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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.