[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

The huge majority of abortions are carried out before the 12 week mark. Only around 10% are done after 13 weeks. An abortion done after this time is more likely to be a case of the child having disabilities (which sometimes cannot be picked up on until your 20 week scan) or it turns out continuing with the pregnancy would cause health risks to the mother, or someone not finding out they were pregnant until very late. So to me, the argument on lowering the time limit...well its kinda self regulating anyway to begin with.


http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortio...t-be-done.aspx

It is quite upsetting though to think that a child born at 24 weeks has a ~40% chance of survival (with a lot of medical intervention..and would usually have severe disabilities as a result of such a premature birth though) whereas terminations can be carried out up until this time too.
I am pro-choice, however I detest those who have multiple abortions, as clearly they do not take it as seriously as it is. I also do not understand why people would continue to have abortions rather than use contraception in future...as abortions are extremely painful, both physically and mentally.

..I agree..

[Merry Mockmas]

Originally Posted by the truth

yes

but I wouldnt call a beautiful baby a consequence, would you?

This conversation was outlawed under labours politicallly correct radicalism. it must be discussed. also photos of terminated babies should be made public and shown to all mothers considering abortion

For me it would.

No I don't believe in abortion for no reason whatsoever and people that do that are a bit selfish imo.

[LemonJam]

Originally Posted by Redway

Either way, condoms are not 100% effective so there's always a chance that pregnancy could be on the cards.

Originally Posted by 08marsh

Yes. If you have sex you run the risk of making a baby. That's what sex is for. That's common sense.

Ross Gellar had the same problem. He didn't read the packet which told him condoms aren't 100% effective.

Then with all due respect I just find that opinion kind of funny.

Originally Posted by the truth

yes

but I wouldnt call a beautiful baby a consequence, would you?

well that wholly depends on the persons circumstances.

[Urban Cragou]

Originally Posted by LemonJam

Then with all due respect I just find that opinion kind of funny.

Well, that's fine and you don't have to agree with anything that's been said on this thread...

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LemonJam

Then with all due respect I just find that opinion kind of funny.

Would you like to elaborate? I can't see how it's funny?

We are essentially animals with reproductive organs intended to keep our species alive. It's a fact.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by nicole_burks

Most of the time those are called sluts, Claudia.

by prudes with a wonderfully dull life, and too much time invested in others'.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Shaun

by prudes with a wonderfully dull life, and too much time invested in others'.

[LemonJam]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

Would you like to elaborate? I can't see how it's funny?

We are essentially animals with reproductive organs intended to keep our species alive. It's a fact.

Do you not think of us as beyond animals though? I mean except for dolphins as far as I'm aware we're the only species that has sex for pleasure so why avoid it when we have the tools to prevent a consequence that one would not be ready for? I just couldn't imagine not having sex with someone out of fear of getting them pregnant.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be pre-cautious though, but I think depending on the circumstances (and not being a tit who gets abortions like their weekly scratchcard) people should be able to choose the path they wish to take and not have to 'bear the consequence' when it's their own bodies and lives and a potential future life in consideration.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LemonJam

Do you not think of us as beyond animals though? I mean except for dolphins as far as I'm aware we're the only species that has sex for pleasure so why avoid it when we have the tools to prevent a consequence that one would not be ready for? I just couldn't imagine not having sex with someone out of fear of getting them pregnant.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be pre-cautious though, but I think depending on the circumstances (and not being a tit who gets abortions like their weekly scratchcard) people should be able to choose the path they wish to take and not have to 'bear the consequence' when it's their own bodies and lives and a potential future life in consideration.

It's only society that added all the connotations to sex (making love, having fun etc).
Essentially, it is there for reproduction. If you do it, just be aware there is a chance a baby will come of it (just as sometimes there's a chance of contracting a disease).

Just like you may enjoy eating chocolate/junk food, you must therefore be prepared for the possible consequences of eating unhealthily.
IMO, it's all common sense and maturity.

I hope by "tools" you mean contraceptive methods? Yes, they are there but are not foolproof therefore you should still be aware of that risk. Which brings us back around to education. Especially when you hear people asking "Can you get pregnant up the bum?" "Can you get HIV from kissing?". It's all about being informed and knowing what you're getting into (literally).

If you are referring to abortion as a "tool to prevent consequences" then that is my main problem with abortion, that view is barbaric.

[Shaun]

I just... the whole issue frustrates me. Why do you care? It doesn't affect you. It makes me laugh whenever men try to act all moral about it. Grow a uterus, then see how you feel about a society telling you you must keep a baby after having sex.

I guess the whole personal connection makes me a bit hotheaded about the topic - my sister's had two pregnancy scares and I've discussed the possibility of abortion with her both times. Obviously I don't scream at her "ABORT! ABORT!" but I just remind her that she's not got a great career, she lives with her mother, she's only 19 and she has no life experience yet. It turned out in the end that both times she miscarried, but the idea of someone that young and that naive being a mother because some people would tell her she's got to live with her "mistakes" (I mean really, go throw a frisbee or something. Chill the **** out.) angers me.

and yes, marsh, your genitals are essentially there for reproduction. but then, your feet are essentially there for walking, and I see a hell of a lot of ballroom dancing on television and no one's complaining.

I agree with you though that sex education needs more time to develop in schools - it's still only really a recent phenomena, and there's still too much religion and abstinence taught with regard to it. It's no coincidence that the most open and blunt countries (Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark) have the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by nicole_burks

So you're okay with people sleeping around with a different person every night?

okay..

Yes. And I am really sick to death of this attitude that condemns people for leading active, healthy and despite the popular belief, safe sex lives. So what if someone wants to have sex every night with different people? They like sex, what's the problem? So long as they're doing it safely and not hurting people's feelings along the way by cheating what exactly is so bad? Sex is the reason we're all on this bloody planet, it makes the world go round.

This 'omg if you enjoy sex or have sex too much you're such a slut' is damaging to society. The reason we have so many problems regarding sexual health and underage sex is because of this close-minded, pre-historic, reserved attitude towards it. We need to be open, frank and liberal about it. There is nothing wrong with promiscuous behaviour, so long as it is safe, legal and is not hurting anyone. Where's this unwritten rule of the world that a person is so abhorrent if they lead an active sex life? There isn't one, it's an on-going, damaging stereotype that is causing more problems, not solving them.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Shaun

Grow a uterus

My, my, I am astounded by your very mature and concise argument.

In order to have an opinion or any knowledge on the matter I must have a uterus myself. Hmmm.... yeah.

Originally Posted by Shaun

and yes, marsh, your genitals are essentially there for reproduction. but then, your feet are essentially there for walking, and I see a hell of a lot of ballroom dancing on television and no one's complaining.

The fact you find that in the slightest but comparable tells me everything I need to know about how well you've thought that through. Since when did an appearance on Strictly Come Dancing lead to the very huge and life changing decision of bringing a human being into the world?

And you have some need to tell people to "chill out". We are all having a discussion, you are the one getting irate. Calm down and use your brain.

And if everyone took the stance of "It doesn't affect you therefore why do you care?" then the world would be in an even worse state than it already is. Not caring is what leads to problems.

[Merry Mockmas]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Yes. And I am really sick to death of this attitude that condemns people for leading active, healthy and despite the popular belief, safe sex lives. So what if someone wants to have sex every night with different people? They like sex, what's the problem? So long as they're doing it safely and not hurting people's feelings along the way by cheating what exactly is so bad? Sex is the reason we're all on this bloody planet, it makes the world go round.

This 'omg if you enjoy sex or have sex too much you're such a slut' is damaging to society. The reason we have so many problems regarding sexual health and underage sex is because of this close-minded, pre-historic, reserved attitude towards it. We need to be open, frank and liberal about it. There is nothing wrong with promiscuous behaviour, so long as it is safe, legal and is not hurting anyone. Where's this unwritten rule of the world that a person is so abhorrent if they lead an active sex life? There isn't one, it's an on-going, damaging stereotype that is causing more problems, not solving them.

You've said everything that I would have said Jack, a very good post.

[LemonJam]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

It's only society that added all the connotations to sex (making love, having fun etc).
Essentially, it is there for reproduction. If you do it, just be aware there is a chance a baby will come of it (just as sometimes there's a chance of contracting a disease).

True, but the thought that if something unplanned happens that they have to just deal with it is pretty damn harsh to me. I mean... I just can't comprehend the thought that fear should overcome an experience is joyful and healthy.

Just like you may enjoy eating chocolate/junk food, you must therefore be prepared for the possible consequences of eating unhealthily.
IMO, it's all common sense and maturity.

Yeah but there's a difference in gaining weight and having a baby :P

I hope by "tools" you mean contraceptive methods? Yes, they are there but are not foolproof therefore you should still be aware of that risk. Which brings us back around to education. Especially when you hear people asking "Can you get pregnant up the bum?" "Can you get HIV from kissing?". It's all about being informed and knowing what you're getting into (literally).

No I mean a clothes hanger. No but srsly in general people know how to approach sex in a safe manner. I don't know what it's like in the UK but the sex education programmes here were fairly regular and informative. Even those with... erm... less common sense know how to approach sex in a safe manner.

If you are referring to abortion as a "tool to prevent consequences" then that is my main problem with abortion, that view is barbaric.

I suck with words, but I can't really think of a nice way of putting it, probably because there isn't. I don't believe that in the case of something unplanned they should have somebody tell them "Nope, you're having the baby." In my eyes, I find the idea of that more barbaric.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LemonJam

True, but the thought that if something unplanned happens that they have to just deal with it is pretty damn harsh to me. I mean... I just can't comprehend the thought that fear should overcome an experience is joyful and healthy.

But it's your own choice to partake in sex. If you don't want a child then either don't have sex or use protection (especially multiple methods at once which can be very reliable). May sound harsh but it's true.

People need to take responsibility for what they do instead of being mollycoddled.

Originally Posted by LemonJam

Yeah but there's a difference in gaining weight and having a baby :P

Of course there is. But it has the same principle.
Dealing with the effects of what you yourself are doing with your body.
Don't complain about being fat if you're gonna keep eating, that kind of thing.

Originally Posted by LemonJam

No I mean a clothes hanger.

What I meant was, I hope you're not grouping abortion and contraception into the same bracket.

Originally Posted by LemonJam

No but srsly in general people know how to approach sex in a safe manner. I don't know what it's like in the UK but the sex education programmes here were fairly regular and informative. Even those with... erm... less common sense know how to approach sex in a safe manner.

Exactly. So if they're fully informed and aware of said risks then they should be fully prepared. If they don't want to keep the child or raise it then they can use the adoption system.

Originally Posted by LemonJam

I suck with words, but I can't really think of a nice way of putting it, probably because there isn't. I don't believe that in the case of something unplanned they should have somebody tell them "Nope, you're having the baby." In my eyes, I find the idea of that more barbaric.

I don't see why. Like I said, if they don't want a child or can't cope with one then there are adoption services. Killing an unborn child is barbaric.

Of course if someone is pregnant and it will seriously effect them in that their life would be put in danger then that is a necessary reason IMO.

[LemonJam]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

But it's your own choice to partake in sex. If you don't want a child then either don't have sex or use protection (especially multiple methods at once which can be very reliable). May sound harsh but it's true.

People need to take responsibility for what they do instead of being mollycoddled.

Use protection, of course, avoiding sex... well you know my thoughts on that already but I doubt I'm gonna change your mind. Dunno what else to say without repeating myself.

I don't see why. Like I said, if they don't want a child or can't cope with one then there are adoption services. Killing an unborn child is barbaric.

That then just depends on where you believe life really begins, whether it begins at conception or later, and I think that decision should be up to the person bearing the child.

[Marsh.]

Yes, we've reach an impasse.

Nice discussing with you anyway.

[Suze]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

I always think it's wrong. But there are certain drastic situations where I think it's an understandable decision to make.
People who use it as a contraceptive method make me sick.

But whichever way, the limit needs to be dropped.

Originally Posted by Redway

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. I understand drastic cases (such as rape) but I don't think there's one single baby who couldn't be put up for adoption if the mother didn't want it. There are plenty of people out there dying for a child and if the mother doesn't want it there are always possible alternatives.

I agree with you Redway, but I also don't think enough is done to help those going through the decision of whether to abort or not, as some have been known to regret the choice of abortion, understandable as they would have likely been under stress at the time and not always thinking straight. At least if they decide to have the child adopted, they know they have given it the chance of life.

[Niall]

I'm pro-choice. It's a women's perogative over what she wants to do with her body so to my mind it's a moral thing.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niall

I'm pro-choice. It's a women's perogative over what she wants to do with her body so to my mind it's a moral thing.

But it's not just about her body, it's about another body she has created with somebody else. Why should they not have a say or be part of the discussion?

[Niall]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

But it's not just about her body, it's about another body she has created with somebody else. Why should they not have a say or be part of the discussion?

Because that person isn't going to be carrying, and providing sustenance, and ultimately going through a ****load of pain for that child?

I get what you're saying, but it's a flimsy argument imo. The other person isn't going to have to go through everything the mother will do for 9 months. They'll just sit around in that time waiting for the baby to be born.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Shaun

I just... the whole issue frustrates me. Why do you care? It doesn't affect you. It makes me laugh whenever men try to act all moral about it. Grow a uterus, then see how you feel about a society telling you you must keep a baby after having sex.

I guess the whole personal connection makes me a bit hotheaded about the topic - my sister's had two pregnancy scares and I've discussed the possibility of abortion with her both times. Obviously I don't scream at her "ABORT! ABORT!" but I just remind her that she's not got a great career, she lives with her mother, she's only 19 and she has no life experience yet. It turned out in the end that both times she miscarried, but the idea of someone that young and that naive being a mother because some people would tell her she's got to live with her "mistakes" (I mean really, go throw a frisbee or something. Chill the **** out.) angers me.

and yes, marsh, your genitals are essentially there for reproduction. but then, your feet are essentially there for walking, and I see a hell of a lot of ballroom dancing on television and no one's complaining.

I agree with you though that sex education needs more time to develop in schools - it's still only really a recent phenomena, and there's still too much religion and abstinence taught with regard to it. It's no coincidence that the most open and blunt countries (Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark) have the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy.

If it comes down to a choice between angering you or killing a baby, then your anger is irrelevant. also why are you allowed an opinion on the topic and Im not? Men have every right to an opinion, especially the fathers of the child about to be murdered.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Niall

Because that person isn't going to be carrying, and providing sustenance, and ultimately going through a ****load of pain for that child?

I get what you're saying, but it's a flimsy argument imo. The other person isn't going to have to go through everything the mother will do for 9 months. They'll just sit around in that time waiting for the baby to be born.

everyone agrees if its a complex pregnancy then of course the womens health is 100% main priority. but now its become too black and white, the moral question is removed, the result is 191,000 abortions and in many cases women and men regretting this forever

what were really arguing over is 1) the lateness of some abortions,2)also the encouragement thats been in force for aborting babies, resulting in 191000 babies killed each year. 3)the lack of information and options being made available to these pregnant women and the fathers and extended families. Its become a political issue when it really should be a medical and moral one.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niall

Because that person isn't going to be carrying, and providing sustenance, and ultimately going through a ****load of pain for that child?

I get what you're saying, but it's a flimsy argument imo. The other person isn't going to have to go through everything the mother will do for 9 months. They'll just sit around in that time waiting for the baby to be born.

If the baby will cause medical/health complications for the mother then you're right.

But I don't think it's a flimsy argument at all. Regardless of the 9 months carrying, the baby is as much the father's as it is the mother's. It disgusts me that their feelings on the matter are ignored.

They just sit around waiting for the baby to be born? How ridiculous.
They don't have the chance to have their own baby inside them so they can't have a say in someone killing their own? Disgusting.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

If the baby will cause medical/health complications for the mother then you're right.

But I don't think it's a flimsy argument at all. Regardless of the 9 months carrying, the baby is as much the father's as it is the mother's. It disgusts me that their feelings on the matter are ignored.

They just sit around waiting for the baby to be born? How ridiculous.
They don't have the chance to have their own baby inside them so they can't have a say in someone killing their own? Disgusting.

100% agree, the unborn childs feelings are ignored and the fathers isnt even allowed to have an opinion in the killing of his own child? this situation is insane. a better far more intelligent, far deeper, far more caring compassionate balance must be found....the current mindless mass murder is driven by the ...Im a woman ill have as much sex as i like and kill as many babies in my womb as i like, maybe ill kill them with drugs, or booze, or abortions or maybe ill just do it as revenge? a balance should be found , this whole nightmare issue must be better regulated and families must be allowed far greater attention, options and information. ofcourse education must also improve. but it never does.