of much heart searching and heartache, based on all sorts of circumstances and often good reasons. So who the hell are YOU to decide for strangers whose lives you know nothing about? Now THAT is arrogance on a breathtaking scale. You might well be a mathematician, but women are human beings, not statistics.

I find it disturbing how you and others only think an abortion should be legal if there is no way it can live outside of the womb. Only when an abortion will not guarantee its death are you not in favor of it. You are a wonderful human being, angus.


And once again, not all bloody women are dirty little sluts who go around shagging anything in sight with no thought for the consequences - much as you might like to believe that, being the misogynist your posts reveal you to be.

I'll take being called a "misogynist" by someone like you as a compliment.

[Niamh.]

Talk about putting words in my mouth. Physical and mental trauma? It's a walk in the park compared to the physical and mental trauma that is put upon the thing that the abortion is done to. That is until it sometimes gets a hole drilled in its head and brains sucked, then I suppose it suffers no more physical and mental trauma.




My position on abortion is not derived from religion. My position comes from logic and the fact that we come from a society that at least professes to value human life. I am, by far, more of a humanitarian than a religious person but the fact that you would write off anyone with an opinion starkly different to yours as a member of the "bible bashing, fire brimstone brigade" reveals how little you consider the possibility that you may be wrong. That being the case this will be my last post addressed to you in this topic.



I find it disturbing how you and others only think an abortion should be legal if there is no way it can live outside of the womb. Only when an abortion will not guarantee its death are you not in favor of it. You are a wonderful human being, angus.




I'll take being called a "misogynist" by someone like you as a compliment.

this is something that annoys me actually, that the the minute you say you're anti-abortion, people accuse you of being religious, like there is no other reason why you would be against it.

[Angus]

Talk about putting words in my mouth. Physical and mental trauma? It's a walk in the park compared to the physical and mental trauma that is put upon the thing that the abortion is done to. That is until it sometimes gets a hole drilled in its head and brains sucked, then I suppose it suffers no more physical and mental trauma.


My position on abortion is not derived from religion. My position comes from logic and the fact that we come from a society that at least professes to value human life. I am, by far, more of a humanitarian than a religious person but the fact that you would write off anyone with an opinion starkly different to yours as a member of the "bible bashing, fire brimstone brigade" reveals how little you consider the possibility that you may be wrong. That being the case this will be my last post addressed to you in this topic.


I find it disturbing how you and others only think an abortion should be legal if there is no way it can live outside of the womb. Only when an abortion will not guarantee its death are you not in favor of it. You are a wonderful human being, angus.


I'll take being called a "misogynist" by someone like you as a compliment.

For someone who professes not to have a view based on religious beliefs your stance is straight from the bible belt, I think you delude yourself and that there must have been some degree of brainwashing involved to make you think the way you do (and I'm being charitable, since I would find it profoundly disturbing to imagine you could hold such views otherwise). I have said time and again that abortion is not for me, but I do not PRESUME to inflict my own personal beliefs on other human beings - I leave that to arrogant and sanctimonious people like yourself. You have absolutely no clue about the ramifications of what you are suggesting, and that to me shows a total lack of empathy, compassion or humanity for women - so I was completely on target with the accusation that you are a misogynist. I pity any woman you ever marry, and you better hope you are never put in the invidious position of having to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy because the baby is severely handicapped for example.

I take being despised by a misogynist like YOU as a massive compliment. You seem to have put all women who have sex firmly in the "slut" category! Real men can handle real opinions expressed by real women, not imaginary idealistic earth mothers who are supposed to breed and incubate babies even if they don't want them. You use sensationalist, graphic language to describe abortions, which are NOT the norm as you would know if you had a clue how a woman's body works, or how the vast majority of abortions are carried out.

And, YES, I am a wonderful human being compared to YOU my dear, who would quite happily DECIDE for others what is best for THEIR bodies, THEIR lives, THEIR emotional and physical wellbeing. At least I am not attempting to impose MY beliefs and opinions on total strangers with no thought given to how those strangers and their unwanted offspring will have to cope in the real world, as you go merrily on your way with no further input once you have successfully interfered to change the course of THEIR lives.

You have still not addressed the issue of abortions carried out because of birth defects, deformities, genetic diseases, etc, as no doubt it is taken as read that you would be happy to condemn a baby to a lifetime of pain, suffering and sorrow just so long as it's ALIVE using whatever rigid definition of life you adhere to. Nor have you discussed the morality of forcing a woman to carry her rapist's baby, or a victim of incest having to carry her abuser's child. In fact you have responded not at all to some of the points I raised - HOW VERY CONVENIENT.

Answer my post or not - who cares? Your views are laughably naive and ill thought out. You completely skirt the issue of personal CHOICE. I would love someone to dictate to you what YOU can and can't do with and to your OWN body. But being a man, you will never have to worry about having to ever make such a heartrending decision, so pontificate all you like, your empty words are but chaff blowing in the wind since, thankfully, you and others who set themselves up as moral arbiters over others, will never get their own way on this issue. Of that I am 100% sure.

Just in case you, personally, weren't aware, men no longer have the upper hand when it comes to women's rights and freedoms - so GET USED TO IT. Take my advice and stick to numbers and statistics - they can be manipulated and arranged to always give you the answers you want. Human beings cannot. Come to think of it, being a mathematician actually explains a lot about the workings of your mind.

[Angus]

this is something that annoys me actually, that the the minute you say you're anti-abortion, people accuse you of being religious, like there is no other reason why you would be against it.


It is a natural assumption given that anti-abortionists bang on about the sanctity of life; that life begins at conception; that abortion is always murder; that women are merely vessels for the procreation of children; that sex is about procreation for women (note Liberty4eva's views on women having sex - sluts I believe he calls them). AND YET not a shred of empathy, compassion or understanding for the plight of a woman in an invidious situation.

[Niamh.]

It is a natural assumption given that anti-abortionists bang on about the sanctity of life; that life begins at conception; that abortion is always murder; that women are merely vessels for the procreation of children; that sex is about procreation for women (note Liberty4eva's views on women having sex - sluts I believe he calls them). AND YET not a shred of empathy, compassion or understanding for the plight of a woman in an invidious situation.

ok, well you don't have to lump us all into one box though.

[Pyramid*]

We're all connected in this world, honey. If I unintentionally impregnate a woman I certainly won't have any kind of luxury. Maybe next time we're deciding whether or not to go to war we should ignore the females since they have the "luxury" of not doing the fighting? Like I say, we're all connected.

In this day and age with the technology available, the "physical dangers" are at a minimum and if there is a potential danger the body will almost always abort it naturally. And "emotional traumas"? Come on. Like I said earlier, women are raised to be weak people.

You try to spin it like I'm trying to "compel" women like they all innocently and without reason just randomly become pregnant. I don't compel them to have sex so I don't see how I'm compelling them to do anything. You tell me: Are women stupid? Do they not know what may happen if they sleep with a guy? Whenever this debate occurs it's always framed around bodily freedom but it ought to be framed around the freedom to be a slut without consequence because that's what it, for the most part, is about. You show me a rabid pro-choice female freak, and I'll bet money that she's a bona fide slut.

And, yeah, I know I'm gonna get hell from you and others for what I've said here but whatever. I'll take it with a smile. :wavey:


Sounds very much like a misogynist to me!!!! On the premise that you yourself may have actually experienced sex with a woman outwith marriage, (ie; a slut in your words), it begs the question why someone with such 'high morals' would chose to sleep with a slut.

Which, in the main, really and truly, devalues anything you have to say in respect of any subject that involves a woman - whether it be abortion or the type of clothes she choses to wear.

[Angus]

ok, well you don't have to lump us all into one box though.

I wasn't aware I had lumped you into any box. You stated earlier in this thread that you, personally, would never have an abortion, but you would not wish to impose your beliefs on anyone else. I took that as a pro choice stance, irrespective of your own personal beliefs, which is the same position I am coming from.

Now it appears you have taken offence because I am commenting on a position which is unequivocally anti abortion for ALL, and therefore anti choice. I stated that this viewpoint usually emanates from someone who holds a dogmatic point of view, usually derived from religious doctrine, which they seek to impose on to others. My main protagonist on this thread is most assuredly in that box, whereas you are not.

[Angus]

Sounds very much like a misogynist to me!!!! On the premise that you yourself may have actually experienced sex with a woman outwith marriage, (ie; a slut in your words), it begs the question why someone with such 'high morals' would chose to sleep with a slut.

Which, in the main, really and truly, devalues anything you have to say in respect of any subject that involves a woman - whether it be abortion or the type of clothes she choses to wear.

Yes, I found that particular rant of his about women in general very revealing and somewhat sinister.

[Niamh.]

I wasn't aware I had lumped you into any box. You stated earlier in this thread that you, personally, would never have an abortion, but you would not wish to impose your beliefs on anyone else. I took that as a pro choice stance, irrespective of your own personal beliefs, which is the same position I am coming from.

Now it appears you have taken offence because I am commenting on a position which is unequivocally anti abortion for ALL, and therefore anti choice. I stated that this viewpoint usually emanates from someone who holds a dogmatic point of view, usually derived from religious doctrine, which they seek to impose on to others. My main protagonist on this thread is most assuredly in that box, whereas you are not.

ok, sorry I mis understood what you were saying then:hugesmile:

[Angus]

ok, sorry I mis understood what you were saying then:hugesmile:

No probs, I should have explained myself better:blush: