Abortion- Right or Wrong

eveie

"a foetus does not value its own life nor does anyone else, so it's not wrong to kill it." quote on qwuote Piste
that is the most ridiclous statement i have ever ever heard in a discussion about abortion ever! eben pro-choce people would disagree with that
no one values a foetus????? reallly not even a parent who has been trying for yrs to get pregnant? you need to retract that statement

Nevyn

Hey evie you will find that the code you need for doing quotes is
[noparse]

postersnick wrote:

What they said

[/noparse]

Hope thats helpful, it may make the discussion easier to follow.

eveie

thats my exact point thaedyal how are we to know the correct numbers if this is the case? its more common then people are lead to believe. and you cannot deny that abortion clinics would not like the true figures to become public knowledge as they survive on women is crisis giving them money.
because every operation here is legal apart from any illegal abortion clinics there might be, sactistics are easier to gather in relation to women dying as a consquence to child birth

eveie

ok thanks thaedyal im a disater with computers

Malari

eveie wrote: »

"a foetus does not value its own life nor does anyone else, so it's not wrong to kill it." quote on qwuote Piste
that is the most ridiclous statement i have ever ever heard in a discussion about abortion ever! eben pro-choce people would disagree with that
no one values a foetus????? reallly not even a parent who has been trying for yrs to get pregnant? you need to retract that statement

Are we not talking about a foetus that is going to be aborted?? Why would a parent who has been trying to get pregnant for years come into the discussion of whether THAT foetus be aborted?? That doesn't make sense.

Nevyn

eveie wrote: »

thats my exact point thaedyal how are we to know the correct numbers if this is the case? its more common then people are lead to believe. and you cannot deny that abortion clinics would not like the true figures to become public knowledge as they survive on women is crisis giving them money.
because every operation here is legal apart from any illegal abortion clinics there might be, sactistics are easier to gather in relation to women dying as a consquence to child birth

I think you will find that in countries where it is legal they do keep good recoreds and women get the help they require which is as far as I am concerned another mark in favour of making it safe and legal here.

eveie

welli care about that feotus, i care about all human life, many people do, and dont give me the whole oh wel you should look after all the unwanted children......because that would be impossible considering there have been millions upon million of abortions

Zulu

Piste wrote: »

What choice? Why should the father get a choice?

Indeed, why should he! It's just that some people respect parenthood, and a father choice.

He has donated one cell, not even a proper sell, a crappy haploid cell, and the mother has donated one cell. Every subsequent cell in the foetus's body comes from nutrients in the woman's body. So I don't think the father should have any say.

I fail to see how a cell exchange can be used to negate the role of a father. However - clearly this makes sense to you and you are happy with this reasoning, so bully for you.

Before someone brings it up I also don't think a man should have to pay child support if he never sees his kids and never wanted kids.

Good for you. Although this is another point where we would disagree.

I suppose you'd "own" it as much as a tapeworm in your intestine.

Only it's not a tape worm it's a person. It's funny how people describe an unborn person as a "parasite". I challenge you to call a pregnant woman's unborn child (who has chosen to have a child) a parasite. Or a woman who's after successfully receiving IVF, call her unborn child a parasite and see how many friends you make.
Why do you get this reaction I wonder? Why do they take great offence? Because their child isn't a parasite. Their child is a person.

I think a woman should be able to remov her her services as an involuntary incubator,

Thats what contraception is for.

and if that results in the death of the foetus then I don't really care.

Clearly you don't care, otherwise you wouldn't have that cavalier attitude to human life.

I don't see a foetus's life as being particularly "special" if it not valued.

Interesting, is a humans life particularly "special" if it's not valued?

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

Are we not talking about a foetus that is going to be aborted?? Why would a parent who has been trying to get pregnant for years come into the discussion of whether THAT foetus be aborted?? That doesn't make sense.

The father is a parent that cared for it.

JC 2K3

Zulu wrote: »

It's funny how people describe an unborn person as a "parasite". I challenge you to call a pregnant woman's unborn child (who has chosen to have a child) a parasite. Or a woman who's after successfully receiving IVF, call her unborn child a parasite and see how many friends you make.
Why do you get this reaction I wonder? Why do they take great offence? Because their child isn't a parasite. Their child is a person.

Since when are pregnant women experts on the subject, and since when does someone being offended make them right?

Tell a religious person God doesn't exist and they'll take great offence. Doesn't mean they're right and God exists.

Anyway, I accept your challenge. If Piste ever gets pregnant I'll drop her a PM

eveie

there are many links and information in the thread in the ladies lounge on the subject of abortion, scientific agreement that conceprtion is the beginng if a new life, if anyone is interested in lookint at them

Nevyn

This is a seperate forum, different rules and terms of enguagement.
If you want those considered for the debate here then post them here.

JC 2K3

I think you'll find the scientific definition of life means little in the context of an ethical debate.

Malari

Zulu wrote: »

The father is a parent that cared for it.

I don't understand your point?

eveie

Re: ru 486 deaths, According to UN statistics Ireland is the safest place in the world to give birth, i.e. it has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world. Thus the pro-life laws cannot be said to endanger the lives of women.

re: abortion and depression/suicide: the 2 biggest and most comprehensive studies in this area both show a big increase in mental health problems due to abortion. The STAKES report (2004) in Finland showed women who had aboritons compared to women who havent are 6 times more likely to commit suicide. Prof. Ferguson's study (New Zealand, 2007) shows women who have aboritons are significantly more likely to suffer depression and abuse drugs. Both studies are longitudinal and took account of mitigating factors.

re: abortion/breast cancer link... no one can conclusively say at the moment that there either def is or def isnt a link--but its certainly false to claim there is no evidence to support a link... Janet Daling, M.D. "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship of Induced Abortion." Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2 November 1994. claims a substantial link exists even after one abortion.

re: is the embryo a human being...all textbooks on the science of embryology state so, it is a basic scientific fact, see Larsen, 'Human embryology' (1997) pp. 4-11. The question is whether human beings should have human rights? Yes according to International Human Rights, United Nations, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child:
Whereasthe child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth
www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

This is not a matter of goalposts changing btw, all of your reasons for claiming the embryo is potential human life and not a human being are scientifically false, the above article and any textbook on embryology shows why.

Jermoe le Jeune, who won a Noble Prize for his work on Down's Syndrome, says this on the issue:
'To accept the fact that, after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or of opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention. It is plain experimental evidence.

When we accept the science of the issue the ethics follows: human beings deserve human rights. But If you allow for abortion then you have emptied human rights of its meaning, it is a matter of science and logic. I appreciate that sometimes science tells us things we do not want to hear because it may upset our worldview, but we cannot be inconsistent just to appease our emotions

The term 'potential human being' has no scientific basis whatsoever, science does not investigate potentialities, only what actually physically exists. A skin cell is completely different from an embryo cos the embryo is the self-organising totality of a human being, whereas the skin cell is not.

there is a difference between adult stem-cells and embryo stem cells, the difference lies in that adult stem cells are pluripotent whereas embryo ones are totipotent, only an individual human being at the earliest stages of his/her life possesses totipotent stem cells. Why are we so quick to accept science on almost any other issue but this? Its because of a fear of responsibility and our duty to all human beings.


i apologies tgh eform of this post but i dont have time to edit so i just took it direct

xshazarx

Who is to judge? What about the likes of a rape victim or someone who knows they cannot support a child, they neither have the finance or emotional strength to cope, who is to say whether they are doing the right or wrong thing.

No doubt if the person did go ahead and get the abortion, her conscience would be the hardest obsticle.

Piste

eveie wrote: »

"a foetus does not value its own life nor does anyone else, so it's not wrong to kill it." quote on qwuote Piste
that is the most ridiclous statement i have ever ever heard in a discussion about abortion ever! eben pro-choce people would disagree with that
no one values a foetus????? reallly not even a parent who has been trying for yrs to get pregnant? you need to retract that statement

Clearly in the context of this debate I was talking about unwanted foetuses, I sincerely doubt that someone who was delighted to have a baby would willingly abort it.

Zulu wrote: »

Good for you. Although this is another point where we would disagree.
Only it's not a tape worm it's a person.

G'wan, show me where I said parasite? I only said it's like a tapeworm in terms of ownership.

Zulu wrote:

Thats what contraception is for.

No it's not! Contraception is to ensure that that situation never arises, it;s not to get you out of it!

Zulu wrote:

Interesting, is a humans life particularly "special" if it's not valued?

In my opinion, no

JC 2K3 wrote: »

, I accept your challenge. If Piste ever gets pregnant I'll drop her a PM

I'll expect knitted booties and adorable babygros actually.

seamus

Zulu wrote: »

Only it's not a tape worm it's a person. It's funny how people describe an unborn person as a "parasite". I challenge you to call a pregnant woman's unborn child (who has chosen to have a child) a parasite. Or a woman who's after successfully receiving IVF, call her unborn child a parasite and see how many friends you make.
Why do you get this reaction I wonder? Why do they take great offence? Because their child isn't a parasite. Their child is a person.

Actually, it's both.
Parasite:

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

A word having negative connotations doesn't make it untrue.

If I call you a primate, you'd probably be offended, even though it's a perfectly correct description for you (and I, and everyone else posting here).

eveie

financial limations is not a reason to kill a child,we are not talking about a mouse here we're talking about a human being, which could be your child, your brother/sister etc its not an intangible assest that you can dispose of just like that what about giving the child and giving it up for adoption????
ive just dealt with the rape issue

eveie

a unborn child is a human not a parasite, thats like saying someone whos disabled is a vegtable no there human. we'l follow your logic and therfore call all people up to the age of 18 parasites

eveie

oh btw sarah i have not once judges any women i am judging the procedure which she choose. i have no right to judge anyone but i have every right to openly discuss my opinion

carlybabe1

Who is to judge? What about the likes of a rape victim or someone who knows they cannot support a child, they neither have the finance or emotional strength to cope, who is to say whether they are doing the right or wrong thing.

No doubt if the person did go ahead and get the abortion, her conscience would be the hardest obsticle.

The most sensible post in this discussion.... And in some instances people who have used ivf do have to face having an abortion when the feotus is found to have either/or severe deformity/fatal disease be they genetic or otherwise. Ultimately imo women dont take a decision like this lightly, and if they do end up resorting to abortion then its with very good reason.

eveie

no reason is a good enough reason to end a persons life

Piste

eveie wrote: »

financial limations is not a reason to kill a child,we are not talking about a mouse here we're talking about a human being, which could be your child, your brother/sister etc its not an intangible assest that you can dispose of just like that what about giving the child and giving it up for adoption????
ive just dealt with the rape issue

Why is a foetus's life worth more than a mouse's?

eveie wrote: »

a unborn child is a human not a parasite, thats like saying someone whos disabled is a vegtable no there human. we'l follow your logic and therfore call all people up to the age of 18 parasites

An unborn child, according to Seamus's definition

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

could be accurately described as a parasite.

A disabled child is not a vegetable because it doesn't photosynthesise.

Someone under 18 is not a parasite because they don't like on or in another organism or feed from it. (well except in the case of breastfeeding)

Zulu

seamus wrote: »

Actually, it's both.
...
A word having negative connotations doesn't make it untrue.
...
If I call you a primate, you'd probably be offended, even though it's a perfectly correct description for you (and I, and everyone else posting here).

Do you want this to decend into a decussion on semantics? or keep it about abortion?

Zulu

Piste wrote: »

(well except in the case of breastfeeding)

and what of breastfeeding, do we consider newly born humans as parasites and happily condem them to death because they are inconvient? No.

This issue is unresolvable, because some people choose to believe that a person isn't a person until they are born.
While others believe that a person is a person regardless of their state of development.

seamus

You tried to claim that somehow an unborn child was outside of the sphere of being a "parasite". That's all we're going on about here.

Semantics is surprisingly relevant. The problem is that people invest emotion and cuddliness into the whole thing. The idea of being outraged at a parasite being called a parasite indicates that a person is incapable of rational discussion.

Piste

Zulu wrote: »

and what of breastfeeding, do we consider newly born humans as parasites and happily condem them to death because they are inconvient? No.

This issue is unresolvable, because some people choose to believe that a person isn't a person until they are born.
While others believe that a person is a person regardless of their state of development.

Nope, newborns aren't parasites because they don't live or grow on or in their hosts.

I agree that it's an unresolvable issue because it comes down to different people's belief's though. Life is such a philisophical notion thattrying to argue it with science doesn't really work.

carlybabe1

"no reason is a good enough reason to end a persons life"

only someone how has never faced a decision like that (or had someone close have to contemplate it) could make a statement like that. The inability to imagine yourself in someone elses very difficult place only leads to narrowmindedness, which is something we could all do without.

ChocolateSauce

I'm not going to say whether it is right or wrong, but since this obviously is never going to be agreed upon, the only moral thing to do is to let people decide for themselves.

Anti-choice is wrong, as it forces one person's religion down anothers' throat.

CDfm

i have a feminist vegetarian anti-vivesection friend who is pro abortion

therein lies the dilemma its pickn'mix morality of the right to choose brigade because a baby would not fit in with her lifestyle? women rely on mens financial support but when the choice is abortion - its my choice - when its birth - its ours.

for me its a human and a baby and viable thats my feeling not a religous belief just a feeling. the moral question is akin to euthenasia or assisted suicide. Lets put that to one side.

so is abortion a lifestyle choice? if a woman has a universal right to choose over the rights of the sperm donor/father then the foetus is a chattel and the mother should be financially responsible for the child. Its a natural extention of the right to choose. No ifs and no buts.With rights come responsiblities

as i see it. modern society is a big mess based on this and the welfare system. If unmarried mothers are on the lowest strata of society and cant provide then tough. Remove state aid. Let them marry old fellas to provide them homes etc in return for whatever.

Theres a lot of bull**** talk but no unified thinking by womens groups and I for one am pro- women and say give women the rights they want and give them the responsibility.

jim o doom

Just to contribute (I signed up to add to this )

point one; Regardless whether or not abortion should or shouldn't be legal, it will still occur, legalising makes it safer, and removes the necessity of those who wish/need to have abortions to travel to a country where it is legal.

point two; In NY in the 80's the crime rate lowered when abortion was legalised, I am not going to go into the smaller details because its another argument, its just a fact heres a wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

In relation to the point made by eveie relating to the fact that the unborn child is a human prior to birth, I must wonder "so what?" if its life or the life of its parents are going to suffer because of its birth, terminate. I personally am adopted and love the argument; If my parents had an abortion then I wouldnt be alive (back to me thinking so what, even in my own case - don't get me wrong I love living but I wouldnt care if I didnt exist).

The fact is me an my fiancee never want children, and we use contraception to prevent it happening, but if the contraception failed, we both agree that abortion is the best way. In fact my fiancee went so far as to say "A child? You cant even look after yourself! and god I don't want a fanny the size of a bucket, or a big scar from a caesarian!!" and to be honest, I agree with her!

And just because we are smart enough to use contraception doesn't mean that everyone is. A lot of people have underage sex, and do not understand the consequences of what they do. If an underage person is forced to have a child its like a life sentence of problems, it would be like sentencing a child to life as a criminal for stealing when they didnt truly understand those consequences.
The same goes for people who are inebriated. Maybe they shouldn't get drunk and do foolish things, but they do because they are people, and people are not perfect. Should they have to suffer because of a drunken mistake?
Really there are enough people ruining the planet as it is, as far as I'm concerned people should have to be applying to not have an abortion..

jim o doom

I might just be being cynical here, but is anyone here who's either pro choice or pro life willing to state whether or not they are religious?
I don't really care what religion, just a general question! #

personally I'm one of those agnost types - but whilst believing there may or may not be a god, as far as Im' concerned every religion going is about as wrong as you could possibly be.

carlybabe1

"Theres a lot of bull**** talk but no unified thinking by womens groups and I for one am pro- women and say give women the rights they want and give them the responsibility. "

let me guess, your're a bloke right? I'm sure we're all charmed that you're "pro-women". Your last post makes a very good argument for the whole "men shouldn't get a voice" brigadde which i dont happen to agree with..... And if you want to go off topic with the whole welfare thing what about the thousands of sperm donors that were quite happy to be fathers until the relationship broke down and now don't want to support their offspring either emotionally/as a role model/financially???? there's more out there than you would think.....any of this sound familiar by any chance????? :pac:


And Jim, I'm not religious at all believing yhe same as yourself, I'm definitley pro choice...........and not anti-man

Nevyn

jim o doom wrote: »

I might just be being cynical here, but is anyone here who's either pro choice or pro life willing to state whether or not they are religious?
I don't really care what religion, just a general question! #

personally I'm one of those agnost types - but whilst believing there may or may not be a god, as far as Im' concerned every religion going is about as wrong as you could possibly be.

I am prochoice but would like to see the numbers of abortions decrease and yes I am religious.

CDfm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

"Theres a lot of bull**** talk but no unified thinking by womens groups and I for one am pro- women and say give women the rights they want and give them the responsibility. "

let me guess, your're a bloke right? I'm sure we're all charmed that you're "pro-women". Your last post makes a very good argument for the whole "men shouldn't get a voice" brigadde which i dont happen to agree with..... And if you want to go off topic with the whole welfare thing what about the thousands of sperm donors that were quite happy to be fathers until the relationship broke down and now don't want to support their offspring either emotionally/as a role model/financially???? there's more out there than you would think.....any of this sound familiar by any chance????? :pac:

i am a happily divorced bloke and i do support my kids so im not a dole model. I dont have a problem with it.

but should abortion/parenthood be a carefree option - its very easy take on the rights -bear the responsibility and if you dont like it tough.

my intention in posting was just to state things as i see them - but I also do think the model of woman as victim of patriarchal society is overblown and is a myth.my male ancestors didnt have the vote until 18?? or whenever. So what and as far as I know there are no Egyptian pharoes there either.

Im sticking to my guns here off topic - maybe - but as I see it rewrite the constitution as a Bill of Rights and responsibilities - argue about it for 6 or 12 months - vote on it. Everyone would know where they stand men women and off we go. Clean slate and all that.

CDfm

jim o doom wrote: »

I might just be being cynical here, but is anyone here who's either pro choice or pro life willing to state whether or not they are religious?
I don't really care what religion, just a general question! #

personally I'm one of those agnost types - but whilst believing there may or may not be a god, as far as Im' concerned every religion going is about as wrong as you could possibly be.

im anti abortion as a contraception and a little bit religous but my views are not relgion based.mothers rights I also agree with. im thick so i cant grasp this arbitrary concept of when life exists 16 20 or 24 weeks and i ll probably never understand it.

to kill or not to kill that is the question

carlybabe1

my intention in posting was just to state things as i see them - but I also do think the model of woman as victim of patriarchal society is overblown and is a myth.my male ancestors didnt have the vote until 18?? or whenever. So what and as far as I know there are no Egyptian pharoes there either.
Im sticking to my guns here off topic - maybe - but as I see it rewrite the constitution as a Bill of Rights and responsibilities - argue about it for 6 or 12 months - vote on it. Everyone would know where they stand men women and off we go. Clean slate and all that


You're well off topic here, what has votes or whe ye got them have anythin to do with this????? And correct me if I'm wrong but I dont believe anythin in this thread even suggests that women are a victim of anything patriarchal..... And who in they're right mind would even assume that something as serious as abortion is used as a contraceptive?????
ans ok you say you're not a dole model, I wasn't refering to blokes on the dole not supporting thier kids, I was refering to blokes who have a wage and just plain dont want to know........ Heres somethin for ye to ask yourself, how often do ye take your kids over night???? Is the financial support your payin realistic or are your kids goin without stuff that they would have if you were still together????? does your ex work, and if she does do you hand over anythin for daycare costs, or does she have to work around the kids????? Or can she afford to work at all i.e. would she be workin to pay the childminder????? Heres a question I'd love you to answer honestly did you even consider the whole work situation before I asked the question???? Or is it just a situation where you assumed that she ought to stay home and mind them, it bein her choice to have them an all that, and you had little to do with it????
are ye feeling a bit bitter???

gcgirl

jim o doom wrote: »

I might just be being cynical here, but is anyone here who's either pro choice or pro life willing to state whether or not they are religious?
I don't really care what religion, just a general question! #

personally I'm one of those agnost types - but whilst believing there may or may not be a god, as far as Im' concerned every religion going is about as wrong as you could possibly be.

I am Pro Choice I am a very laspe Catholic prob verging on COI! I would not my self have a termination but i do think Women should have a choice(it is their life no matter what anyone thinks) i think Ireland should tackle this instead of exporting this problem to England all the time!

KnifeWRENCH

I am pro-choice. I don't believe that aborting a cluster of cells is equivalent to taking away a human life. And I don't believe that women should be forced to have an unwanted child.

I do not agree with using it as a form of contraception, but I would still respect the right to choice.

Earthhorse

theozster wrote: »

I'm not going to say whether it is right or wrong, but since this obviously is never going to be agreed upon, the only moral thing to do is to let people decide for themselves.

Anti-choice is wrong, as it forces one person's religion down anothers' throat.

That's nonsense. We don't just legalise things because people disagree about whether something's right or wrong. By that logic everything would be legal.

jim o doom wrote: »

point one; Regardless whether or not abortion should or shouldn't be legal, it will still occur, legalising makes it safer, and removes the necessity of those who wish/need to have abortions to travel to a country where it is legal.

Again, by this logic we should make everything legal which is legal in other countries. This is, of course, impossible and a bad way to go about making law.

jim o doom wrote: »

point two; In NY in the 80's the crime rate lowered when abortion was legalised, I am not going to go into the smaller details because its another argument, its just a fact heres a wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

Yeah, it is a fact, but it is not a fact that legalising abortion caused the crime rate to drop. Furthermore, economics as a science, has poor predictive ability. Even if legalising abortion directly reduced crime rates in New York it does not mean it will do so anywhere else.

Finally, a reduction in crime rate is not a good reason to legalise something we consider immoral.

jim o doom wrote: »

In relation to the point made by eveie relating to the fact that the unborn child is a human prior to birth, I must wonder "so what?" if its life or the life of its parents are going to suffer because of its birth, terminate.

This is a rather glib and rather redundant argument. Redundant because all life involves suffering and glib in its attitude toward the implications of treating humans in this manner.

jim o doom wrote: »

And just because we are smart enough to use contraception doesn't mean that everyone is. A lot of people have underage sex, and do not understand the consequences of what they do. If an underage person is forced to have a child its like a life sentence of problems, it would be like sentencing a child to life as a criminal for stealing when they didnt truly understand those consequences.

Yeah, well maybe we should introduce proper sex education in the state and stop glorifying casual sex and reckless behaviour in our culture but hey, what do I know, that's just too crazy, right?

jim o doom wrote: »

The same goes for people who are inebriated. Maybe they shouldn't get drunk and do foolish things, but they do because they are people, and people are not perfect. Should they have to suffer because of a drunken mistake?

People are not perfect and make mistakes so they shouldn't have to suffer? You think every religion going has got it wrong but they got it more right than you.

jim o doom wrote: »

Really there are enough people ruining the planet as it is, as far as I'm concerned people should have to be applying to not have an abortion.

Ah, so you are, in fact, for reproductive rights being handed over to the state?

jim o doom wrote: »

I might just be being cynical here, but is anyone here who's either pro choice or pro life willing to state whether or not they are religious?
I don't really care what religion, just a general question!

If you don't care, why are you asking? I'm atheist, for the record, though I was raised a Roman Catholic.

Piste

I get the feeling that many posters on the thread seem to think pro-choice means anti-contraception.

KnifeWRENCH

jim o doom wrote: »

I might just be being cynical here, but is anyone here who's either pro choice or pro life willing to state whether or not they are religious?
I don't really care what religion, just a general question! #

personally I'm one of those agnost types - but whilst believing there may or may not be a god, as far as Im' concerned every religion going is about as wrong as you could possibly be.

Pro-choice and semi-religious. I was raised Catholic but have been distancing myself from the Church because I disagree with too many of their views - their stance on abortion being one of the reasons why I do not see myself as truly Catholic anymore.
I'm not an athiest and do believe in a higher power and an afterlife. I don't really know what to label myself as. Anyway, point is I do not see abortion as being a sin.

gcgirl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Choice

this what it mean to be pro choice !

Earthhorse

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am prochoice but would like to see the numbers of abortions decrease and yes I am religious.

It's a nice sentiment but legalising abortion will lead to an increase in the number of abortions.

gcgirl

Earthhorse wrote: »

It's a nice sentiment but legalising abortion will lead to an increase in the number of abortions.

But they said that about divorce !!

If we had a better sex education system than what we have now and personally i don't think it has changed since i left school all those moons ago we would be going in the right direction!

Earthhorse

gcgirl wrote: »

But they said that about divorce !!

Yeah, but it's impossible to get a divorce by going abroad.

gcgirl wrote: »

If we had a better sex education system than what we have now and personally i don't think it has changed since i left school all those moons ago we would be going in the right direction!

We can do that without legalising abortion.

carlybabe1

It's a nice sentiment but legalising abortion will lead to an increase in the number of abortions

no it wouldn't, it would truly portray the real numbers of women in this country that have/may have abortions in the future.

gcgirl

Earthhorse wrote: »

Yeah, but it's impossible to get a divorce by going abroad.



We can do that without legalising abortion.

Some people i know have got divorces in other counties, one in the uk and the other in the us both were married in Ireland(but not to one another i should point out!!)

The sex ed is just so bloody backward here so much so to do with the churches influence Still in schools !!


I am going on about sex ed as a way of reducing unwanted pregnacys though being properly informed of contraception

Earthhorse

carlybabe1 wrote: »

no it wouldn't, it would truly portray the real numbers of women in this country that have/may have abortions in the future.

That will be an increase as there are currently women who do not get abortions because they can't afford to go abroad for a safe one and do not wish to endanger their health by having an unsafe one.