Legalise abortion

philologos

Fugly: What you can do with your own body is fine. We aren't talking about that though. You are discussing what you want to do with someone elses body. It must be one of the biggest fallacies in the abortion debate.

As for women not making the decision lightly, I'd disagree. Many regard abortion as mere contraception. In Russia in 2006 there was more abortions than live births.

Fugly

I think it's clear from my post, I believe it's their choice and it isn't at the moment due to abortion being illegal. {barring certain circumstances}

johns

I think they should leagalise it. Not because it will stop criminals because you can't say if somebodys going to be a criminal or not. They should legalize it becuase the mother may not beable to cope or it might be handicapped in some way or if the mother has been raped it's not fair.

philologos

Fugly wrote: »

I think it's clear from my post, I believe it's their choice and it isn't at the moment due to abortion being illegal. {barring certain circumstances}

It's clear alright. It's just a terrible reason.

I do not have the right to decide what happens to your life or your body. Likewise I don't feel that any woman has the right to decide what happens to a child, or their body while forming in the womb. They are two separate bodies.

It's rather simple. The real decision comes before conception. You have two options:

1) Use contraception - There is still a risk of pregnancy here, you will have to take that risk.

2) Abstain until you are in a stable enough situation to have a child or to start a family.

I personally think the right of life comes above peoples conjugal rights.

johns

Jakkass wrote: »

It's clear alright. It's just a terrible reason.

I do not have the right to decide what happens to your life or your body. Likewise I don't feel that any woman has the right to decide what happens to a child, or their body while forming in the womb. They are two separate bodies.

It's rather simple. The real decision comes before conception. You have two options:

1) Use contraception - There is still a risk of pregnancy here, you will have to take that risk.

2) Abstain until you are in a stable enough situation to have a child or to start a family.

I personally think the right of life comes above peoples conjugal rights.

I agree to some extent. They should not beable to hbe an abortion just because they don't want of but say the child was going to be in agony and pain all it's life? Or the family was really poor and it would have a crap life? Surley then there should be an acception. What if the mother got raped? Then what is she supposed to do if she's not going to want or care for a baby concieved with such means. It's all about the quality life, is it going to have a good life or is it better off not being born if the baby is going to be miserable all it's life.

philologos

johns wrote: »

I agree to some extent. They should not beable to hbe an abortion just because they don't want of but say the child was going to be in agony and pain all it's life? Or the family was really poor and it would have a crap life?

People cannot determine this during a pregnancy. There is always the option of adoption to provide a child opportunities and to give them the privilege of life that I or you have. I think that is only fair.

johns wrote: »

Surley then there should be an acception. What if the mother got raped?

A child who is the product of rape is still a child. Both the mother and the child are victims in this case. I personally believe that we can encourage mothers even in rape situations to continue their pregnancies if there is enough government assistance to help them out. I personally wouldn't complain to paying more tax for this as it's a good cause.

johns wrote: »

Then what is she supposed to do if she's not going to want or care for a baby concieved with such means. It's all about the quality life, is it going to have a good life or is it better off not being born if the baby is going to be miserable all it's life.

I disagree with you here. Having a life is better than having none at all. Nobody in the middle of a pregnancy can possibly predict what the life of a child is going to be like at that stage. These things do not justify death.

Fugly

Ok, I kind of get the feeling we're not going to agree.

I don't think that having a child is necessarily the best thing for it, the mother [or the legislation] is making a choice either way. So I don't think by having it you are avoiding making a decision regarding someone else's life, you are and it may not be the right one.
Also regarding abortion in the majority of places it's practiced there is a cut off point. I know there are late abortions available, a very touchy area as the times are constantly reviewed using the latest scientific research.

And it bothers me a little that we talking about what gives one human the right to decide the the choices of another's life{to legalise i.e allow the choice}, when the arguement of the possible human child has more rights than a thinking breathing human is used.

I could not be more behind the promotion of safe sex, I also believe sex ed should not just be a "don't get pregnant" lesson it should be a compehensive education of everything to do with sex. The emotional/pyschological as well as the physical aspect. I believe in doing so and having an sexually aware population would cut down on std's and unwanted pregnancies. {A very long tangent I'm sorry but I do agree alot of decisions are made before the couple get into bed.}

I shoud say here, I'm a scientist, [biology] It may clarify why I do not consider it a "baby" from conception, because it's not.

Also on a personal point, I realise this is usually a forum for theory but I feel it's relevant. You say I've 2 options, I believe more. I am very careful with who I have sex with, screening is a neccessity before sex and I inform him I would have a abortion if the need arose.
Also abstain.....thats a very personal thing to suggest and I'd like to point out what a success such movements have been in the US, most are not sexually informed young people and when they do *slip* they are more likely not use protection, not smart by anyone's standards.
But if informed people want to abstain, great for them. However I don't want to die without ever having sex again. Sex is a healthy part of being a person in a healthy relationship. It is something to be enjoyed and cherished.

You may have guessed I don't plan on having children, ever. Please spare me the "I'm too young/I'll change my mind" speech. Every generation contains a percentage who don't reproduce, in all organisms.

Fugly

I'd just like to add I really do support the idea of adoption, It's an amazing gift to give a child to a family. But if you look into the care system there is great chances of under two's being rehomed. However in older children they have little chances of being adopted, usually just moved around care/foster homes, which can lead to youths who have emotional/psychological/learning problems.
Alot then can move into crime. I am not in any way saying people in care are criminals I just think sometimes you can tell before birth that the child will not have a "good" life.
If you don't see the link google most serial murders and the New York crime stats since they introduced abortion.

Also adoption is not an viable option for every woman. I have found that men use the arguement "just have the child and give it up" little realising what it's like to carry a child. Not that abortion is the "easy" option, it's just it suits some women.

Ostrom

Fugly wrote: »

I'd just like to add I really do support the idea of adoption, It's an amazing gift to give a child to a family. But if you look into the care system there is great chances of under two's being rehomed. However in older children they have little chances of being adopted, usually just moved around care/foster homes, which can lead to youths who have emotional/psychological/learning problems.
Alot then can move into crime. I am not in any way saying people in care are criminals I just think sometimes you can tell before birth that the child will not have a "good" life.
If you don't see the link google most serial murders and the New York crime stats since they introduced abortion.

Also adoption is not an viable option for every woman. I have found that men use the arguement "just have the child and give it up" little realising what it's like to carry a child. Not that abortion is the "easy" option, it's just it suits some women.

Those statistics show correlation, not cause

Fugly

Yes however due to there being so many factors which contribute to crime rates it would be exceptionally difficult to prove direct cause.

I think this debate will always continue, which is sad, as it just leaves some women with less options than are available to them. I have the means to get an abortion, but it saddens me I have to leave my country to do so, as I know not every woman has the means, and I think it's not a decision that should be made on the basis of financial position.

* I would like to point out that I don't view an abortion as a quick fix, it comes with psychological/physical ramifications for the woman.

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

As for women not making the decision lightly, I'd disagree. Many regard abortion as mere contraception. In Russia in 2006 there was more abortions than live births.

Not the first time I've seen this pathetic argument wheeled out for it's shock value, the notion of Russian women regarding abortion as contraception is grossly over simplified. In fact it shows a real ignorance of the details by those who use it.

Frankly, considering the state of Russian orphanages it's probably a good job there's not more children being put into them. It's reckoned 90% of children in them are abandoned or "given up" for adoption.

Of course the figure's pretty close since about 1957 more abortions then too. It's actually been falling since 1988. You can't really compare Russia with here, outside of the cities levels of education are quiet poor. There is no real sex education to speak of period...

Birth control is available in Russia, but it is expensive, abortions are free. They are in fact limited to a cutoff point of 12 weeks.

The overall health of Russia is poor. 20% of young women suffer from anemia, many choose abortion because they fear that they and/or their baby will not survive a full term pregnancy.

All this before you even consider the economic ramificatons. Of a single mom trying to bring up a child in Russia.

Joey the lips

SLUSK wrote: »

Abortions should be legalised in Ireland. In the long run it will help bring crime down because potential criminals will not be born. It is a well known fact that poor people commit more crimes, they also have more kids out of wedlock and so on. If these women can have abortions instead it would be good for all of us.

Stupid reason for abortion! Sorry. I am not strictly pro life but I have rearly seen many reasons to justify the taking of a life bar

Rape

Maturity( anybody under 16 should be given the right)

if a baby is not wanted there is many choices

1. Contraception

2. The morning after pill ( as its prob nopt conceived yet this is acceptable in relation to my first remark)

3. Fostering / adoption

philologos

Joey the lips: The morning after pill is an abortive pill. I.E It will kill the unborn.

Joey the lips

Jakkass wrote: »

Joey the lips: The morning after pill is an abortive pill. I.E It will kill the unborn.

I perfectly understand that I know it looked daft of me but its down to the fact that I am not strictly pro life and the time it can be taken.

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

Joey the lips: The morning after pill is an abortive pill. I.E It will kill the unborn.

Apologies Jackass. I'm not deliberately going out to contradict you.

But, a woman has only about a 24 hour window in which an egg can be fertilized, sperm can live for between 3 and 5 days inside her body. If she has sex say 3 days prior to ovulation, she still has a good chance to become pregnant.

The morning after pill may do two things.

• prevent the woman's ovaries from releasing an egg.
• alter the lining of the womb, so a fertilised egg can't embed itself there.

It is not an abortive pill, please don't start telling people this. This is kind of mis-information is exactly what leads to un-wanted pregnancies.

philologos

studiorat: I'm willing to accept I am wrong if you can back up the claim that the morning after pill cannot kill an embryo.

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

studiorat: I'm willing to accept I am wrong if you can back up the claim that the morning after pill cannot kill an embryo.

This is discussing Pro-Life polemics at this stage. So I'll reply with a question.
Since you seem to think that preventing an "embryo" from attaching to the wall of the uterus is an abortion. I suppose you also consider IUD's to be abortive aswell.

So the if women who use a coil as a form of contraception are performing abortions on a regular basis. Maybe we should be considering criminal charges for them as well?

Do you think using a IUD is performing an abortion?

Do you consider an embryo to have a soul BTW?

philologos

studiorat: An embryo is a human life developing towards birth and that will continue until death. As someone who advocates human rights, and the right to life for all people. Of course I will defend the right of the embryo to life. It is killing if the sperm and the ova have fused to form a zygote.

Souls are irrelevant to the discussion. One can explain why abortion is wrong without souls. For my extended reasoning so as not to repeat it here, read the 9 posts I have linked on my signature under "Pro-life, my reasoning".

roadrunner 1

no no no no oh and no there is no argument you can not go murdering inoccents full f***ing stop

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

studiorat: An embryo is a human life developing towards birth and that will continue until death. As someone who advocates human rights, and the right to life for all people. Of course I will defend the right of the embryo to life. It is killing if the sperm and the ova have fused to form a zygote.

Souls are irrelevant to the discussion. One can explain why abortion is wrong without souls. For my extended reasoning so as not to repeat it here, read the 9 posts I have linked on my signature under "Pro-life, my reasoning".

So using a IUD is an abortion too then?

studiorat

roadrunner 1 wrote: »

no no no no oh and no there is no argument you can not go murdering inoccents full f***ing stop

And my argument is you can't go around calling people Murders who according to the law as it stands are not murders...

philologos

Does it destroy an embryo? If it doesn't destroy an embryo it isn't killing a human individual, but if it does it is. The point of conception for me is the point when human life exhibits growth and eventually leads to birth on that same process.

Although common sense dictates to me that it mightn't be the best thing for a woman to do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrauterine_device#Side_effects_and_complications

roadrunner 1

yes they are. we live in a supposedly equal world of womans rights and equality if i went and killed a child i would have the whole of ireland ready to kill me and quite rightfully these people can do this and get sympathy well im sorry anyone that conduct, encourages or requires one is no better than and no differrant to ian huntley

turgon

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the women who go through abortions in many cases are also victims.

A typical new-conservative statement in that it is telling the other what they are and what they feel, even if the person doesnt feel this. In the same way a lot of neo-cons will tell a fully consenting prostitute that she is being exploited.

If people are victims, let them say it. You can go up, point a finger and say "your a victim." Its not your position.

The "pro-life" side has enough material to work on without having to resort to this kind of "Im right, and I know better than you" kind of nonsense.

philologos

turgon wrote: »

A typical new-conservative statement in that it is telling the other what they are and what they feel, even if the person doesnt feel this. In the same way a lot of neo-cons will tell a fully consenting prostitute that she is being exploited.

I don't need to say this, all you need to do is a bit of research to see that a lot of women regret their abortions and that there are serious medical side effects to abortion. The existence of conditions such as post abortion syndrome are enough to suggest that many women are victims.

turgon wrote: »

If people are victims, let them say it. You can go up, point a finger and say "your a victim." Its not your position.

Many women already have made this claim for themselves if you research you will find this out.

turgon wrote: »

The "pro-life" side has enough material to work on without having to resort to this kind of "Im right, and I know better than you" kind of nonsense.

It's not nonsense. I don't know better than anyone else, these women speak for themselves.

jaffa20

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't need to say this, all you need to do is a bit of research to see that a lot of women regret their abortions and that there are serious medical side effects to abortion. The existence of conditions such as post abortion syndrome are enough to suggest that many women are victims.

Like post natal depression

turgon

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't need to say this, all you need to do is a bit of research to see that a lot of women regret their abortions and that there are serious medical side effects to abortion. The existence of conditions such as post abortion syndrome are enough to suggest that many women are victims.

People are aware of this, and if someone wants an abortion they should have the responsibility to deal with the consequences.

Or is this another situation where Jakkass must save people from themselves? There so many such situations it would seem easier for Jackass to just write us a guidebook. Because we all know Jackass is the one and only authority on how to live life properly.

SLUSK

Less scum would be born if abortions were legal. How can that not be good?

philologos

turgon wrote: »

People are aware of this, and if someone wants an abortion they should have the responsibility to deal with the consequences.

Or is this another situation where Jakkass must save people from themselves? There so many such situations it would seem easier for Jackass to just write us a guidebook. Because we all know Jackass is the one and only authority on how to live life properly.

You seem to put down abortions to wants. However when it involves someone elses life that is simply quite unfair. At worst it is favouring one persons rights over another. I believe that unborn should have the liberty to life just like I or you had. I don't think that is an oppressive opinion to hold, rather it is an egalitarian notion.

I can't save anyone from anything. That isn't my intention in posting here. My intention in posting here is to discuss my opinion as you are entitled to. Not much that is discussed on boards.ie comes into fruition in real life.

As for a guidebook, I don't think people need me or anyone else to write a guidebook. I recognise full well that my opinion is one among many. However, I still have a right to that opinion in a marketplace of ideas. These ideas will continually battle eachother in the public arena. I find it quite hilarious that you seem to want to stifle my opinion continually. In every thread your result has been that conservatives shouldn't have an opinion. Only liberalism should be tolerated.

As for me being an authority. I have no authority on anyone, nor do I wish any authority on anyone. I'm here merely to discuss ideas. I think that your liberalism is in it's end result anti-democratic however based on previous discussions. The only one who has had an interest in exerting authority over another is you suggesting that conservative views are not kosher and that our views should be silenced. Not only on this thread either.

If abortion has serious consequences one cannot just accept an each to their own view, for me and others it is a life and death question. Both views have every right to be vocalised.

pagancornflake

SLUSK wrote: »

Less scum would be born if abortions were legal. How can that not be good?

Presupposing the conclusion of what is being argued over to form the predicate "legal abortions=less scum". You also consistently fail to define "scum".

lrn2logic

nurse23

I had an abortion when i was younger and can say i have no regrets or guilt about it. it was the right decision for me at the time. That said it was a horrible and scary time for a young girl. I know its an old cliche but until your in a situation you don't know what you'll do. Even though i have had an abortion i'm not pro abortion or in the it should be leagalised group. I do however think every woman and situation is different and its not a black and white issue. Its a choice every woman needs to make for herself. Its a decision that i made and have absolutely no regrets about and a decision i will not apologise for.

turgon

Jakkass wrote: »

In every thread your result has been that conservatives shouldn't have an opinion. Only liberalism should be tolerated.

No I never said that. I said that conservatives should not be able to force their opinions on everyone, which is what they always want to do. Oh but I forgot, Im "forcing my indifference on others."

You then made up an excuse that you must save people from themselves, by referencing post-abortion depression. You ignored my claim that this is one of the responsibilities people take on in getting an abortion and its not your job to measure up the pros and cons for them.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that your liberalism is in it's end result anti-democratic however based on previous discussions.

I dont want to get in a discussion here, but I will start a thread about it sometime.

Jakkass wrote: »

If abortion has serious consequences one cannot just accept an each to their own view, for me and others it is a life and death question. Both views have every right to be vocalised.

+1. Which is why in my first post on this thread I stated that abortion did not fall into my "live and let live" philosophy in the way that things like gay marriage do.

philologos

nurse23 wrote: »

Its a choice every woman needs to make for herself. Its a decision that i made and have absolutely no regrets about and a decision i will not apologise for.

Nobody has managed to answer me this question. Why should anyone have the right to decide whether or not someone else should live or die?

turgon wrote: »

No I never said that. I said that conservatives should not be able to force their opinions on everyone, which is what they always want to do. Oh but I forgot, Im "forcing my indifference on others."

How has any conservative forced their opinion on anyone? If a majority of people support liberalisation on a certain topic due to them not seeing any harm in it, it will be legalised. If a majority of people support illegalisation on a certain topic due to the fact that it is likely to be harmful that is also fair. That's the way democracy works. Hence why I refer to your view of telling conservatives to keep quiet as anti-democratic to its very core.

I've explained to you what I perceive conservativism to be:

It is a rational critique or assessments of all the potential dangers and benefits in making a decision. After much discussion and brainstorming, if the idea holds up to scrutiny it should therefore be legalised. If it does not hold up to scrutiny nothing should be changed. That's the reasonable option.

I don't think that liberalism (or should I say liberalism further than the current liberties we have on certain issues that are very likely to be harmful) gives these things as much thought, as much skepticism and as much scrutiny than what it would have under a more conservative ideology.

I don't oppose change, I oppose senseless change without thought first.

turgon wrote: »

You then made up an excuse that you must save people from themselves, by referencing post-abortion depression. You ignored my claim that this is one of the responsibilities people take on in getting an abortion and its not your job to measure up the pros and cons for them.

I never said that I must save people from anything. What I said was many women are victims following abortions. I would have to agree given what I have come to know on the topic, many women have become victims by their own assessment not mine. Yet when I bring this truth into the discussion, I am seen as trying to save someone. Again, look to my previous posts. I'm only here to share my thought and go through pro-choice reasoning bit by bit. I think it falls down like a house of cards.

turgon wrote: »

I dont want to get in a discussion here, but I will start a thread about it sometime.

We've been through this a lot of times already

turgon wrote: »

+1. Which is why in my first post on this thread I stated that abortion did not fall into my "live and let live" philosophy in the way that things like gay marriage do.

Exactly, so why on earth are you criticising me as forcing anything on anyone for merely bringing up the risks involved in abortion?

turgon

You see, pro-choicers do not define a foetus as a full human being. Thats where the core difference arises. So in our mind, were not advocating the murder in the usual sense of the term.

Ill start a thread "conservatism vs liberalism" soon, where we can discuss how the two ideologies never see eye to eye, and why etc.

philologos

turgon wrote: »

You see, pro-choicers do not define a foetus as a full human being. Thats where the core difference arises. So in our mind, were not advocating the murder in the usual sense of the term.

Some pro-choicers are more honest than others. I went away from a discussion in real life, not on boards which was just before a philosophy lecture I had. We got into the question of personhood (which was appropriate considering we had done this topic in philosophy in the first semester). Anyway, he said to me, he recognised that a foetus was indeed a biological human life form, but he recognised that there was a need to kill in certain scenarios. I prefer this kind of honesty compared to some of the word games that are often played on the pro-choice side of the argument. That guy had the honesty to tell me what he really believed instead of trying to sugarcoat it.

turgon wrote: »

Ill start a thread "conservatism vs liberalism" soon, where we can discuss how the two ideologies never see eye to eye, and why etc.

Brilliant. Although perhaps you should title it social conservatism vs social liberalism. Some people who are socially conservative or socially liberal may end up with fisically conservative or fisically liberal views on economics.

turgon

Jakkass wrote: »

That guy had the honesty to tell me what he really believed instead of trying to sugarcoat it.

But fundamentally thats what he believed. What you seem to be suggesting is that we all believe the same thing as this guy but try to cover it up. That just simply isnt the case.

Het-Field

SLUSK wrote: »

A child is a child. A fetus is a fetus. A woman owns her own body and should therefore be allowed to do what she wishes with the fetus in her body. Basic property rights. If you believe in the concept of self ownership that is.

Well, the woman creates the foetus as a result of sexual congress with man. She had the choice to do it in an unprotected manner. She also had the choice to purchase a condom. I think abortion is a very difficult subject to place a definitive answer over, however, I know that there cannot be an analogy drawn between abortion, and thing like drug legalisation and euthanasia

As a libertarian who believe that life has an existence prior to birth, I believe that the "child" or "ball of cells" no longer belongs to the woman, and becomes property of the foetus itself. Extrinsic factors such as nourishment and warmth will always be sought, wheather the child is within or outside of the womb. Does that mean the person is beholden to the supermarket, or supplier who provides the food ? In reality it does not.

I can understand the arguments of the otherside, and I loath the "Irish Solution to an Irish problem" situation we have vis-a-vis abortion. Its totally unsatisfactory, and has become a class based issue. What kind of a country is willing to allow abortions, as long as they dont occur within the jurisdiction. They should have the balls to ask a straight yes, or no answer.

philologos

turgon wrote: »

But fundamentally thats what he believed. What you seem to be suggesting is that we all believe the same thing as this guy but try to cover it up. That just simply isnt the case.

I would hold that this is true for a lot of cases. It may not be true in your situation. I admire honesty.

roadrunner 1

SLUSK wrote: »

Less scum would be born if abortions were legal. How can that not be good?

would this mean that you would not be around to answer this thread, if it were legal pre your birth?

these woman are murderers, worse, pre meditated. they plan the death to a fine detail. travelling, costs, who to confide in and who not. Bastards the lot of em.

roadrunner 1

nurse23 wrote: »

I had an abortion when i was younger and can say i have no regrets or guilt about it. it was the right decision for me at the time. That said it was a horrible and scary time for a young girl. I know its an old cliche but until your in a situation you don't know what you'll do. Even though i have had an abortion i'm not pro abortion or in the it should be leagalised group. I do however think every woman and situation is different and its not a black and white issue. Its a choice every woman needs to make for herself. Its a decision that i made and have absolutely no regrets about and a decision i will not apologise for.

you are in denial and need to do some courses.... victim empathy for a start (how do you think the father feels?) (or does he not know?)etc you should get help. and then think of how you can live the rest of your life seeing a baby or young child and know that YOU killed one.

pablomakaveli

roadrunner 1 wrote: »

you are in denial and need to do some courses.... victim empathy for a start (how do you think the father feels?) (or does he not know?)etc you should get help. and then think of how you can live the rest of your life seeing a baby or young child and know that YOU killed one.

What a load of crap.

She made the right choice for her at the time. Bringing an unwanted child into the world is a bad idea.

Given that pro-lifers are only to happy to bomb abortion clinics while calling people who get abortions murderers shows what selfish hypocrites they are.

The only person who should be able to decide whether a woman should carry a pregnancy to term is her and no one else.

roadrunner 1

pablomakaveli wrote: »

What a load of crap.

She made the right choice for her at the time. Bringing an unwanted child into the world is a bad idea.

Given that pro-lifers are only to happy to bomb abortion clinics while calling people who get abortions murderers shows what selfish hypocrites they are.

The only person who should be able to decide whether a woman should carry a pregnancy to term is her and no one else.

BOLLOX and i bet your a woman

nurse23

roadrunner 1 wrote: »

you are in denial and need to do some courses.... victim empathy for a start (how do you think the father feels?) (or does he not know?)etc you should get help. and then think of how you can live the rest of your life seeing a baby or young child and know that YOU killed one.

for your information i am not in denial have no regrets what so ever, i don't feel like i killed a child and i also work with babies and young children who i love and adore but i did do not for one minute regret i had an abortion. as for the father he fully supported and agreed with the decision and we are still in a happy relationship. As for doing courses i am a nurse so familiar with the abortion procedure and studied the ethics of it as part of the degree programme. and i think i'll live the rest of life quite fine thank you very much! oh and as you don,t know me or how i feel how can you tell me i'm in denial!? i'm sure some women feel guilt etc. but i can tell you here and now i don't.

pablomakaveli

roadrunner 1 wrote: »

BOLLOX and i bet your a woman

No i am a man and i bet your a man as well.

roadrunner 1

nurse23 wrote: »

for your information i am not in denial have no regrets what so ever, i don't feel like i killed a child and i also work with babies and young children who i love and adore but i did do not for one minute regret i had an abortion. as for the father he fully supported and agreed with the decision and we are still in a happy relationship. As for doing courses i am a nurse so familiar with the abortion procedure and studied the ethics of it as part of the degree programme. and i think i'll live the rest of life quite fine thank you very much! oh and as you don,t know me or how i feel how can you tell me i'm in denial!? i'm sure some women feel guilt etc. but i can tell you here and now i don't.

ooooooeeeeeerrrrr loooks like i have hit a nerve with ms murderer here

roadrunner 1

pablomakaveli wrote: »

No i am a man and i bet your a man as well.

yes. the point being

asdasd

Given that pro-lifers are only to happy to bomb abortion clinics while calling people who get abortions murderers shows what selfish hypocrites they are.

surely not all of them are.

roadrunner 1

has ms nursey, "i killed my baby and i don't care" got nothing to say now? i should think not. this sort is full of ****e it doesn't matter how many years go by. you always see a sweet kid and think, mine would have been that age now. you are obviously a woman of age and you are so wrong not just for the abotion but for glorifying it here. you are so selfish, there are i assume younger woman than you who maybe confused (as a nurse would ye not know this). and you are making out that this is something you can do and forget it the next day. if this was right then you would not have been so quick to respond and bragging about it to this thread. if your so freaking proud, why dont you name yourself and the husband and state which hospital it is you work in, with other peoples children.

asdasd

Stop personalising the thing, roadrunner1.

pablomakaveli

asdasd wrote: »

surely not all of them are.

Yes i agree but the more extreme pro-lifers are dangerous and are doing more damage to their cause then good.

Pro-lifers who are willing to have a proper debate and not revert to violent behaviour or calling people "murderer" i at least have some respect for although i do not agree with them on the matter.