[Redway]

I know this discussion's been had to death on here already but what are people's thoughts on abortion in 2017? For or against?

[Niamh.]

Mainly pro choice but I think the limit should be lower than 24 weeks (unless it's a medical issue where the mothers life is in danger)

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Mainly pro choice but I think the limit should be lower than 24 weeks (unless it's a medical issue where the mothers life is in danger)

Me too

I'd also would put a limit on the amount.I know of someone who had five.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Me too

I'd also would put a limit on the amount.I know of someone who had five.

I wouldn't do that because then you would probably end up with kids being brought into the world to parents who don't look after them properly. I'm sure that doesn't happen too much

[Cal.]

I'm pro choice but considering a baby can be born at 24 weeks and survive it should be dropped significantly.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Cal.

I'm pro choice but considering a baby can be born at 24 weeks and survive it should be dropped significantly.

There are thousands of healthy babies born after 20/21 weeks

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by the truth

There are thousands of healthy babies born after 20/21 weeks

21 weeks 5 days is the earliest a baby has survived. This increases significantly as the days and weeks progress

Am pro-choice but think there should be access to better counselling services

[Vanessa]

Pro choice.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

21 weeks 5 days is the earliest a baby has survived. This increases significantly as the days and weeks progress

Am pro-choice but think there should be access to better counselling services

good points i agree massively about counselling etc

[Redway]

Originally Posted by the truth

good points i agree massively about counselling etc

I wouldn't have expected you of all people to argue sanely as far as women's rights are concerned. What's changed in the space of a week?

[DouglasS]

It should 100 percent be dropped, a baby can survive at 24 weeks old, It's essentially murder at the 24 weeks period. Although of course I'm pro-choice

[Kizzy]

Circumstances should be given consideration.

[Redway]

I'm of the school of thought that life begins at fertilisation no matter the stage of development but then I'm pro-choice as well. Left to me abortion wouldn't be a thing but I'm not dumb enough to think my stance holds water in a legal footing. I'm in full support in certain circumstances though (aka rape).

[Ashley.]

Pro-Choice.

[smudgie]

Pro choice, but would be happier if it was dropped to 20 weeks or under unless danger to the woman.

[Toy Soldier]

As little as 5 years ago I was heavily pro-life, however I have now swung completely the other way. I do think the limit should be slightly lower - maybe around 18 weeks unless there is a medical reason - however up until that point I am 100% pro-choice.

[Toy Soldier]

There doesn't just need to be better counselling though, there needs to be better financial support and less judgement for young and especially single parents.

What I find absolutely exasperating is that the same people who rant on about being "pro-life" and are horrified by the idea of abortion, are often the same people who would judge a young single mother, who chose not to abort a child, as "breeding for benefits" and advocate those benefits being slashed or removed completely.

Anyone who is adamantly pro-life has to then accept that we, as a society, have to be willing to support young parents and children who are unplanned and born at "inconvenient times". We have to be open and willing to see them properly supported financially, and also provided more practical support (free childcare and not just in school hours, free access to education and training programmes without benefits being at risk, MUCH higher levels of community engagement and support) - so that individuals, and families, can still build and enjoy their lives.

You can't just say "You MUST have that baby or it's murder, but no one is going to help you once it's here so tough **** ".

[TaylorCallum]

Militantly pro-choice, although I'm male so I guess it's not going to affect me as much as it would a woman.

[Rob!]

Pro choice and I don't understand the mindset of the alternitive if I'm honest.

[Tom4784]

Pro Choice, I often find that Pro Life is often a misnomer. A lot of hardcore pro lifers do not care about the life of children, they only care about foetuses which is why they seek to pass laws like this one, which has just recently been passed in Arkansas.

A new law passed in Arkansas means women must obtain permission from the man who impregnated them before they can have an abortion.

Even in the case of rape, women wishing to terminate a pregnancy would have to seek the opinion of their attacker or abusive partner – who would be able to refuse and potentially block the procedure.

The bill, which was signed into law in March and is set to come into force at the end of July, includes aborted foetuses in a rule stating family members must agree on what to do with the remains of their dead relatives.

Parents of girls under 18 will also be able to decide whether their daughter can have an abortion.

Pro-choice campaigners are fighting the law, which they say is designed to make it more difficult for women to access abortion, under the guise of legal requirements regarding the disposal of embryonic tissue.

A spokesperson for the NARAL advocacy group told the Huffington Post the "plain intention and unavoidable outcome" of the new law is "to make it harder for a woman to access basic health care by placing more barriers between a woman and her doctor”.


A legal challenge against the bill launched by civil and reproductive rights organisations will be heard on Thursday.

"Every day, women in Arkansas and across the United States struggle to get the care they need as lawmakers impose new ways to shut down clinics and make abortion unavailable," said the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in a blog post announcing its legal challenge.

"Arkansas women cannot afford to lose further access. They cannot afford to travel hundreds of miles to get to the nearest clinic. And they should not have to endure invasions of privacy and violations of their autonomy."


ACLU is among the groups aiming to freeze this bill and a number of other new abortion laws until a decision is made on their lawsuit.

This includes one signed by governor Asa Hutchinson in January prohibiting the most common abortion procedure used in the second trimester of a pregnancy.

The method known as dilation and evacuation is the safest method of ending a pregnancy, say pro-choice campaigners, but has been called “barbaric” by those who support the law.

Arkansas, a state in the southeastern region of the US with a population of nearly three million, has only four facilities that provide abortion.

Before having an abortion, women in Arkansas must have state-directed counselling and then wait 48 hours before the procedure is provided.

This counselling often includes information designed to discourage her from terminating the pregnancy, according to reproductive rights think tank the Guttmacher Institute.

Public funding is only available for abortion if the mother’s life is endangered, or in the case of rape or incest, and health plans offered for under the most basic Affordable Care Act only cover abortion in the same cases.

Donald Trump has stopped US funding for international organisations who provide abortions or even give advice about ending a pregnancy.

It's a barbaric law and one that solidifies my earlier point as Arksansas has over 20,000 homeless children, where are the pro lifers that pushed through this bill when it comes to the huge amounts of homeless children already on Arkansas' streets? Oh right, they're children not foetuses so these people don't give a ****.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Pro Choice, I often find that Pro Life is often a misnomer. A lot of hardcore pro lifers do not care about the life of children, they only care about foetuses which is why they seek to pass laws like this one, which has just recently been passed in Arkansas.



It's a barbaric law and one that solidifies my earlier point as Arksansas has over 20,000 homeless children, where are the pro lifers that pushed through this bill when it comes to the huge amounts of homeless children already on Arkansas' streets? Oh right, they're children not foetuses so these people don't give a ****.

That makes absolutely horrific reading.. parents being able to force under 18s to go through with pregnancies too..just awful.

I am prochoice. I would say that the limit should be lowered possibly, but I wouldn't really label myself as 'mixed' because of that tbh.

I do not understand how on earth we could police the 'someone I know had 5 abortions last year' stories either as forcing women to go through with pregnancies doesn't sit right with me, nor does forced sterilization. But using abortion as a contraceptive...whilst vanishingly rare, does exist as yes unfortunately, a few sick people are like that...is also really wrong.

As mentioned by others in the thread, I also find it rather weird that the most pro-life of people also tend to be vehemently against said children once born being supported. Its all well and good saying abortion should not be allowed except in cases of rape..its not a view I agree with but its a view I cqan understand, but I find it a little contradictory to then go on to accuse (for example) young mothers of 'breeding for benefits' and such. Unless the ultimate message is...females just should not have sex period unless purposely trying for a child? Which is a little bit of an old fashioned view but its the only thing that can make any sense whilst holding both positions simultaneously.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

That makes absolutely horrific reading.. parents being able to force under 18s to go through with pregnancies too..just awful.

I am prochoice. I would say that the limit should be lowered possibly, but I wouldn't really label myself as 'mixed' because of that tbh.

I do not understand how on earth we could police the 'someone I know had 5 abortions last year' stories either as forcing women to go through with pregnancies doesn't sit right with me, nor does forced sterilization. But using abortion as a contraceptive, whilst vanishingly rare, does exist as yes unfortunately , a few sick people are like that.

As mentioned by others in the thread, I also find it rather weird that the most pro-life of people also tend to be vehemently against said children once born being supported. Its all well and good saying abortion should not be allowed except in cases of rape..its not a view I agree with but its a view I cqan understand, but I find it a little contradictory to then go on to accuse (for example) young mothers of 'breeding for benefits' and such. Unless the ultimate message is...females just should not have sex period unless purposely trying for a child? Which is a little bit of an old fashioned view but its the only thing that can make any sense whilst holding both positions simultaneously.

great post Vicky. regarding the BIB, it's actually a view I find a bit odd tbh, I mean if you're against abortion because you genuinely think abortion is murder then why would it be ok to murder an innocent child if the mother was raped? The answer is you can't possibly believe it is murder if you think it's ok to do it in certain circumstances. Like for example, a mother gives birth to a child who was the product of rape, would it be ok to stab that baby through the heart? No of course not, I bet you won't find a single person who says it is so clearly even the anti abortion people who think it's ok to have an abortion if the victim is raped don't feel that these foetus' are the same as babies who have been born. So I have to wonder what does motivate those people to be so against abortion. Also, i do find it odd that it's mainly men who are the strongest apposers of abortion as well

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

great post Vicky. regarding the BIB, it's actually a view I find a bit odd tbh, I mean if you're against abortion because you genuinely think abortion is murder then why would it be ok to murder an innocent child if the mother was raped? The answer is you can't possibly believe it is murder if you think it's ok to do it in certain circumstances. Like for example, a mother gives birth to a child who was the product of rape, would it be ok to stab that baby through the heart? No of course not, I bet you won't find a single person who says it is so clearly even the anti abortion people who think it's ok to have an abortion if the victim is raped don't feel that these foetus' are the same as babies who have been born. So I have to wonder what does motivate those people to be so against abortion. Also, i do find it odd that it's mainly men who are the strongest apposers of abortion as well

Mmm yeah thats a good point.

I think a lot of people who say this only say it as they feel it will gain their POV a bit more support. As afterall...if they said that women who had been raped should be forced to go through with unwanted pregnancies then that does sound particularly disgusting. It isn't something I have ever thought that much about tbh but yes, it is a bit of a peculiar view to hold actually...

Something I have always wondered about those who believe 'life begins at fertilization' is...are they also really against the morning after pill? As that works by halting a pregnancy AFTER conception in many cases

It does seem like those with the strongest views on the rights of the fetus over the female are males. I am sure females with such strong views exist but they seem to be vastly outnumbered by males. Unless the men are just more vocal about it I guess...where women silently support it :S If biology was flipped, I wonder if these same males would support forcing other males to go through with pregnancies against their will. Or if its just because it will never happen to them...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Mmm yeah thats a good point.

I think a lot of people who say this only say it as they feel it will gain their POV a bit more support. As afterall...if they said that women who had been raped should be forced to go through with unwanted pregnancies then that does sound particularly disgusting. It isn't something I have ever thought that much about tbh but yes, it is a bit of a peculiar view to hold actually...

Something I have always wondered about those who believe 'life begins at fertilization' is...are they also really against the morning after pill? As that works by halting a pregnancy AFTER conception in many cases

It does seem like those with the strongest views on the rights of the fetus over the female are males. I am sure females with such strong views exist but they seem to be vastly outnumbered by males. Unless the men are just more vocal about it I guess...where women silently support it :S If biology was flipped, I wonder if these same males would support forcing other males to go through with pregnancies against their will. Or if its just because it will never happen to them...

I'm guessing it would be a no.........

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Pro Choice, I often find that Pro Life is often a misnomer. A lot of hardcore pro lifers do not care about the life of children, they only care about foetuses which is why they seek to pass laws like this one, which has just recently been passed in Arkansas.



It's a barbaric law and one that solidifies my earlier point as Arksansas has over 20,000 homeless children, where are the pro lifers that pushed through this bill when it comes to the huge amounts of homeless children already on Arkansas' streets? Oh right, they're children not foetuses so these people don't give a ****.

better that that 1 million terminated babies every 6 years..at least they get a chance to live.