[Angus]

Originally Posted by happyland

I disagree with abortion, but wouldn't judge anybody who had resorted to such an act if they had very good reason.

I do however think that being able to abort ababy at 24 weeks (or whatever it is) is awful and think the limit should be reduced significantly!

Absolutely! The upper limit should be reduced down to around 16 weeks ideally, but anything over 20 weeks is really not on, considering that by that time a woman has had ample time to make an informed decision. As I've said before, I would NEVER ever have considered an abortion for myself, whatever the circumstances, but I would not presume to inflict my beliefs and opinions on other women, whose lives and circumstances I know nothing about.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by angus58

Absolutely! The upper limit should be reduced down to around 16 weeks ideally, but anything over 20 weeks is really not on, considering that by that time a woman has had ample time to make an informed decision. As I've said before, I would NEVER ever have considered an abortion for myself, whatever the circumstances, but I would not presume to inflict my beliefs and opinions on other women, whose lives and circumstances I know nothing about.

But you just did. For a woman 21 weeks into gestation you would be inflicting your opinions and beliefs on them because of what you think should be the "upper limit". What if they want the baby and then 21 weeks into it they change their mind? If it was up to you, they wouldn't have the power to do it. So how is that not inflicting your opinions and beliefs on them?

And frankly I do think it is rather arrogant (and, again, playing god) when people pick and choose an arbitrary time when the right to life of the baby outweights the bodily rights of the woman (in your case, 16 weeks). As a mathematician interested in political issues, I spend a lot of time thinking about the small details of this issue and others. I do not believe I or anyone else has the right (or knowledge) to declare the moment when a clump of cells becomes a life, so I refuse to do it and I think everyone else should.

People here are telling me that abortion is not a black and white issue but I actually agree. The grey area is whether it is a human with a right to life or whether it is not. If it is not a life, the worst thing that will happen is the woman will lose 9 months of bodily freedom but she can adopt it immediately after. But if it is a life, it is murder of the innocent. So, which one is worse: the loss of 9 months of bodily freedom by a woman who knew exactly what may happen when she slept with that guy or the murder of the innocent? If there is any doubt, whatsoever, whether it is a life or not any civilized person ought to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is life. And so the "upper limit" ought to be 0 in any civilized country.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

But you just did. For a woman 21 weeks into gestation you would be inflicting your opinions and beliefs on them because of what you think should be the "upper limit". What if they want the baby and then 21 weeks into it they change their mind? If it was up to you, they wouldn't have the power to do it. So how is that not inflicting your opinions and beliefs on them?

And frankly I do think it is rather arrogant (and, again, playing god) when people pick and choose an arbitrary time when the right to life of the baby outweights the bodily rights of the woman (in your case, 16 weeks). As a mathematician interested in political issues, I spend a lot of time thinking about the small details of this issue and others. I do not believe I or anyone else has the right (or knowledge) to declare the moment when a clump of cells becomes a life, so I refuse to do it and I think everyone else should.

People here are telling me that abortion is not a black and white issue but I actually agree. The grey area is whether it is a human with a right to life or whether it is not. If it is not a life, the worst thing that will happen is the woman will lose 9 months of bodily freedom but she can adopt it immediately after. But if it is a life, it is murder of the innocent. So, which one is worse: the loss of 9 months of bodily freedom by a woman who knew exactly what may happen when she slept with that guy or the murder of the innocent? If there is any doubt, whatsoever, whether it is a life or not any civilized person ought to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is life. And so the "upper limit" ought to be 0 in any civilized country.

FGS get a grip man. You don't see the hypocrisy of what you are saying - banging on about the sanctity of human life, but quite adamant and dogmatic that a woman should be treated merely as a breeder and incubator for 9 months, regardless of the physical and mental trauma for HER, and then, according to you, blithely hand over the baby for adoption - talk about simplistic and naive. And you haven't addressed those cases where a woman was raped or a victim of sexual abuse, nor of those cases where the baby will be born to live a "nominal" life of pain or disability or deformity for example. How convenient.

I don't believe in your God my dear so I have not been brainwashed by the bible bashing, fire and brimstone brigade. You don't seem to see how rigidly bigoted and judgmental you are. Thankfully, you and those who think like you will never be able to impose your draconian views about abortion onto free women - we've moved on considerably since the Middle Ages.

As regards an upper limit - it is unrealistic and ridiculous to suggest there should not be a legally agreed one, and MY opinion is that, in an ideal world, it would be no more than 16 weeks. However, I can go along with a limit of 20 weeks, any later than that and a baby is potentially viable outside the womb. I do believe that that gives women more than enough time to make such a life changing and difficult decision. You seem to believe such decisions are easily arrived at when in fact they are the result of much heart searching and heartache, based on all sorts of circumstances and often good reasons. So who the hell are YOU to decide for strangers whose lives you know nothing about? Now THAT is arrogance on a breathtaking scale. You might well be a mathematician, but women are human beings, not statistics.

And once again, not all bloody women are dirty little sluts who go around shagging anything in sight with no thought for the consequences - much as you might like to believe that, being the misogynist your posts reveal you to be.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by angus58

FGS get a grip man. You don't see the hypocrisy of what you are saying - banging on about the sanctity of human life, but quite adamant and dogmatic that a woman should be treated merely as a breeder and incubator for 9 months, regardless of the physical and mental trauma for HER, and then, according to you, blithely hand over the baby for adoption - talk about simplistic and naive. And you haven't addressed those cases where a woman was raped or a victim of sexual abuse, nor of those cases where the baby will be born to live a "nominal" life of pain or disability or deformity for example. How convenient.

Talk about putting words in my mouth. Physical and mental trauma? It's a walk in the park compared to the physical and mental trauma that is put upon the thing that the abortion is done to. That is until it sometimes gets a hole drilled in its head and brains sucked, then I suppose it suffers no more physical and mental trauma.

Originally Posted by angus58

I don't believe in your God my dear so I have not been brainwashed by the bible bashing, fire and brimstone brigade. You don't seem to see how rigidly bigoted and judgmental you are. Thankfully, you and those who think like you will never be able to impose your draconian views about abortion onto free women - we've moved on considerably since the Middle Ages.

My position on abortion is not derived from religion. My position comes from logic and the fact that we come from a society that at least professes to value human life. I am, by far, more of a humanitarian than a religious person but the fact that you would write off anyone with an opinion starkly different to yours as a member of the "bible bashing, fire brimstone brigade" reveals how little you consider the possibility that you may be wrong. That being the case this will be my last post addressed to you in this topic.

Originally Posted by angus58

As regards an upper limit - it is unrealistic and ridiculous to suggest there should not be a legally agreed one, and MY opinion is that, in an ideal world, it would be no more than 16 weeks. However, I can go along with a limit of 20 weeks, any later than that and a baby is potentially viable outside the womb. I do believe that that gives women more than enough time to make such a life changing and difficult decision. You seem to believe such decisions are easily arrived at when in fact they are the result of much heart searching and heartache, based on all sorts of circumstances and often good reasons. So who the hell are YOU to decide for strangers whose lives you know nothing about? Now THAT is arrogance on a breathtaking scale. You might well be a mathematician, but women are human beings, not statistics.

I find it disturbing how you and others only think an abortion should be legal if there is no way it can live outside of the womb. Only when an abortion will not guarantee its death are you not in favor of it. You are a wonderful human being, angus.

Originally Posted by angus58

And once again, not all bloody women are dirty little sluts who go around shagging anything in sight with no thought for the consequences - much as you might like to believe that, being the misogynist your posts reveal you to be.

I'll take being called a "misogynist" by someone like you as a compliment.

[Tom.]

Originally Posted by angus58

Absolutely! The upper limit should be reduced down to around 16 weeks ideally, but anything over 20 weeks is really not on, considering that by that time a woman has had ample time to make an informed decision. As I've said before, I would NEVER ever have considered an abortion for myself, whatever the circumstances, but I would not presume to inflict my beliefs and opinions on other women, whose lives and circumstances I know nothing about.

If you're going to reduce it down to 16 weeks that immediately removes the choice for some people. My ex didn't find out she was pregnant until 5 months because she didnt show any signs at all, and there are plenty of other people that don't find out within the first 12-16 weeks. That removes the choice for them, or at least doesn't give them a good enough time frame to have a serious think. But I do agree it cannot remain at 24 weeks.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Tom.

If you're going to reduce it down to 16 weeks that immediately removes the choice for some people. My ex didn't find out she was pregnant until 5 months because she didnt show any signs at all, and there are plenty of other people that don't find out within the first 12-16 weeks. That removes the choice for them, or at least doesn't give them a good enough time frame to have a serious think. But I do agree it cannot remain at 24 weeks.

That's just my personal opinion in an ideal world - but I would go along with an upper limit of 20 weeks. Most women DO know they are pregnant within the first 2-3 months, that is just a fact, so your ex is one of a minority whose cyle is perhaps not regular or is erratic. There are always going to be exceptions to every rule. However, at the end of the day it is not down to me or any other individual to decide what is best, I'll leave that job to the experts. But I certainly don't think it's helpful to demonise and persecute any woman who, for often very good reasons, is unable to go through with a pregnancy.