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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh and this...

...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?"

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...

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...........

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

****** yeah.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/f7f530073...hrggo1_400.gif

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.

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.

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.

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

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/Abortio...t-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.

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/...52_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.

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/foru...8&postcount=75 . Quite graphic detail of what happens during an (early) abortion so don't read if squeamish or likely to get offended :/

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

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.

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

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.

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/miscarr...roduction.aspx

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

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...

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 most sexist posit in history

so how do you estimate when the baby will survive?

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

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.

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.

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.