What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

ebmma

ntlbell wrote: »

so you think it's ok to have a convenently average time when we end a life?

do you know the differences between the 23rd and 24th week?

if you're unhappy at 24 why are you happy with 23?

I am personally not happy with it. In my opinion if a woman waited that long she probably doesn't really want an abortion (that is of course if she is not pressured by partner/family/friends/church).
Being pregnant in not very good circumstances can be pretty overwhelming.

However, I also realise that even though I think abortion shouldn't happen quite that late, there might be circumstances when it might be necessary.

e.g. woman wanted to terminate all along but was pressured into not doing it.

or woman finds out her future child will have a serious and potentially life threatening birth defect.

You see, unlike you, I realise that there might be different circumstances and people are not all like me.

Climate Expert

CathyMoran wrote: »

Argh, and why the term foetus, why cant we call it what it is - a baby?

Why not just call it an adult human then if we're allowed such a moveable lexicon.

ebmma

The Corinthian wrote: »

The right to drink is not exactly on a par with the right to life, and as such I'd question that you can apply the same logic in both cases.

No it is not.
It was an example for picking a number.

Laws need to be well defined, they can't exactly say "well, it should be A, but it maybe B or C it is kind of complicated".

Number of weeks needed to be picked, I'm sure there were reasons and a committee of qualified people formed, they didn't just flip for it.

Not saying it's perfect, just that's how it works.

ebmma

CathyMoran wrote: »

Argh, and why the term foetus, why cant we call it what it is - a baby?

Because it is not. Not yet. It has a potential to become one.

nacho libre

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not sure if it is as black and white no matter the circumstances.

well, i'm not saying it is, just that this seems to be of the view of some people. my personal view on the matter is the same as you've outlined, that there are circumstances where it's morally justifiable to kill another person. i realise to many viewing this thread they don't view the unborn as a 'person'. so they'll disagree with the use of that word in this discussion.

tallaght01

Thewhole 23 week cut off was used because doctors wouldn't try and resuscitate a baby below that, so the foetus was thought to be unviable.

But there have been 22weekers saved now, so that might bring the cut off down.

Most doctors wouldn't perform an abortion even at 22 weeks anyway

CathyMoran

ebmma wrote: »

Because it is not. Not yet. It has a potential to become one.

It was always a baby to us. Calling it anything less is just people trying to get away from what they are really doing when they have an abortion.

ebmma

CathyMoran wrote: »

It was always a baby TO US. Calling it anything less is just people trying to get away from what they are really doing when they have an abortion.

No. You see, you wanted a baby. That makes all the difference. If you want a baby, you 'have' it all the way through pregnancy and until birth.
So if something happens, you lost a baby.

If you don't want a baby it is different. You do not have that sense of loss. Because it was never a potential child to you, but an unwanted pregnancy.

I don't know if I made myself clear, but I tried.

--
So somebody calling your unborn baby a foetus would be insensitive and wrong.

But it is not the case for everyone

CathyMoran

ebmma wrote: »

No. You see, you wanted a baby. That makes all the difference. If you want a baby, you 'have' it all the way through pregnancy and until birth.
So if something happens, you lost a baby.

If you don't want a baby it is different. You do not have that sense of loss. Because it was never a potential child to you, but an unwanted pregnancy.

I don't know if I made myself clear, but I tried.

What difference does wanting and not wanting a baby make to weather a baby is a baby or not?

thebman

CathyMoran wrote: »

What difference does wanting and not wanting a baby make to weather a baby is a baby or not?

A psychological difference for the potential mother, a very significant one at that.

Phototoxin

So I take it women consent to being raped and contraception never fails. Pretty black and white attitude you have there mate

hence why I said about being mature enough to have sex and living with the responsibilites of their actions. In addition, as I said,

despite the horrific circumstances surrounding it. But all aborting it would do is kill the baby so now two people's rights have been violated.

Axel you're just spouting pro-choice/abortion arguments that have been heard and refuted 100s of times.

Would you honestly have a rape victim jailed just because she couldn't bear to carry her attacker's child?

is it not 1/2 of her Karotype ?

I know it's not the baby's fault, but it's not the mother's either. She didn't give consent to have the child, to carry it and give birth to it. Why should she have to go through that, effectively ruining her life, just because some sicko raped her? In my mind, that's like punishing her for his crime.

I know it's not the baby's fault, but it's not the mother's either. She didn't give consent to have the child, to carry it and give birth to it. Why should thebaby have to go through that, effectively ruining thebaby's life, just because some sicko raped her? In my mind, that's like punishing thebaby for his crime.

I agree with 24 weeks threshold for terminations.

So exactly 15415200 seconds from conception the fetus magically becomes a full human ? Care to explain?

Its niave people that assume that many people who have abortions do so as a method of birth control. (not saying that you assume this)
Abortion is necessary for some people, and when its the right choice then there is no regrets

Well if its not birth control what is it then ? They are eliminating the birth of the child, ergo birthcontrol.

Abortion is rarely necessary, directly it would rarely be so. Lots of people do things which are wrong with no regrets, lack of regrets does not make it right.

Branding people murderers and comparing abortion to shooting someone is nonsensical.

if you belive that the fetus is a full human being then it is a logical step to compare it to murder. Calling them murders and shunning them is not exactly a good thing either though.

The pregnancy could be seen as a continuation of the rape which ruins her life.

Pregnacy is not a disease, likening it to rape is disguting.

The circumstances are of Paramount importance and of even more importance is your COMPASSION, for these people as that will dictate how you treat them. If you have "branded" these ladies are murder's and uncaring monsters flushing foetus then it's rather hard to feel compassion for them, but these are people and cannot all be filed away under a common blanket as every woman and every circumstance is different and you are shutting the door to help and options blindly to them all.

Sadly your view is the law of this country, I would argue that if we had more compassion for people it might not be.

Thankfully the state sees that it is important to be compassionate to the rape victims child who is totally innocent of the matter. Punishing the innocent can never be justified.

At 23 weeks, six days and 23 hours it's just cells.

we are all 'just cells'

I think this is the time that the nervous system develops. That was the approach taken

The brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop at week 3 of gestation.

In addition many bodily sytstems develop thoughout the childs childhood. Saying that the child is not fully developed would mean that killing 10 year olds is ok as they have not reached adult-hood.

That is something which is currently under review in the UK and in other countries esp as neo natal care for premature babies see those 'born' at 22 weeks having a vast amount of medical intervention to keep the 'baby' alive.

Thaedydal - it is a baby. It is born and is alive. I dont see why you put the word baby and born in single quotations as if to imply that the baby is not actually a baby. Then what is it ? Is it just a clump of cells like the rest of us. Basically the pro-choice argument is that the mothers has the choice to kill the baby because it's inside her. Regardless of where a growing baby is placed no one has the right to kill another.

Ideally we should have better access to it and to all contraception and contraception knowledge to prevent unwanted pregnancy. An ounce of prevention is better then a pound of cure.

not according to studies done in asia. Also look at the uk - they've gone hellbent on contraception and safe sex the past few years but the number of unwanted pregnancies & abortions has gone up.

Because it is not. Not yet. It has a potential to become one.

yes but its a human foetus which is the point. People still call toddlers babies. Its not a potential toddler, its a human in the baby stage which, all things going well and barring the child being killed, should develop into a toddler and so forth until s/he becomes an adult.

Climate Expert

Stop the rubbish. If somebody said do you want to see my baby? Where? In my stomach.

Its a baby when it is born. That is the consensus english language definition of a baby.

ebmma

CathyMoran wrote: »

What difference does wanting and not wanting a baby make to weather a baby is a baby or not?

If you want a baby it is an emotional matter. Emotionally you can call things whatever you feel like.

You can call the planet Mother Earth but it doesn't make it sentient.
But if it is for you - there's nothing wrong with that.

However, if you are speaking in general terms, it is important to come away from personal experiences and emotions and try to consider things in a more objective way.

While it might be unclear with current advances in medicine whether 22, 23, 24 weeks is an acceptable threshhold, it is clear that at 4 weeks gestation it is not a 'baby' in a sense a newborn is.

CathyMoran

I'm pulling away from this debate. As many of you know we just had a miscarriage at 9.5 weeks. People will never change and that scares me for the future of this world.

ebmma

Phototoxin wrote: »

hence why I said about being mature enough to have sex and living with the responsibilites of their actions. In addition, as I said,


Axel you're just spouting pro-choice/abortion arguments that have been heard and refuted 100s of times.


is it not 1/2 of her Karotype ?


I know it's not the baby's fault, but it's not the mother's either. She didn't give consent to have the child, to carry it and give birth to it. Why should thebaby have to go through that, effectively ruining thebaby's life, just because some sicko raped her? In my mind, that's like punishing thebaby for his crime.



So exactly 15415200 seconds from conception the fetus magically becomes a full human ? Care to explain?


Well if its not birth control what is it then ? They are eliminating the birth of the child, ergo birthcontrol.

Abortion is rarely necessary, directly it would rarely be so. Lots of people do things which are wrong with no regrets, lack of regrets does not make it right.

if you belive that the fetus is a full human being then it is a logical step to compare it to murder. Calling them murders and shunning them is not exactly a good thing either though.



Pregnacy is not a disease, likening it to rape is disguting.


Thankfully the state sees that it is important to be compassionate to the rape victims child who is totally innocent of the matter. Punishing the innocent can never be justified.



we are all 'just cells'



The brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop at week 3 of gestation.

In addition many bodily sytstems develop thoughout the childs childhood. Saying that the child is not fully developed would mean that killing 10 year olds is ok as they have not reached adult-hood.



Thaedydal - it is a baby. It is born and is alive. I dont see why you put the word baby and born in single quotations as if to imply that the baby is not actually a baby. Then what is it ? Is it just a clump of cells like the rest of us. Basically the pro-choice argument is that the mothers has the choice to kill the baby because it's inside her. Regardless of where a growing baby is placed no one has the right to kill another.

not according to studies done in asia. Also look at the uk - they've gone hellbent on contraception and safe sex the past few years but the number of unwanted pregnancies & abortions has gone up.


yes but its a human foetus which is the point. People still call toddlers babies. Its not a potential toddler, its a human in the baby stage which, all things going well and barring the child being killed, should develop into a toddler and so forth until s/he becomes an adult.

Relax and have a cup of tea. I gave my explanation for 24 weeks earlier. If you have any questions after it let me know.

ebmma

CathyMoran wrote: »

I'm pulling away from this debate. As many of you know we just had a miscarriage at 9.5 weeks. People will never change and that scares me for the future of this world.

I'm sorry about your loss, Cathy. Hope you we'll be blessed with as many children in the future as you wish.

I'm am sorry if anything I said here hurt you, I did not have that intention.

SeekUp

Phototoxin wrote: »

Basically the pro-choice argument is that the mothers has the choice to kill the baby because it's inside her. Regardless of where a growing baby is placed no one has the right to kill another.

Or maybe it's that until the baby/fetus/embryo/zygote/whatever can live outside of the woman, it's still a part of the woman and her body, and the woman's decision to do with her body is noone's but her own and the male contributor to the baby/fetus/embryo/zygote/whatever.

But this is all off topic -- this thread isn't as to whether abortion right or wrong (or at what stage it's right or wrong), it's supposed to be about the consequences of the woman who has an abortion.

So . . . on we go.

Nevyn

CathyMoran wrote: »

It was always a baby to us. Calling it anything less is just people trying to get away from what they are really doing when they have an abortion.

Do you really think that any woman having an abortion does not know that
her actions are stopping the process of what is growing into a baby inside her ?

ebmma

Phototoxin wrote: »

The brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop at week 3 of gestation.

What? Where did you get that?

Week 3: Implantation

The zygote — by this time made up of about 500 cells — is now known as a blastocyst. When it reaches your uterus, the blastocyst will burrow into the uterine wall for nourishment. The placenta, which will nourish your baby throughout the pregnancy, also begins to form.
By the end of this week, you may be celebrating a positive pregnancy test.


http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112


or


Weeks 3-4 - Gestational Age (Fetal Age 2 weeks)

Development
The earliest change that can be seen through a vaginal ultrasound at this time will be the “decidual reaction” which is the thickening of the endometrium. The endometrium lining thickens as the blastocyst burrows into it. This cannot always be detected by ultrasound—sometimes it may take a special eye or very good equipment to see this “reaction” in the endometrium lining.
*A key fact to remember when using ultrasounds is that a transvaginal ultrasound can detect development in the uterus about a week earlier than a transabdominal ultrasound.


http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/earlyfetaldevelopment.htm

ntlbell

ebmma wrote: »

I am personally not happy with it. In my opinion if a woman waited that long she probably doesn't really want an abortion (that is of course if she is not pressured by partner/family/friends/church).
Being pregnant in not very good circumstances can be pretty overwhelming.

However, I also realise that even though I think abortion shouldn't happen quite that late, there might be circumstances when it might be necessary.

e.g. woman wanted to terminate all along but was pressured into not doing it.

or woman finds out her future child will have a serious and potentially life threatening birth defect.

You see, unlike you, I realise that there might be different circumstances and people are not all like me.

I realise there might be differentr circumstances belive me.

I just don't think anything but the death of the mother are enough to terminate someone elses life

it's not some extreme irational man that I am you see, I just have issue with ending life.

ntlbell

ebmma wrote: »

Because it is not. Not yet. It has a potential to become one.

can you enlighten us as to when it becomes a "baby" ?

ebmma

ntlbell wrote: »

can you enlighten us as to when it becomes a "baby" ?

I do not like your tone and your extreme attitudes.

And I answered that question earlier. So did other people, I think.

ntlbell

ebmma wrote: »

I do not like your tone and your extreme attitudes.

And I answered that question earlier. So did other people, I think.

Considering you can't hear my polite and friendly tone i don't see what you have issue with regarding an extreme attitude I don't think not agreeing with allowing people to terminate a life as extreme....

ntlbell

CathyMoran wrote: »

It was always a baby to us. Calling it anything less is just people trying to get away from what they are really doing when they have an abortion.

this is very important, people like to wrap informal names around these things to protect themselves imo.

ebmma

ntlbell wrote: »

this is very important, people like to wrap informal names around these things to protect themselves imo.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENXX251&defl=en&q=define:foetus&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

ntlbell

Climate Expert wrote: »

Stop the rubbish. If somebody said do you want to see my baby? Where? In my stomach.

Its a baby when it is born. That is the consensus english language definition of a baby.

so when you go for your first scan and they show it on the screen what does the nurse/doc call it?

"there's your little blob..."

"there's your little faetus it's just a blob of cells"

they say do you want to see your baby....

ntlbell

ebmma wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENXX251&defl=en&q=define:foetus&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

thanks for that.

Climate Expert

ntlbell wrote: »

so when you go for your first scan and they show it on the screen what does the nurse/doc call it?

"there's your little blob..."

"there's your little faetus it's just a blob of cells"

they say do you want to see your baby....

They call it a baby to appease the sensitve and emotional mothers.

ntlbell

Climate Expert wrote: »

They call it a baby to appease the sensitve and emotional mothers.

so it should be ok for me to use when discussing the termination of a baby?

Malari

ntlbell wrote: »

so when you go for your first scan and they show it on the screen what does the nurse/doc call it?

"there's your little blob..."

"there's your little faetus it's just a blob of cells"

they say do you want to see your baby....

I think this point was made that if you plan to be pregnant and want a baby then of course you will refer to it as a baby from the word go. You even say "we are trying to have a baby" before you are even pregnant.

If you are going for a scan and you are clearly distressed and it is unplanned and you are considering an abortion they probably wouldn't refer to it as a baby? ALthough at the time of the first scan I would imagine most pregnant women would know that they are keeping it.

tesslab

Typical for a bloke to be so opionated about something they could never understand. By the way the 25 yr sentence some would like to give to the mother ---What bout the daddy?? No involvement there ever?? Dream on! :mad:

ntlbell

Malari wrote: »

I think this point was made that if you plan to be pregnant and want a baby then of course you will refer to it as a baby from the word go. You even say "we are trying to have a baby" before you are even pregnant.

If you are going for a scan and you are clearly distressed and it is unplanned and you are considering an abortion they probably wouldn't refer to it as a baby? ALthough at the time of the first scan I would imagine most pregnant women would know that they are keeping it.

and which has all ready been stated if your keeping it or not doesn't make it a baby or not.. it is or it isn't regardless and if it's brain and spinal cord etc is starting to grow i don't care what you call it that's a human life in my eyes.

ntlbell

tesslab wrote: »

Typical for a bloke to be so opionated about something they could never understand. By the way the 25 yr sentence some would like to give to the mother ---What bout the daddy?? No involvement there ever?? Dream on! :mad:

If you just want to rant about people who haven't been put in the position or won't ever be faced with it please read the thread fully.

tesslab

and im sure you've been there. Post directed at you

Malari

ntlbell wrote: »

and which has all ready been stated if your keeping it or not doesn't make it a baby or not.. it is or it isn't regardless and if it's brain and spinal cord etc is starting to grow i don't care what you call it that's a human life in my eyes.

Yes, you can accept that and still be sensitive to other people's views!

If your friend's marriage breaks down you comfort them, you don't say "well, we all saw that coming". Language is emotive is the point.

Mr. Incognito

Look we've all seen this debate a thousand times in Humanities, Personal issues, After hours wtc.

The question does not have one answer but many.

The religions definitions
The scientific definitions
Personal experiences that are going to prejudice you one way or another i.e Cathy's husband is adopted.

What this boils down to is that everyone has a subjective personal view. People have sat down, self reasoned on the evidence and then made a personal choice one way or the other. There is something that happens when conception occurs and when that life becomes a entity with rights is a moral question and indeed a legal one.

You can argue that a baby is there at conception, birth or somewhere inbetween, and we can argue all day, but in the end ntl is going to think it is murder, ebmma is going to think that is no different from a woman having her period and everyone else is going to stand back ignore the crap out of it and hope the nutters go away.

The issue is that technolgy has allowed us to end these pregnancies and some women want access to this technology. In some states it is a right, in some it is illegal. Every state has the right to decide for themselves and I think every woman has the right to decide for themself too. Our society is built on choice. We are all free to chose what we want or do not want unless the need of the greater good outweighs the individual or the acts are immoral. What is immoral has changed its definition over time. Consentual homosexuality was only decriminialised in Ireland recently, so too contraception, Its debateable whether abortion will fall too, because unlike heinous crimes like rape or paedophilia where there is a readily identifible tangible victim. It's still debateable whether there is a tangible victim when it comes to early term abortions. Some people are not going to take the chance and disagree with it on principle. Late term abortions are, in my opinion murder, as there is a fully functional human being who can exist outside of the mother in question.

I think the values must be balanced. Our courts have ruled that the rights of the mother outweigh the right to life of the child in cases where the mother is at risk of suicide or mental health problems. This is not perfect but no government wants to tackle abortion legislation.

It's a circular argument that must be decided with all available information. Is it a person, a victim if you will. If not, then we should leave the woman decide, and the state should not interfere in that choice. If it is we must protect the rights of the child.

Personally I think they can meet in the middle. Legislation allowing abortion for up to 8 weeks would, in my opinion be an acceptable compromise. At that stage I do not believe a "child" in any conventional sense exists.

ntlbell

Malari wrote: »

Yes, you can accept that and still be sensitive to other people's views!

If your friend's marriage breaks down you comfort them, you don't say "well, we all saw that coming". Language is emotive is the point.

I don't comfort my friend if he takes his wife's life.

The Corinthian

ebmma wrote: »

Laws need to be well defined, they can't exactly say "well, it should be A, but it maybe B or C it is kind of complicated".

Of course laws need to be defined, and it is the definition that is in question. After all, placing a statistically derived condition is not how laws are normally defined. We don't find a young man guilty of reckless driving because statistically young men are far more likely to be at fault. Neither do the laws surrounding the switching off of life support for a comatose patent simply based upon statistics.

ebmma wrote: »

Because it is not. Not yet. It has a potential to become one.

That's actually what is being debated, so it's has not been accepted as fact. As such, simply stating it as such is not going to get you far.

Climate Expert wrote: »

Its a baby when it is born. That is the consensus english language definition of a baby.

Incorrect.

Phototoxin wrote: »

if you belive that the fetus is a full human being then it is a logical step to compare it to murder.

Not necessary. Not all taking of human life is murder. Criminally it can be seen as self defence, manslaughter or even misadventure. Additionally there are circumstances in which it can be seen as just, such as capital punishment.

Thankfully the state sees that it is important to be compassionate to the rape victims child who is totally innocent of the matter. Punishing the innocent can never be justified.

Sure it can; the greater good is one classic moral justification where the innocent are punished - civilians die in war, but sometimes this is both unavoidable and necessary.

ebmma wrote: »

If you want a baby it is an emotional matter. Emotionally you can call things whatever you feel like.

Actually that works both ways. One can call it a ball of cells too, if it makes it easier to terminate. People tend to humanize or dehumanize according to their moral perspective - or, more cynically, their self-interest.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to come out as being either pro-choice or pro-life in this discussion, and I've presented both arguments for and against, without prejudice.

Climate Expert

Incorrect.

incorrect.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/baby?view=uk

As I said it is a consensus definition.

The Corinthian

Climate Expert wrote: »

As I said it is a consensus definition.

Do you see a consensus?

Malari

ntlbell wrote: »

I don't comfort my friend if he takes his wife's life.

What if she was terminally ill and in a lot of pain and he assisted in her suicide.

Sometimes I wish I could see the world in black and white, it must be very easy for you.

Climate Expert

The Corinthian wrote: »

Do you see a consensus?

Yes, the major printed dictionaires that define the english language show a consensus.

Admit when you are wrong.

ntlbell

Malari wrote: »

What if she was terminally ill and in a lot of pain and he assisted in her suicide.

Sometimes I wish I could see the world in black and white, it must be very easy for you.

People lay in beds every day terminally ill in a lot of pain that doesn't mean we should start playing god and killing them all off.

The circumstances are _not_ the issue, you can wrap anything around you want it's murder, putting little stories around it to somehow create a moral dilemma doesn't change anything.

I've watched people terminally ill in pain very close to me I've wanted nothing more than to end their lives, It still affects me ever day of my life. I could of been forgiven for ending that person's life people could take pitty on me and comfort me.

what you miss is none of this makes it right, it's wrong it's murder regardless.

can someone quote the aul black and white stuff again i haven't heard enough of it yet.

ebmma

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

ebmma is going to think that is no different from a woman having her period

This is not at all how I feel about it. Its is not a decision to be taken lightly and without thought.

I am pretty sure you didn't mean it that way, but your remark is hurtful.:(

Malari

ntlbell wrote: »

what you miss is none of this makes it right, it's wrong it's murder regardless.

Says you. And actually I don't care what you call it, I would call it a termination to prevent offending people like you. I'll call it murdering a baby just as easily. Same thing as far as you're concerned. Different as far as I'm concerned as I won't be prosecuted for murder for doing it.

Macha

ntlbell wrote: »

The circumstances are _not_ the issue.

The circumstances are very much the issue. Life is not black and white. You cannot say that a 12-year old girl, pregnant from being raped is the same as a 32-year old woman, who is financially stable and just doesn't want the baby.

Mr. Incognito

This is not at all how I feel about it. Its is not a decision to be taken lightly and without thought.

I am pretty sure you didn't mean it that way, but your remark is hurtful.

I know but I was making a point. Im sure you'll forgive me in the context.

The Corinthian

Climate Expert wrote: »

Yes, the major printed dictionaires that define the english language show a consensus.

Well, you've showed us one dictionary that said one thing and I showed another that said another thing. Unfortunately, you'll find, both in print and online plenty of other conflicting definitions. And as respected as the Oxford English dictionary may be, it's no Académie française - ask it to define 'color' for example.

It's interesting that this debate has become so focused on language though. As I pointed out people tend to humanize or dehumanize according to their moral perspective or self-interest, and language is one of the tools employed. No one is anti-choice or anti-life after all - indeed, neither side even uses the word 'abortion' when describing themselves.

Admit when you are wrong.

Actually I've no problem doing so when I am, and I actually did so in another thread, this morning. I'll take your point that a baby can be defined as you say, but as with much in this debate, there is a lot of disagreement and you'll also find plenty of sources, both respected and whacko, that will disagree. So I'm hardly wrong. A bit like the word 'ethnic', I suppose.

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

The circumstances are very much the issue. Life is not black and white. You cannot say that a 12-year old girl, pregnant from being raped is the same as a 32-year old woman, who is financially stable and just doesn't want the baby.

Why not? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do think it important that you argue logically why.

Also important is to ask if one is morally wrong and the other right, and if so to define why they differ.

ebmma

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I know but I was making a point. Im sure you'll forgive me in the context.

I would prefer if you didn't make a point using my name in connection to the way I don't feel.

I understand what you are trying to say though.