Abortion debate

Yes it makes sense. Not sure though how much it adds to the problem.

I did know that there are some health risks with the general pill, and that's why some times other preventative means like the coil are used.

Yes prevention is always better than cure so the morning after pill should be promoted more with easy access, I’m afraid I know little about it other than snippets over the few years. So I have know idea of its effectiveness or indeed how easy it is to access, certainly sounds better than going through a termination.

As for reducing the time limit for abortion, if it were reduced by a say 4 weeks that would stop few terminations and I think they would be medical, that wouldn’t really be a step forward but I could live with that. I could actually live with giving women one choice and making it very plain a second termination would be out of the question. It would also be sensible to point out every method of birth control and make it compulsory she considered a method for the future, then pleading ignorance wouldn’t be a an excuse.

Yes it is nice posting again, turn my back for a minute and you’ve all gone, quite strange this new site but I’m here anyway.

I once watched a documentary on TV about abortion, I couldn't tell you which channel aired it or what the title of the programme was, except that it was about 15 years ago and has stuck with me forever. The footage showed 'later' abortions where the child was sucked out of the womb limb from limb. Needless to say, it left a lasting and negative impression that will haunt me for the rest of my days.

Charly wrote:We soon got used to it Irish, I'm sure you will too.
How did you find us? the link on RO went down after a few days I think and none of us knew how to contact you

Got an e-mail from Malcolm the other day but I had been on RO and the forum had gone, thought that was the end.

Do you think we would have survived without a forum?
This new forum was set up less than 24 hours after RO closed

What always strikes me with the arguments of those who approve of abortion is the constant referring to the "woman's right", well how about the child's right not to die?

I watched Question Time and was struck by the policitians thinking, in the main, that abortion is fine up until "viability", they thought the abortion limit should be an abritary point that medical sciecne decides is the point at which a child could survive outside the womb (sometime between 22-24 weeks they said). This again strikes me as a bizarre stance, there are a lot of babies born that cannot survive outside the womb without medical intervention/help, these children are not condemned to death, indeed thankfully every stone is turned in the desperate fight to save the lives of premature babies. Why then should a baby in his/her mother's womb be condemned to death just because they cannot survive wihtout their mother's help?

I really cannot get my head around a society that quite rightly treats people who kill babies with the severity such a heinous crime deserves and then says but you can kill the baby whilst s/he is at his/her most defenceless and vulnerable before they have left their mother's womb.

I realise what this really comes down to is the fact that I see a baby as a gift of life from conception, I can only assume that pro-abortionists do not otherwise they couldn't possibly take the stance they do.

Men don’t carry babies, they don’t have to go through pregnancy, what right has a man got to make that decision for a woman. What right has a man got to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to its limit?

We go back to telling women what they can and can’t do. When I hear views like yours I question what kind of respect you have for women, are they here to do your bidding, are they here to do mans bidding, are they here to be dominated by man?

Just because I don’t believe in abortion doesn’t give me the right to force a woman into having a baby she does not want.

When you start questioning my respect for women you show the paucity of your argument.

The question is: What right has anyone, man or woman, to kill a baby?

Journeaux wrote:The question is: What right has anyone, man or woman, to kill a baby?

A fundamental question, at the heart of the debate.

Is it the same question, with the same implications as: 'What right does anyone have to kill a human being?'

We live with the reality of the ongoing mass slaughter of war. Populations give that right to their leaders and nation states, to wage war, killing children and babies as well as adults. Is the slaughter of the unborn fundamentally different, or, morally, exactly the same thing?

Fundamentally the same thing, the taking of another human life. And yet also different because despite populations giving leaders/states the right to kill in war, those same populations regard the taking of human life outside of war as a heinous crime deserving of severe punishment. One may also observe that nation states tend to have some form of defence against those who seek to kill their populations whereas unborn babies have none.

No one has the right to kill a baby but a woman does have the right to terminate a pregnancy at the early stages of conception. She has one choice and that is her right, she can either do that under control safely or be left to fend for herslf.

As for respect, you want to force a woman to carry through with a pregnancy she really doesn't want, her body her decision. If the state decided to tell you what to do with your body, indeed have the snip after x amount of kids, you'd be up in arms on the sanctity of your body being interferred with by the powers that be.

Perhaps before we give rights to a pregnancy at conception we might want to think about the rights of children already born and how they are treated in this society of ours today. In the llight of history, long and short coming forward, they don't seem to have any rights at all even from those we expect it.

This is a life we will never agree with everything that's done in OUR name but sometimes the aternative is just as bad indeed if not worse. The alternative to this choice certainly in my eyes is just as bad if not worse.

Well said Irishman. And greetings to you. Glad to see you found us. We were'n't hiding from you - honest.

Haha, no I didn't think you were all hiding. Health problems mean I can't get on here as often as the past so if there's something serious going on in that way coming on the computer really is the last thing in my mind.

I do think that there should be no abortion but only on medical grounds. Though at the end of the day it is the female who has the right to choose and the ones who have to go through with it.

Irishman wrote:Haha, no I didn't think you were all hiding. Health problems mean I can't get on here as often as the past so if there's something serious going on in that way coming on the computer really is the last thing in my mind.

Bless you you old bugger - and I say that in the best 'possible' taste. Hope you keep as well as possible.

Atlas wrote:

Irishman wrote:Haha, no I didn't think you were all hiding. Health problems mean I can't get on here as often as the past so if there's something serious going on in that way coming on the computer really is the last thing in my mind.

Bless you you old bugger - and I say that in the best 'possible' taste. Hope you keep as well as possible.

The advanced Cambridge English course explains in the Welsh English language ‘bugger’ is used when one is really fond of something-someone.. Iechyd da!

During times in my work I've seen girls and women ground down to exhausture, sometimes to death, by yearly pregnancies, in order to produce the necessary son and heir expected by spouse and families. Unwanted girl babies and all the linked rejections are gut-wrenching experiences to observe. The gender issue can get worse: I find it obscene murder that pregnancies have been terminated by those who can afford the private costs when it's found that the unborn child's gender is not the 'desired' parental choice. It still happens.

Mojo Hill ---The advanced Cambridge English course explains in the Welsh English language ‘bugger’ is used when one is really fond of something-someone.. Iechyd da!

As all Lancastrian born Northerners do know -

Harley and Archie Garthwaite were born in the 23rd week of the pregnancy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2244705/Twins-born-17-WEEKS-prematurely-spend-months-hospital.html

Baby born a week before the legal abortion limit

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2350822/Baby-born-week-legal-abortion-limit-fights-brink-death-make-miracle-recovery.html

I don't think anyone is disputing that life can be a 'known' quantity at 23/24 weeks J. You may find that the argument for 'abortion' doesn't simply rest upon this fundamental and that many other factors are instrumental in determining when such 'limits' should be given under the 'law'.

Atlas wrote:I don't think anyone is disputing that life can be a 'known' quantity at 23/24 weeks J.

I beg to differ, Atlas, very many have and still do dispute this, hence my posting the link.

Of course there are many with differing opinions and you may well be correct. Personally I have never viewed the question of abortion along those lines. With me it's a much broader more pragmatic reasoning. The 'right to life' doesn't make much sense in the given situations and realities. One has to take the emotions/ beliefs out of the subject to be subjective. - - - But that is an entirely different question.