'If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted.'

It all depends on the individual situation of those involved ! doesn't it ?

I am with you on this, J.

I would presume that jeanie and charly accept that at the very least the situation of the unborn child should be taken into account too. It can't be right that children are killed because they have cleft pallet or are the wrong sex or are inconvenient.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100211959/dr-kermit-gosnell-truly-horrifying-allegations-of-the-murder-of-babies-that-the-us-media-are-playing-down/

Less than one per sent of the 250 000 abortions in Britain last year were carried out to save the life of the mother. Less than 5 per cent were held because doctors feared for her health. The vast majority are carried out because the babies are considered a commodity that can be returned to sender (as Pope Francis phrased it).

There are some, sadly more than some, where termination is a difficult decision. But we have ended up with abortion on demand in this country and human life has become something cheap and disposable to be washed away down the sluice.

I was born in 1965 and adopted. Were my chances of survival greater or less if I had been born post the 1967 abortion act? More likely I would have been killed even before I was born/

And does the child conceived as a result of rape have any right to life? Rape is wicked, evil. But does the killing of an innocent human being make it better?

If tests show, or rather suggest, that a baby will be disabled after birth, eg a cleft pallet, or a toe missing, or Downs Syndome. who has the right to decide to kill the child? The mother? (what about the father who hasn't even the right to be informed even if he is willing to bring up the child himself)

No think Stockman is wrong headed, his campaign has the wrong voice, but a society that does not see every abortion as a tragic failure is failed.

I'm not going to make any woman carry to term a child that is none of her own, but all credit if she has the courage to do so, the tragedy is that she has been put in the situation in the first place.

For both sides, before you judge, make sure you support and care for all the victims without condemnation.

Charly wrote:I wouldn't think it is an easy decision to make for the majority of women.
I dont think a girl/woman who has suffered sexual abuse or rape should be made to continue with a pregnancy.
I am all for the tests that are available to pregnant women to determine the health of the baby, my daughter is a nurse on a NICU and some babies are born so damaged or too early as to not have much chance of survival or any real quality of life, this not only affects the baby it affects the parents and siblings..in fact the whole family.
I also dont think its fair to bring a child into the world knowing that it will suffer.
I worked with special needs children for a number of years and have seen first hand the stress and constant hard work the families have to live with.

And what of the other 98% of babies who are killed merely for convenience, Charly?

Charly wrote:So you think 98% of babies are aborted for convenience? where is that figure from J?

Typo Charly, I meant to type 93%. The figure comes from Father Daly's post above.

Your answer to my question is?

johnb wrote: the tragedy is that she has been put in the situation in the first place.

An everyday tragedy. With the frightening expansion of the population of the world, all the issues around fertility, birth control and abortion have taken on a new aspect.

Abortion is a sad thing. With the larger scale problem of overpopulation that is looming on our planetary horizon, and how it can be coped with, we have to accept that without the tragedies of war, disease, abortion and the like, the overpopulation problem would have hit us some time ago, and the fight to provide basic resources would already be the main thing everyone is concerned with. Something of a conundrum.

Heywood PP is correct and well done for saying so. To kill a child because it does not fit the bill is selfish at the least and inhumane at the worst

Charly wrote:My answer to your question is...every situation is different and therefore the decision must lie with the mother with the doctors guidance.

And what of the baby and the baby's father, do they not come into your equation?

I am surprised, I would have thought it is first and foremost the baby's body and for a mother (or father) to want to kill that defenceless baby is to me completely unfathomable. As the initial post said: "If babies had guns there would be no abortion."

I do not believe in abortion, but in some cases may be needed. For example if a rape has taken place and the victim was made pregnant. Would she want the baby after an horrific event like rape.

Rape is so often used as a method of war. If a woman who has been raped has an abortion, any shame, blame or guilt must belong to the father.