Can you oppose abortion but support the death penalty?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Are there any ironies for a society that accepts abortion but abhors the death penalty?

[Kazanne]

Are there any ironies for a society that accepts abortion but abhors the death penalty?

It should be the other way round imo.

[Niamh.]

I guess you could argue, abortion is killing an innocent soul where as the death penalty is killing a killer.......not that I necessarily agree with that but I could see that reasoning

Edit : oh sorry you meant the other way round

[Jesus.]

The title and the OP don't tally up.

[Kazanne]

I guess you could argue, abortion is killing an innocent soul where as the death penalty is killing a killer.......not that I necessarily agree with that but I could see that reasoning

Edit : oh sorry you meant the other way round

That was my line of thinking,Niamh:hugesmile:

[Crimson Dynamo]

The title and the OP don't tally up.

Look at it either way, support both, oppose one or the other.

[Jesus.]

I support abortion and oppose the death penalty, but there isn't a contradiction there. I support the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies. I don't support the state to make decisions about whether a person should live or die.

[Niamh.]

To look at it the other way, you could argue that a life is not a life until it can survive outside the womb by itself (not that I agree with that either but I could see that reasoning also)

[Kazanne]

Difficult one this as I hate the thought of abortion(although I know sometimes it's for the best)I hate violence or hatred in anyway,but there are a few people I would happilily see swing,it goes against my beliefs but that's how I feel.

[Nedusa]

You can support abortion whilst not believing in the Death Penalty.

Although they might look similar ie (taking or saving a life) they are in fact totally separate actions.

To kill someone who has committed murder is totally unacceptable as we as a Society have moved beyond this type of retribution which brings us down to the level of the murderer. The Death Penalty is always thought of as a choice that should be used against people who commit the most heinous crimes BUT we have moved away from that mindset and have no desire to go back.

However, abortion or terminating a pregnancy is different as firstly the Mother is allowing the foetus to grow inside her body using her body, so until that foetus can survive outside of that woman's body she has the ultimate decision as to whether the pregnancy continues. Obviously in nearly all pregnancies the mother will do everything in her power to support and nuture her baby BUT this point of principle still applies.

Also if the mother knows the quality of the child's life is going to be so severely diminished (due to severe physical/mental handicap) then abortion actually becomes an act of kindness in these sad circumstances.

I guess the other situation to consider re abortion is when the woman has been raped and is pregnant, this is a bit more of a dilemma as it is not the baby's fault and it is healthy so abortion under these circumstances could be viewed as unnecessary.

But again it is the woman's choice ie she cannot be forced to bring a rapists baby into the world against her will.

So for me abortion is OK in certain circumstances as explained above but the Death Penalty I am totally against in ALL circumstances.

[user104658]

I support abortion and oppose the death penalty, but there isn't a contradiction there. I support the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies. I don't support the state to make decisions about whether a person should live or die.

But you support the right of an individual to decide whether a person should live or die?

I actually think most people's support of abortion hinges on an inherent misunderstanding of the abortion process; that it is clean, quick and clinical. They believe the "bundle of cells" rhetoric which in fact only applies to very early stage abortions. Later stage surgical abortions, are effing barbaric. They follow one of two scenarios; either the baby is removed whole, in which case it can live (kicking, trying to breathe, making little noises) for several minutes after removal. It's an ethical minefield for the abortionist to physically kill it, so they tend to just be put in a surgical tray with a cloth over them and allowed to slowly die.

In the other scenario, they are mechanically torn limb from limb inside the womb and then extracted piece by piece. Research on this has (obviously??) shown very high levels of fetal distress during this process. They certainly feel it.

Of course - there are even worse, outdated methods... like when they used to use chemical solutions that effectively burned them out. Then you get a combination of the above. Sometimes they came out alive, writhing, covered in hideous burns. Before dying, of course.

A society that finds this morally acceptable in the name of "woman's body, woman's choice" is abhorrent to me. Not least because it's very rarely actually about the woman's body; it's very rare that people choose abortion because of the physical toll of pregnancy. They choose abortion because of the toll that a baby will have on their life. And that is... well... it's ****ing hideous.

There are only two scenarios where I find abortion ethically reasonable. The first is if a pregnancy (healthy baby or otherwise) poses a direct risk to the LIFE of the mother, in which case, there's obvious justification. The second is where there are severe abnormalities in the fetus that mean it's unlikely to be able to live any sort of normal life or, especially, where it's likely that they will be born (and live) in pain. But then, I also support euthanasia, so that sort of falls in line with that.

The issue of rape is also quite murky. But I think it should be a part of "rape general knowledge" if you will, that the morning after pill should be taken as a precaution. I'm aware that people might obviously not be thinking clearly, but that's why it should be driven home as "the thing to do". If anything, it's far less traumatic than discovering a pregnancy after rape and having to make that choice and then go through the abortion process.

Other than that? Yes, her body her choice. The choice is to not get pregnant. If you take risks during consensual sex (and it's ALWAYS a risk, just a smaller one with contraception) then you have already made the choice to accept the possibility of pregnancy. You don't get to just kill human beings because you made a mistake whilst getting your rocks off. It's madness.

[user104658]

Oh... regarding the death penalty... I'm a bit conflicted on that one.

I have absolutely no problem with unrepentant multiple-murderers of innocent people being put to death. Safer for the world, and I'm not going to mourn them.

I'm certainly against it for run-of-the-mill single murders... or even killings that have ANY sort of viable reason behind them. They should be locked up, certainly, but... **** happens, people have their reasons, and killing one person does not necessarily make someone a danger or evil.


BUT - I actually am fully against it. As I said, not on ethical grounds, but on the grounds that I have absolutely zero faith in the justice system to get it right 100% of the time. Mistakes are made, corruption is everywhere, money makes things happen and scapegoats are crafted. I can guarantee that completely innocent people would find themselves on death row. So, for that reason, I can't support it. I just don't trust the authorities to only kill the truly dangerous people.

[Jesus.]

But you support the right of an individual to decide whether a person should live or die?

I actually think most people's support of abortion hinges on an inherent misunderstanding of the abortion process; that it is clean, quick and clinical. They believe the "bundle of cells" rhetoric which in fact only applies to very early stage abortions. Later stage surgical abortions, are effing barbaric. They follow one of two scenarios; either the baby is removed whole, in which case it can live (kicking, trying to breathe, making little noises) for several minutes after removal. It's an ethical minefield for the abortionist to physically kill it, so they tend to just be put in a surgical tray with a cloth over them and allowed to slowly die.

In the other scenario, they are mechanically torn limb from limb inside the womb and then extracted piece by piece. Research on this has (obviously??) shown very high levels of fetal distress during this process. They certainly feel it.

Of course - there are even worse, outdated methods... like when they used to use chemical solutions that effectively burned them out. Then you get a combination of the above. Sometimes they came out alive, writhing, covered in hideous burns. Before dying, of course.

A society that finds this morally acceptable in the name of "woman's body, woman's choice" is abhorrent to me. Not least because it's very rarely actually about the woman's body; it's very rare that people choose abortion because of the physical toll of pregnancy. They choose abortion because of the toll that a baby will have on their life. And that is... well... it's ****ing hideous.

There are only two scenarios where I find abortion ethically reasonable. The first is if a pregnancy (healthy baby or otherwise) poses a direct risk to the LIFE of the mother, in which case, there's obvious justification. The second is where there are severe abnormalities in the fetus that mean it's unlikely to be able to live any sort of normal life or, especially, where it's likely that they will be born (and live) in pain. But then, I also support euthanasia, so that sort of falls in line with that.

The issue of rape is also quite murky. But I think it should be a part of "rape general knowledge" if you will, that the morning after pill should be taken as a precaution. I'm aware that people might obviously not be thinking clearly, but that's why it should be driven home as "the thing to do". If anything, it's far less traumatic than discovering a pregnancy after rape and having to make that choice and then go through the abortion process.

Other than that? Yes, her body her choice. The choice is to not get pregnant. If you take risks during consensual sex (and it's ALWAYS a risk, just a smaller one with contraception) then you have already made the choice to accept the possibility of pregnancy. You don't get to just kill human beings because you made a mistake whilst getting your rocks off. It's madness.

No, I support the right of a female to decide what is best for her and her body. When women don't have control over their own reproductive organs is when we have societies riddled with old time poverty. I don't support the rights of the unborn foetus over the mother, absolutely not. What we have is an imperfect system, but it is better than forcing people who may have neither the psychological or financial abilities to care for a child, to care for a child for 18 years.

And that last paragraph is really bizarre. Abstinence is the only sure fire way to avoid the need for any abortion, but you seem to make the mistake in thinking that abortion is a form of birth control, when it's not, it's the last resort for people who've made informed decisions.

[user104658]

No, I support the right of a female to decide what is best for her and her body. When women don't have control over their own reproductive organs is when we have societies riddled with old time poverty. I don't support the rights of the unborn foetus over the mother, absolutely not. What we have is an imperfect system, but it is better than forcing people who may have neither the psychological or financial abilities to care for a child, to care for a child for 18 years.

And that last paragraph is really bizarre. Abstinence is the only sure fire way to avoid the need for any abortion, but you seem to make the mistake in thinking that abortion is a form of birth control, when it's not, it's the last resort for people who've made informed decisions.

Then do you support the rights of a young mother to smother her three month old in its' bed because it's "best for her"? I see no ethical difference. Genuinely. A 16 week old fetus is no less human and no less a person than a young infant. Like I said; I honestly believe that if more people knew the realities of abortion, that it's not always a clean clinical process and passing a little blob of cells and that an actual baby-shaped baby is born, alive, and then left to die... far fewer would choose it.

Also; no, the last paragraph is not bizarre. If someone is old enough to engage in consensual sex then they are an adult. By making the choice to have sex (even with contraception) an adult should understand that one of the risks is that they will become pregnant, and have a baby. With properly used contraception, the risk is tiny, but it is a risk nonetheless.

And abortion is by definition birth control? Completely and literally. Yes it's the last resort for people who have made the decision not to have a baby. The last resort method of birth control.


I don't actually think abortion should be made illegal. It would only lead to more home-grown abortion methods and back street butchery. I do, however, personally think very little of anyone who chooses to kill a healthy baby conceived through consensual sex. It has no place in a supposedly civilised society. I sometimes imagine an advanced alien race looking down on us watching, saying "Oh look! The miracle of life, this man and woman have conceived a child and... and... oh... oh they're inserting metal clamps into her and ripping it limb from limb then scraping it out into a dish." Wow.

[Nedusa]

Then do you support the rights of a young mother to smother her three month old in its' bed because it's "best for her"? I see no ethical difference. Genuinely. A 16 week old fetus is no less human and no less a person than a young infant. Like I said; I honestly believe that if more people knew the realities of abortion, that it's not always a clean clinical process and passing a little blob of cells and that an actual baby-shaped baby is born, alive, and then left to die... far fewer would choose it.

Also; no, the last paragraph is not bizarre. If someone is old enough to engage in consensual sex then they are an adult. By making the choice to have sex (even with contraception) an adult should understand that one of the risks is that they will become pregnant, and have a baby. With properly used contraception, the risk is tiny, but it is a risk nonetheless.

And abortion is by definition birth control? Completely and literally. Yes it's the last resort for people who have made the decision not to have a baby. The last resort method of birth control.


I don't actually think abortion should be made illegal. It would only lead to more home-grown abortion methods and back street butchery. I do, however, personally think very little of anyone who chooses to kill a healthy baby conceived through consensual sex. It has no place in a supposedly civilised society. I sometimes imagine an advanced alien race looking down on us watching, saying "Oh look! The miracle of life, this man and woman have conceived a child and... and... oh... oh they're inserting metal clamps into her and ripping it limb from limb then scraping it out into a dish." Wow.

Good Post...I agree abortion is not quick and easy it is messy bloody and horrible. But as I have posted earlier I still think under certain circumstances it is necessary.

p.s - Congrats on your 1,000th Post - Keep up the good work !!!!!

[Jesus.]

Then do you support the rights of a young mother to smother her three month old in its' bed because it's "best for her"? I see no ethical difference. Genuinely. A 16 week old fetus is no less human and no less a person than a young infant. Like I said; I honestly believe that if more people knew the realities of abortion, that it's not always a clean clinical process and passing a little blob of cells and that an actual baby-shaped baby is born, alive, and then left to die... far fewer would choose it.

Also; no, the last paragraph is not bizarre. If someone is old enough to engage in consensual sex then they are an adult. By making the choice to have sex (even with contraception) an adult should understand that one of the risks is that they will become pregnant, and have a baby. With properly used contraception, the risk is tiny, but it is a risk nonetheless.

And abortion is by definition birth control? Completely and literally. Yes it's the last resort for people who have made the decision not to have a baby. The last resort method of birth control.


I don't actually think abortion should be made illegal. It would only lead to more home-grown abortion methods and back street butchery. I do, however, personally think very little of anyone who chooses to kill a healthy baby conceived through consensual sex. It has no place in a supposedly civilised society. I sometimes imagine an advanced alien race looking down on us watching, saying "Oh look! The miracle of life, this man and woman have conceived a child and... and... oh... oh they're inserting metal clamps into her and ripping it limb from limb then scraping it out into a dish." Wow.

A 16wk old foetus is most definitely different from what would be classed as a 12month foetus (3 month old baby). Hey, you may see no ethical difference, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

No, it's not birth control in the sense that we understand birth control to be. Birth control is preventative, abortion deals with the symptoms.

I really don't know what you're arguing against if you wouldn't like to see an end to abortion, and again, we've made society better for more children by not having every poor family in the world, be forced into having 8-10 children, which would automatically increase the rate of child deaths anyway, causing more pain and suffering than abortion.

[Z]

I don't really have an opinion on either issue, perhaps because (hopefully) neither will affect my life. I think you can have different views on the two subjects without being a hypocrite. The death penalty is a final punishment; abortion is a final preventative measure. There are all sorts of moral debates about both topics that other people have covered in previous posts that I won't go into (because I don't really have an opinion either way) that can cloud the issues but when you take the ethics out of them, they are fundamentally different things, they're tied together through the concept of life vs death but they aren't the same thing.

[Crimson Dynamo]

If a woman has the right to kill her new baby that she has created does she not have a right to kill a person who has killed her child?

[Kizzy]

I would say not as they both involve the termination of a life so it would be slightly hypocritical I guess.

[Livia]

I support abortion - within the constraints laid down by law. I support the death penalty for certain crimes that would have to be laid down by law.

[Kizzy]

Well that's just logistics I suppose law, but it's surprising how laws affect your moral reasoning.

[Me. I Am Salman]

how can you even compare the two

[Livia]

Well that's just logistics I suppose law, but it's surprising how laws affect your moral reasoning.

Is that reply to me?

[Kizzy]

Is that reply to me?

No, just thinking how laws change depending where you are.

[Niamh.]

Well that's just logistics I suppose law, but it's surprising how laws affect your moral reasoning.

Wouldn't it be the other way round.......moral reasoning affecting the laws?

[Tom4784]

There's a big difference between aborting a foetus and killing a person.

[AnnieK]

I am torn by this really. I would like to say I am opposed to the death penalty but if anyone harmed my nearest and dearest I think I would want to take them apart limb by limb, slowly but thankfully I've never faced that dilemma and so say I am against the death penalty.

I am also pro-choice. It is not a choice I could make but I do believe in the right to choose - but only to a certain extent. I think the time limit for abortion is too high and should be brought below the 20 weeks. There are too many older children in the care system who would welcome a new home but many potential adopters want babies, if abortion was abolished the older children will get lost in the care system and failed further.

[Crimson Dynamo]

There's a big difference between aborting a foetus and killing a person.

Ok what is the big difference, and bear in mind the person is a repeat offending murderous paedophile?

[Kizzy]

Wouldn't it be the other way round.......moral reasoning affecting the laws?

It appears not, if you ask in the places with the death penalty if they're immoral they'll say no.

[user104658]

A 16wk old foetus is most definitely different from what would be classed as a 12month foetus (3 month old baby). Hey, you may see no ethical difference, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

And a newborn child is most definitely different to a walking, talking 3 year old. Is there an ethical difference between killing a three year old and drowning a newborn? Historically there are many people who would have argued that there is, as newborn drownings were common not all that long ago (within the last hundred years in the western world, and ongoing in some parts of the world). I actually think there's a strong argument that murdering a 3 year old (who has formed relationships and connections and is aware of complex emotions) IS morally "worse" than killing a newborn. That doesn't make drowning a newborn ethically acceptable.

No, it's not birth control in the sense that we understand birth control to be. Birth control is preventative, abortion deals with the symptoms.

It's not birth control in the sense that you understand birth control to be, as clearly you are considering "birth control" and "contraception" to be synonymous when they are not. An abortion is not contraception, as contraception is "the prevention of conception". It clearly IS birth control, as birth control is plainly "the prevention of birth". Birth control encompasses contraception but they are not interchangeable terms.

I really don't know what you're arguing against if you wouldn't like to see an end to abortion


I would like to see an end to the abortion of healthy offspring. I would like people to wake up and see it for what it is; the deliberate termination of a human life. That might be arguably acceptable where the consequences are dire, e.g. a likelihood of death or disability for the mother or severe psychological trauma as may be the case with rape. It might be ethically arguable when the child is going to be born with severe disabilities. It SHOULD be morally abhorrent when it's the healthy product of consensual sexual activity. As for abstinence - I'm not saying "don't have sex if you don't want a baby". Contraception used correctly is almost, but not entirely, 100% effective (the small percentage where it's ineffective is almost always down to incorrect use, the risk with correct use is a tiny fraction of a percent). I *am* saying, if you're not ready to accept that tiny fraction of a possibility of dealing with the consequences of sexual activity, then just don't. Don't have vaginal sex. Lick and suck and finger whatever you want, but keep the babymakers separate, or accept the tiny risk.

I don't want it to be illegal, for completely separate reasons.

we've made society better for more children by not having every poor family in the world, be forced into having 8-10 children, which would automatically increase the rate of child deaths anyway, causing more pain and suffering than abortion.

Flawed statistics - this has been achieved through contraception. Taking abortion out of the equation would not make a significant difference to the overall birth rate. Unless you're suggesting that every family with 2 children in the western world has gone through 6 - 8 abortions. It also completely ignores the fact that developed nations currently rely on net immigration to be economically sustainable; overpopulation is not a concern in the countries where abortion rates are high, but not BECAUSE abortion rates are high.

Also flawed logically - "poor families" in global terms do not have access to abortion as an option, and DO have a high birth and infant mortality rate. Due to lack of education and contraception. Not due to a lack of said abortion facilities.

A final point would be that most abortions are NOT economically motivated in the sense of being literally unable to afford to raise a child. Most (non-rape, not related to disability) abortions are for comfort, convenience and because they disrupt a "life plan". I do wish that, at least, people would be honest about this unpalatable fact.

[Tom4784]

Ok what is the big difference, and bear in mind the person is a repeat offending murderous paedophile?

A foetus isn't a human being yet, it's just a collection of cells that can't survive outside of the womb. The death penalty is 'justifiable' murder.

The concepts are completely different, you can be for one and against the other without a conflict occuring. I'm pro choice and I'm vehemently against the Death Penalty since I don't think murder is ever justified, state sponsored or otherwise.

[Crimson Dynamo]

A foetus isn't a human being yet, it's just a collection of cells that can't survive outside of the womb. The death penalty is 'justifiable' murder.

The concepts are completely different, you can be for one and against the other without a conflict occuring. I'm pro choice and I'm vehemently against the Death Penalty since I don't think murder is ever justified, state sponsored or otherwise.

hang on your describing an embryonic stage prior to being a fetus and we are discussing fetus

[Niamh.]

It appears not, if you ask in the places with the death penalty if they're immoral they'll say no.

So? Maybe people in those places have a different morality code to us, laws are made by people so therefore must be driven by the morality codes of those people and not the other way round

[Kizzy]

So? Maybe people in those places have a different morality code to us, laws are made by people so therefore must be driven by the morality codes of those people and not the other way round

Laws are made by governments not people, and governments tell people what to think by creating laws, it's called formal social control.

[Niamh.]

Laws are made by governments not people, and governments tell people what to think by creating laws, it's called formal social control.

Governments aren't made up of people then? :joker:

[Kizzy]

Governments aren't made up of people then? :joker:

Of course they are, I meant they are not made by society in general. Your point was moral reasoning affects laws, I don't think they do I feel laws affect moral reasoning Niamh.

[Niamh.]

Of course they are, I meant they are not made by society in general. Your point was moral reasoning affects laws, I don't think they do I feel laws affect moral reasoning Niamh.

I disagree, if that were the case nothing and no laws would ever change, they change because society demands it of their governments, if moral opinion starts to change amongst it's people. Of course each country is different and I think religion may have alot to do with different countries moral compasses

[Livia]

We vote for politicians to represent us in parliament. Then they make laws on our behalf. Just because half the population can't be arsed to vote doesn't mean that politicians don't act of behalf of the population when it comes to lawmaking.

[Jesus.]

And a newborn child is most definitely different to a walking, talking 3 year old. Is there an ethical difference between killing a three year old and drowning a newborn? Historically there are many people who would have argued that there is, as newborn drownings were common not all that long ago (within the last hundred years in the western world, and ongoing in some parts of the world). I actually think there's a strong argument that murdering a 3 year old (who has formed relationships and connections and is aware of complex emotions) IS morally "worse" than killing a newborn. That doesn't make drowning a newborn ethically acceptable.



It's not birth control in the sense that you understand birth control to be, as clearly you are considering "birth control" and "contraception" to be synonymous when they are not. An abortion is not contraception, as contraception is "the prevention of conception". It clearly IS birth control, as birth control is plainly "the prevention of birth". Birth control encompasses contraception but they are not interchangeable terms.




I would like to see an end to the abortion of healthy offspring. I would like people to wake up and see it for what it is; the deliberate termination of a human life. That might be arguably acceptable where the consequences are dire, e.g. a likelihood of death or disability for the mother or severe psychological trauma as may be the case with rape. It might be ethically arguable when the child is going to be born with severe disabilities. It SHOULD be morally abhorrent when it's the healthy product of consensual sexual activity. As for abstinence - I'm not saying "don't have sex if you don't want a baby". Contraception used correctly is almost, but not entirely, 100% effective (the small percentage where it's ineffective is almost always down to incorrect use, the risk with correct use is a tiny fraction of a percent). I *am* saying, if you're not ready to accept that tiny fraction of a possibility of dealing with the consequences of sexual activity, then just don't. Don't have vaginal sex. Lick and suck and finger whatever you want, but keep the babymakers separate, or accept the tiny risk.

I don't want it to be illegal, for completely separate reasons.



Flawed statistics - this has been achieved through contraception. Taking abortion out of the equation would not make a significant difference to the overall birth rate. Unless you're suggesting that every family with 2 children in the western world has gone through 6 - 8 abortions. It also completely ignores the fact that developed nations currently rely on net immigration to be economically sustainable; overpopulation is not a concern in the countries where abortion rates are high, but not BECAUSE abortion rates are high.

Also flawed logically - "poor families" in global terms do not have access to abortion as an option, and DO have a high birth and infant mortality rate. Due to lack of education and contraception. Not due to a lack of said abortion facilities.

A final point would be that most abortions are NOT economically motivated in the sense of being literally unable to afford to raise a child. Most (non-rape, not related to disability) abortions are for comfort, convenience and because they disrupt a "life plan". I do wish that, at least, people would be honest about this unpalatable fact.

Right, there is just too much in there to respond to it all in depth, but I will skim through it, and focus on the major bits relating to our discussion, as I see it.

I don't know where that first paragraph is going, or what you're trying to say. Laws and history are constantly reviewed and updated in line with the moral Zeitgeist of the day. It was ever thus, so what relevance the previous 100 years, or other what other societies do, is supposed to have on my opinion on this is slightly baffling. I just don't get where it fits in to our discussion. We don't sacrifice children into the foundations of every new building project we take up either. And...?

The next bit is semantics and bears no relevance on either of our opinions.

Birth control - to say you think people should be made to carry to term and support a child for the rest of the parents life, after an accident in the bedroom is completely foreign to my own morality. Sexual intercourse is one of the ways that maintains the bonds between pairing humans, and we also use sex as a way of conflict resolution, coping with stress and many other wonderful reasons, but mainly, because when it's good, it's ******ing great, in a way that hands and mouth can never be because that sense of worn out euphoria is unmatched.

Yeah - you're probably right about the statistics, because I was talking in general terms about what happens when women aren't able to make informed decisions about their own sexual reproductive organs, which eradicating abortion would do, although my point would have been more appropriate if we didn't have contraception these days (although there are states in America that have tried to make it illegal to use contraception very recently - which highlights the potential slippery slope we face).

[Kizzy]

I disagree, if that were the case nothing and no laws would ever change, they change because society demands it of their governments, if moral opinion starts to change amongst it's people. Of course each country is different and I think religion may have alot to do with different countries moral compasses

Attitudinal changes happen depending on who is in power. Religion has a bigger part to play is some places more than others.
Having said that look at the 'bible belt'?

[Niamh.]

Attitudinal changes happen depending on who is in power. Religion has a bigger part to play is some places more than others.
Having said that look at the 'bible belt'?

Do you think? I suppose it's a bit which came first the chicken or the egg though, I mean it is the people who put the governments in power after all

[Kizzy]

Yes they issue a manifesto and you think, hmm that sounds good... Then they get in and do the exact opposite :laugh:

[user104658]

I think my opinion can be summed up fairly succinctly thus:

It's undeniably inconvenient that pregnancy is a potential consequence of sexual intercourse. People want to have sex. They don't necessarily want to have children. The (last resort) solution is to kill their unborn child in the womb.

That's the basics of it, morality completely removed. The semantics used to make it more palatable exist for that reason alone: to make the process clinical and provide emotional distance. "Abort" instead of "kill", "fetus" instead of "unborn child" etc. All in all, I find that people are just keen to justify sit as 100% clinical and remove the moral question.

People don't want to call it what it should be, even for those who support it: a necessary and unfortunate evil. The rhetoric that surrounds it is purely to protect the emotional well-being of the person having it done, because the reality is hard to deal with. When you have an abortion, you end a human life. There is no logical argument to the contrary. It is human, it is alive. Some people might be able to justify that - fine - but I can't accept them justifying it by attempting to change the facts.

[user104658]

Sorry, my last reply was a bit of a ramble...

I don't think people fully appreciate the reality of the situation, as I mentioned earlier. For one, even if we are going to accept that we have moved so far away from the biological imperatives of our existence as to refuse to accept the consequences of a sexual relationship then we should be looking to the morning after pill as a contraceptive. There's no reason that it should ever reach the point of a termination, except that people don't really understand what they are doing when it comes to abortion and it is so freely accepted an ethical way to end "the consequences of a mistake". Sure, there are times (like rape) when people's sense of perspective is lost but the issue of education is all the more crucial for that reason.

Then, there's the complicating factor that it often isn't just a blob of cells. Early first trimester terminations aren't quite so common as late first trimester/early second trimester terminations because women are usually 4+ weeks by the time they realise and waiting times on the NHS can be upwards of 5+ weeks. Statistically, those relying on abortions aren't financially able to use private clinics so we're looking at an average of 9-12 weeks for abortions by which time there is a viable heartbeat and, quite often, a pain sensitive central nervous system (8+ weeks).

The zeitgeist is irrelevant. It changes when people seek to change it. Attitudes don't change without being challenged and, yes, we have clearly come a long way - but that doesn't mean there isn't quite some way to go. That this is accepted by so many has no bearing upon how morally questionable it is, it doesn't make it any less barbaric just because people don't think it is. That's where it fits in - because you have so clearly demonstrated the profound ignorance of the masses. It's OK because everyone says it's OK... everyone does it. That's a fairly obvious logical fallacy.

I think there are much more persuasive arguments in favour of abortion as systemic disease of human consciousness than a simple termination of an error. That we live in a society where people feel a baby is a mistake, something they cannot cope with or the end of their plans is indicative of the problems within society. Whilst I can accept that this is the painful reality of modern humanity, I don't think that makes it justifiable. Just a grotesque byproduct.

Then we have the usual: the misinformation and outright lies. How many people in this thread alone have said "it's just a bundle of cells"? A myth that most people believe, because that's the rhetoric that makes the reality of disposing of an inconvenience more bearable.

I'm going to post a link to a picture of a later term abortion (not unusually late, mind you). This isn't intended to be divisive. It's merely to HOPEFULLY put the "bundle of cells" rhetoric into perspective.




Again I have to emphasise: there is a clear and questionable agenda to normalise and medicalise abortion by distorting the facts. By placing an image of a featureless blob of cells in the public mindset. It is a lie, it is an illusion, the truth is horrendous. The truth is that this mangled baby is the lucky one; because when they aren't torn apart like this, sometimes they're born alive. Sometimes they try to take a breath. Sometimes they even let out a little cry, before being left in a dish to suffocate because their lungs can't operate and because yes... they can't survive without their "mother"s body. Her choice. Her barbaric choice.

You might think this is necessary. You might believe that it helps society to be stronger, better, fairer in other areas. And even if you're right? At least have the balls to see and accept it for what it is.

[Z]

I think my opinion can be summed up fairly succinctly thus:

It's undeniably inconvenient that pregnancy is a potential consequence of sexual intercourse. People want to have sex. They don't necessarily want to have children. The (last resort) solution is to kill their unborn child in the womb.

That's the basics of it, morality completely removed. The semantics used to make it more palatable exist for that reason alone: to make the process clinical and provide emotional distance. "Abort" instead of "kill", "fetus" instead of "unborn child" etc. All in all, I find that people are just keen to justify sit as 100% clinical and remove the moral question.

People don't want to call it what it should be, even for those who support it: a necessary and unfortunate evil. The rhetoric that surrounds it is purely to protect the emotional well-being of the person having it done, because the reality is hard to deal with. When you have an abortion, you end a human life. There is no logical argument to the contrary. It is human, it is alive. Some people might be able to justify that - fine - but I can't accept them justifying it by attempting to change the facts.

People may not want to call it that out loud but having known women who have had abortions (and I'm sure many people in this thread do too), the emotional turmoil they go through is proof enough that they know exactly what it is. Abortion is a euphemism, foetus is a euphemism, but you can't take the edge off of what you've done to your body and the thing that was growing inside it. If an unwanted pregnancy occurs once, that's unfortunate and I feel sorry for anyone who has been in that position. But I know girls who've had abortions, plural. I think that's irresponsible and I would have thought that the emotional trauma of what happened the first time would make you more responsible, but for some, apparently not.

Part of what makes us human is our personality, our appearance, our voice, our mannerisms, our friends, our jobs, our relationships... an unborn foetus (or unborn child, if you prefer) does not have any of those things yet. It is a blank canvas. A murderer on death row, on the other hand, has all of those attributes. That is a life. They are not a blank canvas. For me, that's where the difference lies.

[user104658]

People may not want to call it that out loud but having known women who have had abortions (and I'm sure many people in this thread do too), the emotional turmoil they go through is proof enough that they know exactly what it is. Abortion is a euphemism, foetus is a euphemism, but you can't take the edge off of what you've done to your body and the thing that was growing inside it. If an unwanted pregnancy occurs once, that's unfortunate and I feel sorry for anyone who has been in that position. But I know girls who've had abortions, plural. I think that's irresponsible and I would have thought that the emotional trauma of what happened the first time would make you more responsible, but for some, apparently not.

Exactly... I find the abortion of a consensual healthy fetus hard to accept but I understand it enough to be able to accept someone doing it. Multiple abortions (under the same conditions) basically unforgivable. I simply wouldn't want anything to do with that person. That may make me judgemental but then, I personally don't have any problem with judgement, be that being judged or making judgements. And the rhetoric is part of the problem; yes, it exists to "spare" those who have had to make that decision, to make the decision easier to live with. But in the process, it seeps into general public opinion and makes it "easier" to consider it in the first place. Easier to look at it as a "non-life" or merely a "hypothetical life", when honestly, that's just bull****. A convenient defence mechanism.

Part of what makes us human is our personality, our appearance, our voice, our mannerisms, our friends, our jobs, our relationships... an unborn foetus (or unborn child, if you prefer) does not have any of those things yet. It is a blank canvas. A murderer on death row, on the other hand, has all of those attributes. That is a life. They are not a blank canvas. For me, that's where the difference lies.

I agree to an extent but again, I find it to often be an excuse. A newborn baby, say a few hours old, is no different to an unborn fetus. They operate purely on instinct and have no personality, they all look fairly generic. They have no mannerisms or friends, jobs or meaningful relationships (beyond how others feel about them; they themselves have no cognitive emotion). But how would people feel if they heard that someone had walked into a neonatal unit with a machine gun and killed 5 babies? Horrified. Anyone would. And not just for the families; for the babies, themselves. For the loss of innocent life. And yet, show those same people 5 abortions and it's excused as "sad, but understandable / necessary". There is literally zero logic in it. This is what infuriates me. People try to make it seem logical, clinical and scientific when all it is, is a string of excuses for ending a human life for convenience.

[Z]

Perhaps you're right and I am just influenced by the propaganda of abortion clinic terminology, I really don't know, I've not given much thought to how I feel about abortion because I'm male, I'll never have to go through that process and I suppose I've never really wanted to have an opinion on it either, it's a very emotional subject. I feel that the difference between a newborn baby and a foetus is that if you've carried a baby to term, you wanted that baby. You wanted that baby so badly, you were going to love it more than you'd loved anything else before, maybe you'd already thought about what it would be like when it grew up - so while it might not have any of the things I listed, yet, you, the parent(s) have still thought about those things. With a foetus, if you didn't want it, you're specifically not thinking about those things because dehumanising it and thinking of it as a clinical procedure allows you to detach yourself from the responsibility of what's happened. It all comes down to perspective, ultimately; if the woman carrying that foetus doesn't want it then she won't let herself be protective of it, not too dissimilar from what happens in nature with the runt of a litter.

The thing of it as well is that there are different scenarios where abortion might be used - rape babies are different from disabled babies and they're different from just plain unwanted babies. The ethics are what dictate attitudes towards the topic. A woman gets raped - does she keep the baby and have to live with the proof of what happened to her every day? Will she love that child as much as she should? Will that child have a normal life, when they become aware that their mother doesn't love them or if they find out that they were a rape baby? I'd imagine that would be an extremely painful discovery to make. Or would the mother keep the baby and love it despite all of those things and the child never finds out? Or does she have the right to terminate that baby as it's an extension of the crime that was committed against her? Should she be forced to keep it and have her life changed forever even though she did not consent?

And that's just for rape babies... there are different ethical questions for disabled babies and different questions for unwanted pregnancies too. It's a tough subject and I think that is why there has been this effort to turn abortion into a clinical, non-emotive procedure even though the actual act puts women through all sorts of turmoil.

A friend of mine got pregnant aged 19 and had her beautiful daughter. The father has refused to acknowledge that the child is his and hasn't paid any child support to her. She then got pregnant again aged 21 and aborted it. She was so devastated and still is today. She said that she would never get an abortion again if she were ever to fall pregnant again. She's got a daughter, she thought she could disconnect the idea of an abortion from the beautiful baby girl that she brought into the world already but she couldn't.

I just don't know where I stand on the issue. On the one hand I see young girls being irresponsible with young guys and then all of the pressure falling at the feet of the young girl while the young guy can disappear off and say it's not his problem. On the other hand I see people being punished for mistakes they've made and either they have a child they're just not able to support or get rid of it and forever feel remorse over it and having that memory haunt them forever.

[Livia]

People can't have abortions after a specified number of weeks. I think I'm right in saying it's 12 weeks, unless there is a threat to the health of the mother and/or child and then it can be extended to 20 weeks, with longer if there are extenuating circumstances. All this comparing a fetus to a newborn child is dramatic nonsense. What's more... I reckon if it was men who got pregnant, gave birth and then cared for that child for the next 18 years, abortion would have been legalised centuries ago.

[user104658]

People can't have abortions after a specified number of weeks. I think I'm right in saying it's 12 weeks, unless there is a threat to the health of the mother and/or child and then it can be extended to 20 weeks, with longer if there are extenuating circumstances. All this comparing a fetus to a newborn child is dramatic nonsense. What's more... I reckon if it was men who got pregnant, gave birth and then cared for that child for the next 18 years, abortion would have been legalised centuries ago.

NHS abortions are regularly carried out up to 16 weeks because of waiting times. And yes, there is a MASSIVE difference between a 12 week old fetus and 16 weeks. But again, to suggest that that's the reality of a large number of abortions is another deliberately constructed lie.

I'll admit, comparing an early fetus before the development of brain function and the central nervous system to a newborn is sensationalist. But at 16 weeks, it really isnt at all. The only logical difference is that a newborn is bigger and doesn't live in a womb. An inconvenient truth? Probably.

I have far less problem with very early abortions (essentially, forced early miscarriage) but again... This is not the reality of a large number of abortions.

[user104658]

Oh and this...

I reckon if it was men who got pregnant, gave birth and then cared for that child for the next 18 years, abortion would have been legalised centuries ago.

...is frankly drivel. I'm sure it would have been legalised centuries ago, you're right. But so what? Does that justify it? "Kids are hard work, probs easier to just kill them amirite?"

[Z]

NHS abortions are regularly carried out up to 16 weeks because of waiting times. And yes, there is a MASSIVE difference between a 12 week old fetus and 16 weeks. But again, to suggest that that's the reality of a large number of abortions is another deliberately constructed lie.

I'll admit, comparing an early fetus before the development of brain function and the central nervous system to a newborn is sensationalist. But at 16 weeks, it really isnt at all. The only logical difference is that a newborn is bigger and doesn't live in a womb. An inconvenient truth? Probably.

I have far less problem with very early abortions (essentially, forced early miscarriage) but again... This is not the reality of a large number of abortions.

You made a really good point earlier in the thread that most women won't necessarily realise they're pregnant until they've missed their period... and that's if they're even paying attention, you get all sorts of weird anomalies during pregnancy, I know a girl who claimed she kept getting her period during her pregnancy (she knew she was pregnant and wanted the baby, mind you) - so yeah, the chances are by the time you know you're pregnant and you've booked yourself in for an abortion, that foetus has grown significantly...

[Nedusa]

The CatholicChurch don't allow abortion under any circumstances as they view life as being life from the moment of conception.

The fact that at that point it is just a collection of cells with no discernable form certainly no brain or consciousness doesn't seem to matter to the religious nutcases who probably consider every sperm is sacred...........

[Jesus.]

What about if I only support the death penalty for pregnant mothers?

[Z]

What about if I only support the death penalty for pregnant mothers?

You get double points for that, you'd be way ahead in the Death League

[Jesus.]

****** yeah.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/f7f5300730c4251dd5a29c206ec788a7/tumblr_mrtkcwt5AG1sphrggo1_400.gif

[joeysteele]

People can't have abortions after a specified number of weeks. I think I'm right in saying it's 12 weeks, unless there is a threat to the health of the mother and/or child and then it can be extended to 20 weeks, with longer if there are extenuating circumstances. All this comparing a fetus to a newborn child is dramatic nonsense. What's more... I reckon if it was men who got pregnant, gave birth and then cared for that child for the next 18 years, abortion would have been legalised centuries ago.

Aah Livia, you sort of take me back to a statement my Grandmother used to say and that was if men had the babies there would be one child likely per family and no more. I used to smile at that.

I don't like abortion, I would not say for any woman that it was wrong to have one.
As you say, there are controls too as to when they can be done. So although I don't accept it,it has to be in some cases an option for the woman.

As to the death penalty, I have always gone back and forth as to this issue, I would hate for anyone to have to be given it but I do think especially where there is no remorse and especically for multiple killings, clearly life in prison is no deterrent and that in at least a small few cases it would be wholly justifiable as Kazanne also said in an esrlier post.

Answering as far as I could as to the OP,I could likely not be persuaded to vote against abortion being an option as you said in the constraints of the law at present.

I could however likely be persuaded to support the death penalty in some cases of murder.
A recent one from last year being a prime example for me.

[user104658]

The fact that at that point it is just a collection of cells with no discernable form certainly no brain or consciousness doesn't seem to matter to the religious nutcases who probably consider every sperm is sacred...........

At the point of conception it is and theres very little reason to reject abortion before around 6 weeks, as many pregnancies actually fail before that point without anyone even realising. However, as I've said repeatedly in this thread, the "bundle of cells" rhetoric for 12+ weeks when many abortions take place is simply false. Completely false. A 12+ week old fetus is no more a "bundle of cells" than you are... It looks like a fully grown baby, just on a smaller scale. They have reflexes, they kick, can even be shown to suck their thumb. They have a developed central nervous system and they feel pain.

If someone told you that all abortions are simply flushing out a bundle of cells, then they were lying to you. It's that simple.

[thesheriff443]

should more be done in third world countries to stop women getting pregnant and children being born, only for those children to suffer and die of starvation before the age of one!

[user104658]

should more be done in third world countries to stop women getting pregnant and children being born, only for those children to suffer and die of starvation before the age of one!

The major issue there is a lack of education, the availability of contraceptives, and of course, religious leaders telling the population not to use contraception when it is available.

[the truth]

Are there any ironies for a society that accepts abortion but abhors the death penalty?

I dont believe in either. But I agree , there is an element of contradiction....we dont want to kill 1 single mass murderers, but we kill millions of innocent babies ...you are right to draw this distinction...we are not a very intelligent country and we do not look at the overall picture nor do we oin up all the dots....we are far far far too easy going about the record levels of mass abortions...its around 1 million babies aborted every 6 years. (160,000+ per year) we are amongst the highest abortion rates in europe and the world. parents who are struggling with health and finances or lacking education or support. clearly do not get enough support ,nor advice as the the relevant options open to them. is there a support system in place for example for parents struggling so badly they could have a respite place they could leave their new born baby. or a shorterm term, fostering or adoption option ...on a seperate matter the issue of smoking in pregnancy has to be targetted far greater, personally id outlaw it. smoking kills babies in wombs and cuts off their oxygen supply for starters.

many more babies survive very well at 22 weeks these days...many [parents complain after abortions they felt rushed confused and didnt feel they were given time and advice or support on their options if they chose to let the baby live. sadly this incredibly emotional, difficult , complex issue has again been hijacked by the ruthless mindlessness of radical feminism. this should never ever be a feminist issue. its far far bigger than that.

its an issue about what sort of nhs we want, what ssort of support structure we can be bothered to build, how much time and money we spend on people in these difficult situations. its also about the mother and the father and the brothers and sisters and grandparents and extended family and friends. its about what kind of society we want to live in. collaboration is always the key to a better tomorrow. but most of all its about that innocent precious beautiful new born baby at least getting the chance to draw breath, a chance to dream, to play, to love and to live

[Vicky.]

I actually think most people's support of abortion hinges on an inherent misunderstanding of the abortion process; that it is clean, quick and clinical. They believe the "bundle of cells" rhetoric which in fact only applies to very early stage abortions. Later stage surgical abortions, are effing barbaric. They follow one of two scenarios; either the baby is removed whole, in which case it can live (kicking, trying to breathe, making little noises) for several minutes after removal. It's an ethical minefield for the abortionist to physically kill it, so they tend to just be put in a surgical tray with a cloth over them and allowed to slowly die.



Late abortions tend to only be done when there is a serious risk to the mothers health though, or massive problems with the child. You cant chose to have a late abortion, and the huge majority are done within the first few weeks of pregnancy.. ( http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortion/Pages/When-should-it-be-done.aspx )

However I think the limit should be lowered a LOT. Its extremely unlikely someone wouldnt know that they were pregnant by like..6 weeks or so. I think the date for 'choice' should be then. However medical complications should be set later..as you dont tend to find serious problems until your 12 week scan.

In answer to the OP, I think they are two totally different things. So yeah, opposing views on both do make sense really.

[user104658]

Late abortions tend to only be done when there is a serious risk to the mothers health though, or massive problems with the child. You cant chose to have a late abortion, and the huge majority are done within the first few weeks of pregnancy.. ( http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortion/Pages/When-should-it-be-done.aspx )

However I think the limit should be lowered a LOT. Its extremely unlikely someone wouldnt know that they were pregnant by like..6 weeks or so. I think the date for 'choice' should be then. However medical complications should be set later..as you dont tend to find serious problems until your 12 week scan.

In answer to the OP, I think they are two totally different things. So yeah, opposing views on both do make sense really.


I'm not massively convinced by the 90% stat for a start, especially with the increasing NHS cuts, the waiting list for an abortion can be 6+ weeks. So that's 6+ weeks on top of how long it takes to realise that you're pregnant (usually at least 5 weeks) plus a week of "thinking time" (and doesn't it deserve more than that anyway?) and you're already at 12+ weeks. Some people don't realise they're pregnant until 8 or 9 weeks, and so NHS abortions of healthy babies can and do regularly take place at 15 or 16 weeks.

In my opinion, if we MUST have the abortion of healthy pregnancies as a possibility, there should be a hard cap of 9 weeks. Up until that point, the "bundle of cells" excuse is just about valid. A combination of the NHS cutting the wait time to as close to zero as possible plus better education for the identification of pregnancy symptoms should be able to achieve that. And if people miss that cut off... well, **** happens - they can consider adoption or maybe even consider just doing the responsible thing, and be a parent to their "mistake". Like you said, very few people wouldn't notice a pregnancy by 6 weeks, and 3 weeks from then until a final cut off should be enough. 9 weeks is also the latest date at which simple medical abortion (using pills to trigger miscarriage) is possible and that should be the ONLY legal form of healthy-baby abortion. Surgical abortions should be strictly for medical reasons only.

[user104658]

You cant chose to have a late abortion

You actually can choose to abort in the UK at any time up until 24 weeks. For reference, this is a picture of a live premature baby (that went on to be healthy) at 23 weeks:

http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/article-1303155702455-0bae099900000578-50652_466x310.jpg


I've actually read a statement by a teenage girl who chose to have an abortion at 21 weeks and wasn't even told that she would have to stillbirth the baby. The account is harrowing, and she is utterly traumatised. This is why at the very least, people need to be properly informed of the realities of abortion, and the "bundle of cells" nonsense needs to be clarified.

[Vicky.]

I'm not massively convinced by the 90% stat for a start, especially with the increasing NHS cuts, the waiting list for an abortion can be 6+ weeks. So that's 6+ weeks on top of how long it takes to realise that you're pregnant (usually at least 5 weeks) plus a week of "thinking time" (and doesn't it deserve more than that anyway?) and you're already at 12+ weeks. Some people don't realise they're pregnant until 8 or 9 weeks, and so NHS abortions of healthy babies can and do regularly take place at 15 or 16 weeks.

In my opinion, if we MUST have the abortion of healthy pregnancies as a possibility, there should be a hard cap of 9 weeks. Up until that point, the "bundle of cells" excuse is just about valid. A combination of the NHS cutting the wait time to as close to zero as possible plus better education for the identification of pregnancy symptoms should be able to achieve that. And if people miss that cut off... well, **** happens - they can consider adoption or maybe even consider just doing the responsible thing, and be a parent to their "mistake". Like you said, very few people wouldn't notice a pregnancy by 6 weeks, and 3 weeks from then until a final cut off should be enough. 9 weeks is also the latest date at which simple medical abortion (using pills to trigger miscarriage) is possible and that should be the ONLY legal form of healthy-baby abortion. Surgical abortions should be strictly for medical reasons only.
Really? That seems mental..

I actually had a termination (very early one, was about 5 weeks) at 16 year old and from the moment I was offered one, to getting there there was about a weeks wait. Mind I think more resources should be available to check its the correct decision. The day I took my first pill the psychiatrist person who was supposed to check I was sure wasnt even in and they gave me it anyway. I think I posted my story on here before somewhere..but yeah. I dont understand why anyone would put themselves in the position to go through that twice or more, I really don't. It is a ****ing horrific and very painful experience, even early on.

Agree 100% with the bolded bit.

Edit. Found my post.. http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2632428&postcount=75 . Quite graphic detail of what happens during an (early) abortion so don't read if squeamish or likely to get offended :/

[Firewire]

As a male, I feel like my opinion on abortion isn't important but I'm heavily against the death penalty.

[Vicky.]

You actually can choose to abort in the UK at any time up until 24 weeks. For reference, this is a picture of a live premature baby (that went on to be healthy) at 23 weeks:

http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/article-1303155702455-0bae099900000578-50652_466x310.jpg


I've actually read a statement by a teenage girl who chose to have an abortion at 21 weeks and wasn't even told that she would have to stillbirth the baby. The account is harrowing, and she is utterly traumatised. This is why at the very least, people need to be properly informed of the realities of abortion, and the "bundle of cells" nonsense needs to be clarified.

I honestly didnt know that, and why the hell would anyone chose to do that. The bundle of cells thing is obviously not right in that case. Hell from 12 weeks onwards (and earlier too really..) its clearly a baby, I have 2 scan pics to prove that D:

The limit should definitely be lowered..babies are surviving younger and younger. I personally know someone who had a kid at 22 weeks and he is alive now, a healthy 5 year old.

[the truth]

As a male, I feel like my opinion on abortion isn't important but I'm heavily against the death penalty.

why doesnt your opinion matter over the deaths of millions of babies?

[lostalex]

I support abortion because i believe that until the fetus or baby or whatever you want to call it, is able to survive outside of the woman's womb, then it is part of her body, a parasite, a tumor. And along as it's part of her body she should have the right to do whatever she wants to her body as long as she's not mentally ill.

I am against the death penalty because i don't believe there is any such thing as an infallible justice system in the world,. and every system of justice in the world get's it wrong sometimes. I'm not against the death penalty for moral reasons, i do think it is morally sound to punish the most heinous crimes with death, but i don't think our justice systems are good enough to be 100% sure in 100% of the cases, so in order to err on the side of caution, we shouldn't be using the death penalty. If we had an infallible justice system, i would support the death penalty, but we don't.

[lostalex]

Did you know that 1 out of every 4 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage? So even if you are religious, clearly your God believes in abortion, he's doing it a lot. If God doesn't believe in abortion, why are there so many miscarriages?

http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm

NHS says 1 out of 5 for the UK. That's still a lot.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/miscarriage/Pages/Introduction.aspx

[Livia]

Wow... there is some scary made-up stuff in this thread.

[user104658]

Did you know that 1 out of every 4 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage? So even if you are religious, clearly your God believes in abortion, he's doing it a lot. If God doesn't believe in abortion, why are there so many miscarriages?

http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm

NHS says 1 out of 5 for the UK. That's still a lot.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/miscarriage/Pages/Introduction.aspx

It's fairly recently been discovered that the majority of miscarriages occur because there is something wrong with the embryo that means it simply is not viable - I.e. it would die anyway or be severely deformed.

So, if you happened to be religious (I personally am not) you could argue that God supports (performs?) Abortions when there is a problem with the embryo, but not when the development is healthy.

Of course, the religion skeptic in me automatically jumps to: "If god exists, why would he create defective embryos in the first place?"

[Kizzy]

It's fairly recently been discovered that the majority of miscarriages occur because there is something wrong with the embryo that means it simply is not viable - I.e. it would die anyway or be severely deformed.

So, if you happened to be religious (I personally am not) you could argue that God supports (performs?) Abortions when there is a problem with the embryo, but not when the development is healthy.

Of course, the religion skeptic in me automatically jumps to: "If god exists, why would he create defective embryos in the first place?"

Even religious people don't think that it's garbage...

[the truth]

The CatholicChurch don't allow abortion under any circumstances as they view life as being life from the moment of conception.

The fact that at that point it is just a collection of cells with no discernable form certainly no brain or consciousness doesn't seem to matter to the religious nutcases who probably consider every sperm is sacred...........


maybe thats better than the athistic feminist nutters who dont give a damn about seeing millions of healthy babies aborted several months into pregancy

[the truth]

[/B]

Aah Livia, you sort of take me back to a statement my Grandmother used to say and that was if men had the babies there would be one child likely per family and no more. I used to smile at that.

I don't like abortion, I would not say for any woman that it was wrong to have one.
As you say, there are controls too as to when they can be done. So although I don't accept it has to be in some cases an option for the woman.

As to the death penalty, I have always gone back and forth as to this issue, I would hate for anyone to have to be given it but I do think espeically where there is no remorse and espeically for multiple killings, clearly life in prison is no deterrent and that in at least a small few cases it would be wholly justifiable as Kazanne also said in an esrlier post.

Answering as far as I could as to the OP,I could likely not be persuaded to vote against abortion being an option as you said in the constraints of the law at present.

I could however likely be persuaded to support the death penalty in some cases of murder.
A recent one from last year being a prime example for me.

the most sexist posit in history

[the truth]

I support abortion because i believe that until the fetus or baby or whatever you want to call it, is able to survive outside of the woman's womb, then it is part of her body, a parasite, a tumor. And along as it's part of her body she should have the right to do whatever she wants to her body as long as she's not mentally ill.

I am against the death penalty because i don't believe there is any such thing as an infallible justice system in the world,. and every system of justice in the world get's it wrong sometimes. I'm not against the death penalty for moral reasons, i do think it is morally sound to punish the most heinous crimes with death, but i don't think our justice systems are good enough to be 100% sure in 100% of the cases, so in order to err on the side of caution, we shouldn't be using the death penalty. If we had an infallible justice system, i would support the death penalty, but we don't.
so how do you estimate when the baby will survive?

[the truth]

Did you know that 1 out of every 4 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage? So even if you are religious, clearly your God believes in abortion, he's doing it a lot. If God doesn't believe in abortion, why are there so many miscarriages?

http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm

NHS says 1 out of 5 for the UK. That's still a lot.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/miscarriage/Pages/Introduction.aspx

ah thats right you support millions of babies being murdered , but you blame God for all other deaths, even though you dont believe God exists? nonsense

[daniel-lewis-1985]

I think the fact that in the UK a person is allowed to abort a baby up to 6 months old is disgusting. Aborting a baby at such an advanced age where it is an actual living human being and capable of surviving outside the womb is murder in my eyes.

I am not opposed to all abortion but I 100% think the term needs to be brought down to around 3 months maximum unless there are extenuating circumstances like the baby is brain damaged or severely handicapped and would not survive or be able to live naturally unaided by machines for the rest of its life. In that case then it would be natural for that baby to die anyway.

Obviously if the mother was not aware she was pregnant or was raped then it would also be a totally different situation and that complicates things.

I don't believe in the death penalty there is far to much room for mistake and death is an easy way out. Anyone who has committed such an horrific crime should be forced to live with the guilt of that for as long as possible.

[Vicky.]

Yes the 24 week limit is barbaric IMO. Especially considering some babies survive being born at that gestation. I was under the impression that it could only be done that late in cases of severe disability or risk to the mothers life but it seems not :/

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Yes the 24 week limit is barbaric IMO. Especially considering some babies survive being born at that gestation. I was under the impression that it could only be done that late in cases of severe disability or risk to the mothers life but it seems not :/

Its not, I know someone who's baby was perfectly healthy at 6 months and they had it aborted. I was so angry about it but that's not my choice to make.

Everyone has different morals in life.

[AnnieK]

Up until fairly recently some NHS trusts would perform medical terminations later than the current legal limit for cleft lips which are completely treatable and other than a scar have no lasting effects.

[Vicky.]

Well although pro-choice, I think women who chose to get late abortions for next to no reason are utter scum. I am 21 weeks pregnant now, and the thought of it makes me feel seriously ill and really sad for anyone to do it this late, nevermind later. I already have a bond with my baby, I have seen it and felt it...and IMO it would be nothing short of evil to have a termination for anything other than a serious medical reason at this stage

[the truth]

Well although pro-choice, I think women who chose to get late abortions for next to no reason are utter scum. I am 21 weeks pregnant now, and the thought of it makes me feel seriously ill and really sad for anyone to do it this late, nevermind later. I already have a bond with my baby, I have seen it and felt it...and IMO it would be nothing short of evil to have a termination for anything other than a serious medical reason at this stage

they are scum and it should be illegal. Id also make it a criminal offence to lie about who the father is and to wrongfully make claims off a man who is not the father of the baby

[Vicky.]

they are scum and it should be illegal. Id also make it a criminal offence to lie about who the father is and to wrongfully make claims off a man who is not the father of the baby

Is that not illegal anyway? Surely that would come under obtaining money by deception or something along those lines?

[the truth]

Is that not illegal anyway? Surely that would come under obtaining money by deception or something along those lines?

Ive never heard of any women arrested for this, have you?

[Vicky.]

Ive never heard of any women arrested for this, have you?

Well no, but I wouldnt think its that common to begin with...

(Edit. Having said that, I do know a girl who put someones name down as the father of her child when she knew he wasnt. It wasnt for CSA purposes though, it was so he would bring the child up as his own as its real father was an arsehole. I think thats much worse than doing it for the cash)

Noone tends to get arrested for fraud cases anyway. Usually a fine and community service or something

Also on the same kinda note, you dont hear about fathers being arrested for not paying for kids that ARE theirs either. Which from my experience is a lot more common than your scenario :/

[daniel-lewis-1985]

This topic is in serious danger of turning into a sexism thread, its about abortion and the death penalty which is a very interesting subject so im hoping its not going to trail off into a 25 page heated debate about child benefits and Jeremy Kyle type dna test theories.

[Kate!]

I think the fact that in the UK a person is allowed to abort a baby up to 6 months old is disgusting. Aborting a baby at such an advanced age where it is an actual living human being and capable of surviving outside the womb is murder in my eyes.

I am not opposed to all abortion but I 100% think the term needs to be brought down to around 3 months maximum unless there are extenuating circumstances like the baby is brain damaged or severely handicapped and would not survive or be able to live naturally unaided by machines for the rest of its life. In that case then it would be natural for that baby to die anyway.

Obviously if the mother was not aware she was pregnant or was raped then it would also be a totally different situation and that complicates things.

I don't believe in the death penalty there is far to much room for mistake and death is an easy way out. Anyone who has committed such an horrific crime should be forced to live with the guilt of that for as long as possible.

Great post, abortion should only be allowed in certain cases e.g. for rape victims as mentioned here, and strictly only up 12 weeks or possibly even less. Anything else is morally reprehensible. I've even heard (and this is disgusting beyond belief) young girls say that if they get pregnant they'll 'get rid of it'. Abortion is NOT a form of contraception. Sometimes I despair at today's values ( waves old fogey stick ).

I do agree on the whole with your view on death penalty too Daniel, as the justice system is not infallible and the possibility of an innocent person being put to death is abhorrent. However, in cases where there is no room for doubt, especially when little kids are murdered, then they should be crucified. I'd happily put a bullet in the likes of Ian Huntley.

[GypsyGoth]

Being pro-choice and anti-death penalty is a valid stance I think. Just because you believe criminals shouldn't be killed by the state, it doesn't then mean that you believe a fetus has the same rights.

[Vicky.]

Oh I dont think I made my actual views clear on the death penalty either, which was kidna the point of the thread

I am pro-choice. But think the limit should be way lower than it is except in the case of serious medical complications/illness. My suggestion would be 8 weeks or under for people to just chose. The huge majority would know by that point that they were pregnant.

I am also pro-death penalty. In cases where it can be proven without a doubt that the person is guilty. For example the murder of that soldier in London when it was all on tape and the murderers stuck about. I do however think it is the easy way out..and if prison terms were harsher (life for murder, not 10/15 years) and prisons werent as 'nice' as they are(no TVs, pool tables and playstations), I would see no need for the death penalty.

On a separate note, I would have a special punishment for people who have sex offenses against children. Castration (not sure on the equivelent with women..being sewed up? :laugh: ). Followed by a life sentence/death penalty for a second offense, though I imagine most would be miraculously 'cured' if this was the punishment ;)

[InOne]

Oh I dont think I made my actual views clear on the death penalty either, which was kidna the point of the thread

I am pro-choice. But think the limit should be way lower than it is except in the case of serious medical complications/illness. My suggestion would be 8 weeks or under for people to just chose. The huge majority would know by that point that they were pregnant.

I am also pro-death penalty. In cases where it can be proven without a doubt that the person is guilty. For example the murder of that soldier in London when it was all on tape and the murderers stuck about. I do however think it is the easy way out..and if prison terms were harsher (life for murder, not 10/15 years) and prisons werent as 'nice' as they are(no TVs, pool tables and playstations), I would see no need for the death penalty.

But high profile cases don't get let into the general population do they and don't really get the same benefits? I think it's something like 52 people who will never get out. There was a good doc on CI called 'When life means life' or something like that.

[InOne]

Ahhh found the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_tariffs

[Vicky.]

But high profile cases don't get let into the general population do they and don't really get the same benefits? I think it's something like 52 people who will never get out. There was a good doc on CI called 'When life means life' or something like that.

Not sure about benefits, but the sentences even in high profile cases seem to not be actual life. Look at that jon venables kid. Yeah he was a child when he did it, but he re-offended and was let out a second time.

Even in not high profile cases though, murder should mean life in prison to me :shrug:

[Vicky.]

From your link

The list does not include the likes of child killers Roy Whiting and Ian Huntley, who were not issued with a whole life tariff but were instead given minimum terms which are likely to last for most if not all of their remaining life.'Likely' to me is not good enough for murder. Especially for a child killer.

[InOne]

There would be mass uproar if those got out I'm sure. I was just pointing out though that everyone on that list would've probably been put to death if the death penalty was in the UK and that there's no chance they'd get out now they're finally locked up, so prison does do its job in that sense. I know there's the child killers bit but I imagine that's slim if none.

But I do agree that murder should mean definite life in most cases.

[the truth]

Its absolutely insane the amount of fight we put up against killing mass murderers or the energy and money and time we spent arguing for the rights of butterflies to live in green areas yet here we have 170,000 innocent babies murdered every year and no one in power gives a damn. anyone remember when nadine dorres tried to make a speech and ask a question on this in parliament but was shouted down and laughed and , and a sneering david camerons pitiful spineless response amidst the heckling was "oh I give up" yes you sure did cameron you gave up on hundreds of thousands of murdered babies.

[GypsyGoth]

Its absolutely insane the amount of fight we put up against killing mass murderers or the energy and money and time we spent arguing for the rights of butterflies to live in green areas yet here we have 170,000 innocent babies murdered every year and no one in power gives a damn. anyone remember when nadine dorres tried to make a speech and ask a question on this in parliament but was shouted down and laughed and , and a sneering david camerons pitiful spineless response amidst the heckling was "oh I give up" yes you sure did cameron you gave up on hundreds of thousands of murdered babies.

You probably kill millions of sperm every day, isn't that according to your logic potentially millions of half-babies?

[daniel-lewis-1985]

You probably kill millions of sperm every day, isn't that according to your logic potentially millions of half-babies?

Not really seeing as sperm don't morph into babies lol unless im totally dumb we are neither sperm nor egg just a chemical reaction created when they meet.

Did you think that before we were born we were sperm who lived in our fathers testicles?

[lostalex]

Does anyone here remember anything about being a baby? Babies have no intelligence. They are not people. Stop talking about them as if they are people. They aren't even self aware. Most animals have more intelligence than a baby. A fetus/baby doesn't know the difference between being alive or dead.

[Niamh.]

Up until fairly recently some NHS trusts would perform medical terminations later than the current legal limit for cleft lips which are completely treatable and other than a scar have no lasting effects.

That's horrendous

[Nedusa]

Does anyone here remember anything about being a baby? Babies have no intelligence. They are not people. Stop talking about them as if they are people. They aren't even self aware. Most animals have more intelligence than a baby. A fetus/baby doesn't know the difference between being alive or dead.

Very interesting point Alex, when do you think we become "self aware" 3yrs old , 4...or 5 or even older ?

Should toddlers be fair game for abortion or termination by that logic if the parents "change" their minds about wanting to bring them up ??

[user104658]

Very interesting point Alex, when do you think we become "self aware" 3yrs old , 4...or 5 or even older ?

Should toddlers be fair game for abortion or termination by that logic if the parents "change" their minds about wanting to bring them up ??

Well exactly - I'm not really sure why this would even matter. Unless we're going to start supporting the murder of unwanted babies now, too. In fact theres a pretty good case to be made for some ADULTS not being self aware.

...although, it does remind me of a South Park episode when Cartmans mum takes him (aged 7) to the abortion clinic and asks for an abortion. Heh.

[lostalex]

Very interesting point Alex, when do you think we become "self aware" 3yrs old , 4...or 5 or even older ?

Should toddlers be fair game for abortion or termination by that logic if the parents "change" their minds about wanting to bring them up ??

i think everyone should be sterilized. imho.

solve the problem once and for all.

[lostalex]

Where's cloning? we should reproduce by cloning already, do we have the technology to do that yet?

I don't want to have to have a HALF child, i want an exact replica of myself. This is the year 2014, were's cloning???

seriously though, why aren't we cloning yet? we had a cloned sheep in the 90's, then we haven't heard anything about it since.

[Kizzy]

Does anyone here remember anything about being a baby? Babies have no intelligence. They are not people. Stop talking about them as if they are people. They aren't even self aware. Most animals have more intelligence than a baby. A fetus/baby doesn't know the difference between being alive or dead.

I know some adults like that.

[Vicky.]

Does anyone here remember anything about being a baby? Babies have no intelligence. They are not people. Stop talking about them as if they are people. They aren't even self aware. Most animals have more intelligence than a baby. A fetus/baby doesn't know the difference between being alive or dead.

I dont know where to start with this post...

Most people dont remember anything from before being 2/3...should it be ok to just kill your child because of this?

People arent self aware when pissed..so is it ok to murder them aslong as they are bladdered at the time?

[Niamh.]

I dont know where to start with this post...

Most people dont remember anything from before being 2/3...should it be ok to just kill your child because of this?

People arent self aware when pissed..so is it ok to murder them aslong as they are bladdered at the time?

:laugh2: Of course

[lostalex]

I dont know where to start with this post...

Most people dont remember anything from before being 2/3...should it be ok to just kill your child because of this?

People arent self aware when pissed..so is it ok to murder them aslong as they are bladdered at the time?

i'm just saying, if i die when i'm so pissed that i don't know if i'm alive or dead, then yea, that sounds like a good way to die. Cause I won't be around to put any more thought into it. i won't even know any better, like a baby. i hope that's how i die.

I don't think y'all understand the concept of oblivion.

It's not cruel to take life away from something that's not even really living. If it doesn't even know that it's alive, then how can you take life away from it?

[Z]

i'm just saying, if i die when i'm so pissed that i don't know if i'm alive or dead, then yea, that sounds like a good way to die. Cause I won't be around to put any more thought into it. i won't even know any better, like a baby. i hope that's how i die.

I don't think y'all understand the concept of oblivion.

It's not cruel to take life away from something that's not even really living. If it doesn't even know that it's alive, then how can you take life away from it?

Good point - when someone's on life support, it's more or less a futile effort to keep their body working in the unlikely event that their brain wakes up at some indeterminate point down the line... if you turn it off, are they even going to be aware that they're dying?

[lostalex]

Good point - when someone's on life support, it's more or less a futile effort to keep their body working in the unlikely event that their brain wakes up at some indeterminate point down the line... if you turn it off, are they even going to be aware that they're dying?

you get it.

The vast majority of the universe is not self aware.

[Kizzy]

Am I living in an alternate universe?.. So the theory is if you can't fend for yourself you should just die?
The very old, the very young, the physically and or mentally incapable?.. where does it end? I guess with the extinction of the species.

[Z]

Well exactly - I'm not really sure why this would even matter. Unless we're going to start supporting the murder of unwanted babies now, too. In fact theres a pretty good case to be made for some ADULTS not being self aware.

...although, it does remind me of a South Park episode when Cartmans mum takes him (aged 7) to the abortion clinic and asks for an abortion. Heh.

God I love that program. Or the one where he's on a talk show telling everyone "my mom ****ed me right there in the Best Buy" (because she wouldn't buy him an iPad) and everyone's booing her :laugh3:

[Livia]

I know this is going to be controversial, but as it's women who get pregnant, who carry the child, give birth and in many cases care for that child alone, the decision should be left to the woman. Men can have a say, but the final word must be the woman's. There are so many unwanted and unloved children in this world, maybe people's efforts would be better spent in improving the lot of those children instead of blackmailing women into having a child they do not want.

[Z]

Am I living in an alternate universe?.. So the theory is if you can't fend for yourself you should just die?
The very old, the very young, the physically and or mentally incapable?.. where does it end? I guess with the extinction of the species.

The only certainty in life is death. :shrug: Everyone dies at some point. There are all sorts of moral and ethical debates about the right to life, so many that it's impossible to ever be 'right' or 'wrong' in my opinion. If someone's in a coma for years (e.g. Ariel Sharon) - are they really alive anymore?

[Z]

I know this is going to be controversial, but as it's women who get pregnant, who carry the child, give birth and in many cases care for that child alone, the decision should be left to the woman. Men can have a say, but the final word must be the woman's. There are so many unwanted and unloved children in this world, maybe people's efforts would be better spent in improving the lot of those children instead of blackmailing women into having a child they do not want.

No I completely agree with you. In the case of a couple in a relationship and the woman falling pregnant, I can see why it would be a joint decision - but it's the woman who has to go through with the pregnancy, it should always be her right to determine whether or not she carries that baby to term and raises it.

[lostalex]

I know this is going to be controversial, but as it's women who get pregnant, who carry the child, give birth and in many cases care for that child alone, the decision should be left to the woman. Men can have a say, but the final word must be the woman's. There are so many unwanted and unloved children in this world, maybe people's efforts would be better spent in improving the lot of those children instead of blackmailing women into having a child they do not want.

I don't think that's controversial at all. Most civilized countries agree.

\as a man, the less i have to hear about it the better.

I've got no problem with that at all. Your body, Your decision.

[the truth]

I know this is going to be controversial, but as it's women who get pregnant, who carry the child, give birth and in many cases care for that child alone, the decision should be left to the woman. Men can have a say, but the final word must be the woman's. There are so many unwanted and unloved children in this world, maybe people's efforts would be better spent in improving the lot of those children instead of blackmailing women into having a child they do not want.

No blackmailing but making it easier to have a child they may be concerned about supporting. clearly many women and men feel there is NOt a support structure or enough advice nor enough time given to would be parents who are struggling with the expected birth of a child. often financial pressures are the main concern. these can be aleviated over time but a dead baby can never come back. better to help save lives than save short term financial issues.

[Kizzy]

The only certainty in life is death. :shrug: Everyone dies at some point. There are all sorts of moral and ethical debates about the right to life, so many that it's impossible to ever be 'right' or 'wrong' in my opinion. If someone's in a coma for years (e.g. Ariel Sharon) - are they really alive anymore?

Yes but the debate here is whether it's right to kill someone before they've had a chance to live?
Of course everyone dies at some point.. you're just stating the obvious there.
People come out of comas.. the brain repairs as it's shut down that's what a coma is.
So yes, they are alive and in a state of stasis whilst the reconstruction of neural pathways occurs. There's always a chance that the body may be too aged or weak to be supported during this time and die anyway.

[Livia]

How about giving kids in care, kids in orphanages in desperately poor parts of the world, kids working at the age of five or six... kids who are written off as soon as they're born because they're not wanted by anyone. How about worrying about them instead of insisting women be encouraged to bring another unwanted, unloved child into the world because society thinks she should.

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Where's cloning? we should reproduce by cloning already, do we have the technology to do that yet?

I don't want to have to have a HALF child, i want an exact replica of myself. This is the year 2014, were's cloning???

seriously though, why aren't we cloning yet? we had a cloned sheep in the 90's, then we haven't heard anything about it since.

Because everyone would end up related and inbred. This post has to be a joke right?

[daniel-lewis-1985]

i'm just saying, if i die when i'm so pissed that i don't know if i'm alive or dead, then yea, that sounds like a good way to die. Cause I won't be around to put any more thought into it. i won't even know any better, like a baby. i hope that's how i die.

I don't think y'all understand the concept of oblivion.

It's not cruel to take life away from something that's not even really living. If it doesn't even know that it's alive, then how can you take life away from it?

If your heart is naturally beating and you can move and have brain activity that is the very definition of living.

Its not a state of mind its scientific fact that abortion is killing a living being.

[Kizzy]

How about giving kids in care, kids in orphanages in desperately poor parts of the world, kids working at the age of five or six... kids who are written off as soon as they're born because they're not wanted by anyone. How about worrying about them instead of insisting women be encouraged to bring another unwanted, unloved child into the world because society thinks she should.

How about we think of that 'as well as' and not 'instead of'?

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Good point - when someone's on life support, it's more or less a futile effort to keep their body working in the unlikely event that their brain wakes up at some indeterminate point down the line... if you turn it off, are they even going to be aware that they're dying?

But that's different, if a person is going to naturally die anyway turning off life support isn't murder as that person is not supposed to be alive anyway, they should and would be dead from whatever injury they have suffered.

[Kizzy]

But that's different, if a person is going to naturally die anyway turning off life support isn't murder as that person is not supposed to be alive anyway, they should and would be dead from whatever injury they have suffered.

In that case why bother with ambulances to pick up people from serious accicents?
By that logic that they can't survive without intervention why not just take them straight to the morgue?

[AnnieK]

How about giving kids in care, kids in orphanages in desperately poor parts of the world, kids working at the age of five or six... kids who are written off as soon as they're born because they're not wanted by anyone. How about worrying about them instead of insisting women be encouraged to bring another unwanted, unloved child into the world because society thinks she should.

Absolutely.....the care system in this country alone is at breaking point as it is with not enough potential foster parents or adopters so more unwanted children just means the older and more vulnerable get pushed further to the back of the queue.

[daniel-lewis-1985]

In that case why bother with ambulances to pick up people from serious accicents?
By that logic that they can't survive without intervention why not just take them straight to the morgue?

Im not saying that im saying its not murder to not treat someone who would die from their injuries, its natural that person would die so you cant compare it to murder can you.

[Niamh.]

Please don't post videos like that Daniel it's far too graphic

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Please don't post videos like that Daniel it's far too graphic

Oh fgs this is a serious debate and if people are going to have an open honest opinion why cant they see the reality of it.

Totally disagree with that being deleted.

Ok then what I will say for everyone who is saying that a baby at say 15 weeks is fine to abort because it is not alive go to youtube and see that procedure for yourselves.

Also the graphic pictures of slaughtered animals are still there for everyone to see in the animal ritual thread.

[Jesus.]

Oh fgs this is a serious debate and if people are going to have an open honest opinion why cant they see the reality of it.

Totally disagree with that being deleted.

Ok then what I will say for everyone who is saying that a baby at say 15 weeks is fine to abort because it is not alive go to youtube and see that procedure for yourselves.

I didn't see the video, however, I don't see any issues with gender realignment surgery either, but it doesn't mean I'd want to watch the before, during, and after.

[daniel-lewis-1985]

I didn't see the video, however, I don't see any issues with gender realignment surgery either, but it doesn't mean I'd want to watch the before, during, and after.

Fair enough.

[Livia]

How about posting some videos of chidren insitutionalised in dead-end orphanages, tied to cots, rocking back and forth, dirty, undernourished, neglected for days, where they end up with mental or physical illness as a direct result of the "care" they get? Even in this country, like Annie said, the "care" system is hardly exemplary of one of the richest countries in the world, where children born to women who don't want them or can't cope with them spend their whole lives without knowing what a family is. Is that not graphic enough? Is no one going to get all bent out of shape about that?

[AnnieK]

If abortion was made illegal once again - we will return to the backstreet abortions where babies were aborted using knitting needles, unsafe procedures etc, the rates of abandoned children will increase, the care system will crumble and infanticide will rise again etc etc. You are unable to get life insurance on children due to the fact that in times gone by when contraception was scarcer and abortion illegal large families couldn't cope and quite often "culled" by their own parents . Who wants a return to those times? I agree it is not a decision to be entered into lightly and as I have already said I personally believe the time limit should be decreased but it should still be an option.

[Z]

Yeah I went off on a tangent about life support, sorry guys :laugh: but I think the phrase "cruel to be kind" applies to turning off life support (I'm talking about cases where the person is more or less confirmed to be brain dead and if they ever woke up they would need to be cared for 24/7 for the rest of their life, not people who're in a coma with a good chance of waking up) just as it applies to many cases of abortion. My mum's friend was pregnant with her son around the same time my mum was pregnant with me. The boy was born heavily autistic and has needed care his entire life. Eventually, a couple of years ago, he moved into a flat with a carer checking in on him regularly - I don't know too much about it but I think his mum cares for him in the evenings and a woman comes in to look after him during the day while his mum goes to work. She has an elder daughter who is perfectly healthy and leads a normal life, and this heavily autistic son who can't cope by himself. It's a commitment to bring up a disabled child. I wouldn't dare suggest for a minute that she regrets that decision but I do know that her life is very, very hard and she gets no thanks or payment for it. I think, if presented with the knowledge that the foetus you're pregnant with is going to be heavily disabled and be unable to look after themselves, a lot of people would at least consider aborting the pregnancy. Cruel to be kind to the unborn child, cruel to be kind to yourself. I don't know if that's immoral or moral. But I do know that that's wholly different to the death penalty, it's a different set of ethical questions.

[daniel-lewis-1985]

The big difference in this argument is that the death penalty is for someone who has committed a very serious crime but abortion is killing a life that is totally innocent.

[Z]

And arguably the other big difference is that an unborn child isn't a life because it hasn't been born yet - people's definition of what constitutes "life" differs.

[user104658]

I didn't see the video, however, I don't see any issues with gender realignment surgery either, but it doesn't mean I'd want to watch the before, during, and after.

Do you see any issues with gender realignment surgery if the surgeon then hacks off the persons head with a scalpel? Otherwise, it's a crap allegory.

[user104658]

How about posting some videos of chidren insitutionalised in dead-end orphanages, tied to cots, rocking back and forth, dirty, undernourished, neglected for days, where they end up with mental or physical illness as a direct result of the "care" they get? Even in this country, like Annie said, the "care" system is hardly exemplary of one of the richest countries in the world, where children born to women who don't want them or can't cope with them spend their whole lives without knowing what a family is. Is that not graphic enough? Is no one going to get all bent out of shape about that?

Those homes are full of children who were removed from their families some time after birth. There is a high enough demand for NEWBORN adoptions to more than meet the abortion rate. Most newborns are adopted before they're even birthed.

[AnnieK]

Those homes are full of children who were removed from their families some time after birth. There is a high enough demand for NEWBORN adoptions to more than meet the abortion rate. Most newborns are adopted before they're even birthed.

But that just stops potential adopters from wanting the older children who are in desperate need of a loving family. What about the adopters who are desperate for babies adopt a slightly older child and give these kids a chance?

[Livia]

Those homes are full of children who were removed from their families some time after birth. There is a high enough demand for NEWBORN adoptions to more than meet the abortion rate. Most newborns are adopted before they're even birthed.

I don't know what the ratio of abortions to adoption demand is, but wouldn't it be sad to force women to go through a 9 month pregnancy and a birth to quench the demand for babies when there are so many older children wanting love and a family.

Within the time constraints laid down by law, it's a woman's choice and not one that many women take lightly I imagine. Like Annie says, make it illegal and you'll just reopen the backstreet abortionists.

[Jesus.]

Do you see any issues with gender realignment surgery if the surgeon then hacks off the persons head with a scalpel? Otherwise, it's a crap allegory.

Well no, it's a gruesome medical procedure that is important to the person it is performed on, but is ultimately none of my business. I wouldn't want to see someone have their penis turned into a vagina, in the same way I wouldn't want to see an abortion.

There are a ******load of things we're all hypocrites about - like meat. I couldn't live without meat, but I wouldn't want to watch everything I eat being killed.