[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

The title and the OP don't tally up.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

The title and the OP don't tally up.

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

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by 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.

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Of course - there are even worse, outdated methods...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.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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/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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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:




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.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by 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

That was my line of thinking,Niamh