If There Was A Referendum on Abortion Tomorrow, How Would You Vote?

BehindTheScenes

All I know is Ulster says NO!

cynder

Do you not give a definition of abortion or methods carried out...

D&E where the baby at even 24 weeks is ripped apart in the womb limb from limb. we all know a 24 week old can survive and feels pain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_evacuation

1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's legs with forceps.
2. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
3. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull.
5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

All i can say is sick.
http://www.nonprofitpages.com/mcfl/abtypes.htm
http://www.lifesitenews.com/abortiontypes/


Its a woman's choice if she wants to murder her child no one is stopping her. Just like it was the dads choice to jump out of a window with his 2 kids one, died one lived. No one is forcing us to do anything, we all have the ability to make a choice, when we do we have to live with the consequences!

Max Power1

Jakkass wrote: »

There is a difference between killing formed life, and preventing life from forming.

One stage is much later than the other, and by that stage there is a human life to be considered. Before then, it is only the responsible thing to prevent life from forming if you are not willing to bring it to full term.

What about an 8 week old foetus? Thats not formed life - It cannot live independantly.

Smart Bug

grindelwald wrote: »

Do you not give a definition of abortion or methods carried out...

D&E where the baby at even 24 weeks is ripped apart in the womb limb from limb. we all know a 24 week old can survive and feels pain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_evacuation

I read this, and the other pages it links to & didn't find any (sensationalist) description like this:

Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's legs with forceps.

1. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
2. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
3. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull.
4. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

All i can say is sick.
http://www.nonprofitpages.com/mcfl/abtypes.htm
http://www.lifesitenews.com/abortiontypes/


Its a woman's choice if she wants to murder her child no one is stopping her. Just like it was the dads choice to jump out of a window with his 2 kids one, died one lived. No one is forcing us to do anything, we all have the ability to make a choice, when we do we have to live with the consequences!

Whe pro-lifers stop using terminology like murder etc, or refer to foetuses(spelling?) as babies, then their arguments may be considered more salient. I dislike sensationalism in any form when used in public debates.

Also, point to note, your above description refers to a method of abortion called "partial birth d&e", which (in the USA alone) accounts for roughly 0.17% of all abortions carried out.

cynder

That's because i cut, copied and pasted...... and gave website where i copied it from.

Oh and it is FACT not fiction I'm not lying.....

So you don't like it that the baby has it brains sucked out but you like the bit where it is sliced and diced and removed bit by bit at 24 weeks..... sure as hell wouldn't want you for a mom.....

http://www.mariestopes.org.uk/Womens_services/Abortion/Abortion_options/Surgical_abortion.aspx

this website does not go into detail of how the baby is killed, it doesnt tell you that the baby will be sliced and diced and removed bit by bit as im sure the ad wont tell you either......

Smart Bug

grindelwald wrote: »

That's because i cut, copied and pasted...... and gave website where i copied it from.

Oh and it is FACT not fiction I'm not lying.....

So you don't like it that the baby has it brains sucked out but you like the bit where it is sliced and diced and removed bit by bit at 24 weeks..... sure as hell wouldn't want you for a mom.....

1. I know you're not lying about your sources, but I do distrust these (Christian) sources.

2. My sex has nothing to do with this issue.

3. Late stage abortions account for an unremarkable level of abortions in applicable countries:

http://abortionabout.com/latetermabortionstatistics.html

I take it we're referring to abortions after 21 weeks (viability)?

[rant]
This seems to be a recurrent theme with pro-lifers/anti-choicers. Abortion of foetus' after 21 weeks (viability) is horrible etc but it's really just sensationalism dressing up the facts: late stage abortions account for the vast minority of abortions. Your sensationalism/little baby models & pictures don't disgust me, they just scream "we've no valid point to make so we're going to shame/disgust you into agreeing with us". Sensationalist arguements for any cause only serve to polarise debatees, and to be honest make me more stubborn and unlikely to give ground.

And also, Christian websites do not constitute a good source for un-biased 'fact'.
[/rant]

Hannibal Smith

squod wrote: »

With a pencil.

:D:D

I would vote yes. It's time we stopped leaving our issues for the UK to deal with.

seamus

Smart Bug wrote: »

[rant]
This seems to be a recurrent theme with pro-lifers/anti-choicers. Abortion of foetus' after 21 weeks (viability) is horrible etc but it's really just sensationalism dressing up the facts: late stage abortions account for the vast minority of abortions. Your sensationalism/little baby models & pictures don't disgust me, they just scream "we've no valid point to make so we're going to shame/disgust you into agreeing with us". Sensationalist arguements for any cause only serve to polarise debatees, and to be honest make me more stubborn and unlikely to give ground.

It's the fallacy you see that if you can show that an abortion at 39 weeks if wrong, therefore an abortion at 3 weeks is equally wrong.

In reality, there are a number of debates in here. The vast majority of people would be against 3rd trimester abortions. Most people would even be against abortion after 20 weeks.

In reality, the status/nature of the foetus changes every week which means that an abortion at 24 weeks is a very different beast altogether to an abortion at 8 weeks.

Hannibal Smith

grindelwald wrote: »

That's because i cut, copied and pasted...... and gave website where i copied it from.

Oh and it is FACT not fiction I'm not lying.....

So you don't like it that the baby has it brains sucked out but you like the bit where it is sliced and diced and removed bit by bit at 24 weeks..... sure as hell wouldn't want you for a mom.....

http://www.mariestopes.org.uk/Womens_services/Abortion/Abortion_options/Surgical_abortion.aspx

this website does not go into detail of how the baby is killed, it doesnt tell you that the baby will be sliced and diced and removed bit by bit as im sure the ad wont tell you either......

When you have first hand experience you can call it fact. When a person uses propaganda doused literature to inflame their opinion, that is not fact that is bias.

It may come as a surprise to you but a lot of women who come to the decision to abort their babies do not do so lightly and to make the situation worse by drowning them in language like you're using helps nobody.

ash23

I'm pro choice. I was always pro life until I got pregnant and subsequently dumped at 19 years of age.

I made my decision and I had my daughter. Personally, I didn't want to have an abortion. But I changed my thinking and began to think that choice should have been mine to make instead of it being taken out of my hands. I'm a law abiding person but had I not been in better circumstances than most (good education, supportive family), then an abortion would have been what was best for me and I shouldn't have needed to be shipped abroad and made a criminal in order to do something that was my choice. It's my body, my life and should be my decision.

philologos

Max Power1 wrote: »

What about an 8 week old foetus? Thats not formed life - It cannot live independantly.

Yes, it is.

Living independently isn't a criterion for deciding what is alive from dead. There are a lot of children after birth who depend on their mother and indeed their father. How come we don't issue the right to kill in this circumstance?

ash23 wrote:

then an abortion would have been what was best for me and I shouldn't have needed to be shipped abroad and made a criminal in order to do something that was my choice

Would it have been best for the child?

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

I would vote yes. It's time we stopped leaving our issues for the UK to deal with.

As if having an abortion is the only valid way to deal with a pregnancy at all.

The reason the law exists is to defend the rights of the unborn, not to find a handy way of "dealing with our issues".

Smart Bug wrote: »

And also, Christian websites do not constitute a good source for un-biased 'fact'.

What sites would? Or do you have a latent prejudice?

cynder

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

When you have first hand experience you can call it fact. When a person uses propaganda doused literature to inflame their opinion, that is not fact that is bias.

It may come as a surprise to you but a lot of women who come to the decision to abort their babies do not do so lightly and to make the situation worse by drowning them in language like you're using helps nobody.

So how do they kill a baby?

Since you must know all the ins and outs of it!!!!!!

So insted of saying we are going to slice an dice your baby they say we are going to remove it gently ( but fail to mention its bit by bit after they have cut it up).

Hannibal Smith

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, it is.

Living independently isn't a criterion for deciding what is alive from dead. There are a lot of children after birth who depend on their mother and indeed their father. How come we don't issue the right to kill in this circumstance?

Do you really need that explained?

(btw look up infanticide)

Hannibal Smith

grindelwald wrote: »

So how do they kill a baby?

Since you must know all the ins and outs of it!!!!!!

So insted of saying we are going to slice an dice your baby they say we are going to remove it gently ( but fail to mention its bit by bit after they have cut it up).

wow exclamation city :eek:

When a person goes for an operation generally the doctor/surgeon does not go in to all the ins and outs of all the blood and gore for fear of causing unwanted stress to the patient. It is the same for patients wishing to have an abortion. It's called tact. Maybe you might bear in mind that there are people reading your posts who may have gone through the procedure, or maybe deciding whether to go for one and may find your posts upsetting.

As for what's done to the unborn foetus please stop reading the anti-abortion stuff, and go read a balanced detail of the procedure.:)

ash23

Jakkass wrote: »

Would it have been best for the child?

It's not a child. It's a foetus.

Also, if I were a 19 year old who was emotionally immature, unable to provide a stable and loving home, unable to provide for the childs basic needs like warmth, food, education etc.....then perhaps it would be best for the child.
If I were to be depressed or abusive or be dependant on alcohol or drugs.....maybe the best thing for all concerned would be an abortion.

neil_hosey

im not reading that massive thread but just want to give my point of view.


Id be for abortion, mainly because every woman should have the choice. Its their body, and especially when it came to their own health or being a victim of rape etc..

anyone who says otherwise is a wacko in my opinion..

i see where the pro-lifers come from, but they're wrong! simple as.


only other issue is, if it was to be passed, will it be abused, and will the value of life be degraded by scumbags who on a whim decide they dont want a baby after gettin up the duff?!

philologos

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Do you really need that explained?

(btw look up infanticide)

I don't consider there to be much difference between abortion-by-choice and infanticide. Just to clarify.

ash23 wrote:

It's not a child. It's a foetus.

Your post is a bit contradictory.

ash23 wrote:

Also, if I were a 19 year old who was emotionally immature, unable to provide a stable and loving home, unable to provide for the childs basic needs like warmth, food, education etc.....then perhaps it would be best for the child.
If I were to be depressed or abusive or be dependant on alcohol or drugs.....maybe the best thing for all concerned would be an abortion.

Abortion isn't the only option. Neither is keeping the child. The adoptive services are also there, and it leaves the child with a chance to be with a loving family that really cares for them rather than being denied their basic right to life.

Smart Bug

Jakkass wrote: »

Living independently isn't a criterion for deciding what is alive from dead. There are a lot of children after birth who depend on their mother and indeed their father. How come we don't issue the right to kill in this circumstance?

No, but it is a criteria for viability. And I also see you have a flair for sensationalism, surprise surprise.

Would it have been best for the child?

Remarkably insensitive comment to make.

What sites would? Or do you have a latent prejudice?

Actually, I do. I'm a scientist you see, so I have a pre-disposition toward hard cold facts rather than religiously motivated sensationalist drivel-dressed-up as facts intended to appeal to peoples emotions rather than
their reason.

Also @ Grindewald - did I see a post saying you wish women who had abortions should themselves have their brains extracted? Pro-life eh? :rolleyes:

cynder

WE all have a choice, no one has taken away our abilty to make a choice.


we have a choice to travel to the uk to kill the baby
we have a choice to keep the baby,
we have a choice to have the baby adopted,
we have a choice to kill the baby once it is born
or kill the child when its 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,,,,,,,

We have a choice to abide by the law, or not too......

The woman made a choice to kill her 2 kids by putting a plastic bag over their heads

The man made his choice to jump off the balcony with his kids

The mother made her choice to tip bleach down her sons throat

Another mother made her choice be choosing to set the car alight with her daughter in it

The woman who made her choice to go to England and kill her baby

They all ended with a child/baby being killed by a parent, none of them are any different!

They all made their choices!

Since you are all for choices why cant a parent kill the child once its born if they choose to?

Smart Bug

Jakkass wrote: »

ash23 wrote: »

It's not a child. It's a foetus.

Your post is a bit contradictory.

Sorry ash23, gonna but in here;

child: n.a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.

foetus: n. (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Contradiction in the where now?

Hannibal Smith

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't consider there to be much difference between abortion-by-choice and infanticide. Just to clarify.



Your post is a bit contradictory.


Abortion isn't the only option. Neither is keeping the child. The adoptive services are also there, and it leaves the child with a chance to be with a loving family that really cares for them rather than being denied their basic right to life.

What about a necessary abortion? Is there difference between that and infanticide in your opinion?

Have you had a child? Do you know what it does to your body? Why should a woman go through this when she doesn't want to?

cynder

Smart Bug wrote: »

Also @ Grindewald - did I see a post saying you wish women who had abortions should themselves have their brains extracted? Pro-life eh? :rolleyes:

Who the hell said i was pro life? I agree with euthanasia and assisted suicide! oh and the death sentence!!!!!!!


I'm dead against abortion, i think its only a selfish woman who aborts her baby....

DrumSteve

im sure someone has said something about miniture american flags already so ill leave it out.

anyway i voted no.

JP Liz V1

I voted no

Hannibal Smith

Smart Bug wrote: »

Also @ Grindewald - did I see a post saying you wish women who had abortions should themselves have their brains extracted? Pro-life eh? :rolleyes:

Sorry to intrude, but this is what really confuses me. On the one hand you have people who are against abortion because of concern for the feotus, but then on the other hand you have the absolute disregard for the health and well being of the woman.

Smart Bug

grindelwald wrote: »

Who the hell said i was pro life? I agree with euthanasia and assisted suicide! oh and the death sentence!!!!!!!


I'm dead against abortion, i think its only a selfish woman who aborts her baby....

You're serious? You're not trolling? Really?!

(there's no raised eyebrow smiley)

ash23

Jakkass wrote: »

Your post is a bit contradictory.

Not at all. A foetus grows into a child. I wouldn't need to provide a foetus with warmth, food (it's parasitic so will take from me whether I want to give or not). I don't need to provide an education for a foetus. But odds are, unless I abort that foetus it will become a child and will require me to provide those things.

Abortion isn't the only option. Neither is keeping the child. The adoptive services are also there, and it leaves the child with a chance to be with a loving family that really cares for them rather than being denied their basic right to life.

Agreed, there are other options but I still think it's the womans right to choose which option she takes.

I never considered adoption. For me, I knew I would be able to have an abortion as I believe it to be a foetus, a cluster of cells, not a baby. If I grew that foetus for ten months, felt it kick and move and grow, went through labour and heard it cry, then it's a baby. And I couldn't give my child away.


I admire anyone who can proceed with adoption but no, I don't think it's a viable option for most.

Hannibal Smith

grindelwald wrote: »

Who the hell said i was pro life? I agree with euthanasia and assisted suicide! oh and the death sentence!!!!!!!


I'm dead against abortion, i think its only a selfish woman who aborts her baby....

I doubt they'll have much of an opinion about you too

Smart Bug

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Sorry to intrude, but this is what really confuses me. On the one hand you have people who are against abortion because of concern for the feotus, but then on the other hand you have the absolute disregard for the health and well being of the woman.

Ayuh. There's a serious need for a study on pro-lifers & their opinions (especially the religious ones) and other misogynist views they may hold. Imo it can just seem like another reason to hate/alienate women.

cynder

Its not me lying and covering up the fact i had an abortion. Im not the one pretending it didnt happen. Im not the one keeping a deep dark secret from my family because they would be ashamed of me.

Im here for the ones they dont give a dam about, the ones who dont have a voice, the ones who are sliced and diced alive inside there mommys. Im here to say they they feel pain, they are human, they have eyes, ears, nose, mouth, legs, arms, fingers, toes and a heart that beats.