[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

[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.

[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.

[Kizzy]

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

[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.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Zee

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.

[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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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...

[user104658]

Oh and this...

Originally Posted by Livia

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?"

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

[/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

[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...........

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

[Z]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

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.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by 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...........

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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.