Abortion under the spotlight in the European Court of Human Rights

silverspoon

common sense brigade wrote: »

Im not sure what your point is? Just because this happened here in the past (albeit the recent past ) thats no reason to legalise abortion. Maybe we need to change adoption laws here also and also give fathers more rights to their children. I really feel strongly fathers should have a say. if 7,000 women had abortions last year , there may have been a small percentage of fathers who wanted to keep their baby. even if its tiny like 2% why do those men have no voice. and the baby that would have had life. and also way more than 7,000 people here in Ireland trying to adopt. They have to go abroad to adopt children.

Fathers involved in cases where the mother wants to terminate have no rights in Ireland here because abortion is illegal in most cases. The only times he would theoretically have 'veto' rights or a right to be notified is in the cases where abortion is legal here - i.e. - rape (don't think so) and when the life of the mother is threatened (again not likely he'll be able to do much about that).

Fathers have no rights here when the mother wants to abort because we have not legislated.

Adoption is a tricky situation, and the case of Keegan in 1993 was a particularly upsetting example, where a father wished to stop the adoption of his child but failed due to the huge bias in favour of the mother in situations like this (a father only has equal rights to a child when he is married to the mother) and he eventually won his case in the ECHR (another example of Europe having to do all our dirty work when it comes to rights) and it was recognised that his rights had been infringed upon but all he could get was damages since the adoption could not be reversed.

There have been attempts to bring the father into the loop somewhat by his having a right to notification where a mother wishes to adopt, unless he cannot be found. This of course applies only where the mother herself is actually seeking to adopt the child. A father has no legal right to be informed in the event of an intention to terminate and then try to stop it because abortion remains unregulated here, despite it being a reality that (quoting above figure because I don't know myself) c.7000 women giving Irish addresses terminated their pregnancies in the UK last year. Fathers can't have rights in respect of something that 'doesn't happen'. Although I am a supporter of father's rights with regard to their children and admire your also passionate leanings that way, even if I might be more in the pro-choice camp.

This is why I think this decision should be welcomed on both sides of the debate. We as a people have already recognised situations in which it is appropriate for a woman to have the choice to terminate. The vagueness of the situation as it stands causes huge uncertainty for anyone affected by it, and those with an interest in seeing the proper regulation that the issue deserves.

I was thinking last night even - could 'rape' be construed to include 'statutory rape', whereby a 15-year old who has given her consent would in the event of pregnancy be entitled to the option of termination? Probably not but an issue like this shouldn't be this vague and uncertain in our law.

Furthermore, it shouldn't be the burden of a woman who has been raped (and how would one prove it?) nor a woman whose pregnancy may kill her, to have to fight their way through the court system for a right already recognised by the Irish people as hers.

marienbad

common sense brigade wrote: »

Im not sure what your point is? Just because this happened here in the past (albeit the recent past ) thats no reason to legalise abortion. Maybe we need to change adoption laws here also and also give fathers more rights to their children. I really feel strongly fathers should have a say. if 7,000 women had abortions last year , there may have been a small percentage of fathers who wanted to keep their baby. even if its tiny like 2% why do those men have no voice. and the baby that would have had life. and also way more than 7,000 people here in Ireland trying to adopt. They have to go abroad to adopt children.

I did'nt bring up adoption, you did, and I was just replying to your point.

You feel strongly that fathers should have a say ( and I completely agree with you) but in your previous post you dismissed comletely the right of the pregnant woman to have a say, why the contradiction.

I agree with you on difficult it is for the people going abroad to adopt , I wish you would express the same concern for the 7000 women that go abroad for abortion .

common sense brigade

You feel strongly that fathers should have a say ( and I completely agree with you) but in your previous post you dismissed comletely the right of the pregnant woman to have a say, why the contradiction.

You agree fathers should have a say but you think the mother should have more of a say? I understand its the womans body. But Pregnancy lasts only 9 months. I just think adoption is a better oprtion . I really just feel the unborn baby has rights. I really do not want to offend anyone. Its my opinion and i know these debates can be heated, but honestly I respect your right to your opinion. And think no less of your opinion. Its just not something I can agree with

I agree with you on difficult it is for the people going abroad to adopt , I wish you would express the same concern for the 7000 women that go abroad for abortion

My concern is for the unborn child except in cases where the mothers life is in danger. I just dont think abortion should ever have become socially acceptable.

common sense brigade

Early term fetus is not a baby.

I don't care what your book of fairy tales tells you; it's wrong, and you're wrong.

Are you a doctor? what would your cut off point be for abortion?
I didnt read a book of fairy tales that told me abortion is wrong. I made an informed decision on my stance years ago. Based on the rights of the unborn baby to its life. I do not believe women should be forced to keep babies they do not want. Hence why I believe adoption is a sensible option.

ScumLord

Jester Minute wrote: »

There is no right to privacy so you can do wrong. There is no right to do wrong. A lot of things that are morally wrong are not legislated against.

Morally wrong? What you actually meant was there's no law to allow you to do things I don't agree with. morals are little more than opinions.

Jester Minute wrote: »

Abortion is always going to kill the child.

If the mother had the child, she may or may not have a relapse of cancer. That remains only a possibility. There are no grounds for a pre-emptive strike against the innocent life of the child.

Leave the unborn child in peace. In the (unlikely) event that the cancer does return,

If a court said her life was in danger I'm going to believe them over your guess she might be ok and should therefore risk her life to have a child just because some people have a moral stand point that's based on nothing more than superstition.

Jester Minute wrote: »

I am a single male with no job (hence my being up at 2.25am). I am not in any position to be adopting anyone.

Well then your not really in a position to be telling other people what they should be doing either.

LizT

common sense brigade wrote: »

You agree fathers should have a say but you think the mother should have more of a say? I understand its the womans body. But Pregnancy lasts only 9 months. I just think adoption is a better oprtion . I really just feel the unborn baby has rights. I really do not want to offend anyone. Its my opinion and i know these debates can be heated, but honestly I respect your right to your opinion. And think no less of your opinion. Its just not something I can agree with
My concern is for the unborn child except in cases where the mothers life is in danger. I just dont think abortion should ever have become socially acceptable.

My view is, and I know some people will completely and utterly disagree, a foetus is not a life. The child cannot survive outside its mothers body until it has reached a certain stage of development. So I kind of think that the mother has the right to make the decision. I'm not downplaying father's rights but it's very easy to flippantly say it's only 9 months of that woman's life.

I am personally pro choice, but I know that I could never even consider having an abortion myself, unless (God forbid) it was a case of rape (and even then I'm still not sure).
But I think it is extremely arrogant of people to think that they can control other women's life choices. At the end of the day, how is it going to affect you personally if someone you've never met and never will meet has an abortion? What right have any of us to say she can't?

common sense brigade

but it's very easy to flippantly say it's only 9 months of that woman's life.

I am not being flippant as I myself have had a baby and am fully aware how hard the 9 months is.

But I think it is extremely arrogant of people to think that they can control other women's life choices

I think its arrogant to play god with unborn babies

At the end of the day, how is it going to affect you personally if someone you've never met and never will meet has an abortion?

It doesnt affect me but it still doesnt make it ok to take the life of another.My opinion. That is because my view is life begins at conception. No civilized society should permit one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human, and abortion is no different.
Let a referendum happen in the future and we will all see which way it goes. I do think it will be close.

prinz

lizt wrote: »

At the end of the day, how is it going to affect you personally if someone you've never met and never will meet has an abortion? What right have any of us to say she can't?

It doesn't affect me personally if someone kidnaps, rapes and murders a stranger either. Or if that person robs a bank. Or is a tax dodger. Or if two strangers meet and one of them kills and eats the other with their consent. Will it affect me personally, probably not. Do I have a right to say they can't? Well yes, our society lays down laws that we all choose to abide by and that we all have a say in forming. So yes, the "right" to say she can't is very much mine at this moment in time in this country.

As for arrogance re impacting life choices?.... why is abortion approached any differently to say, helmet wearing for motorcyclists, seatbelt wearing, speeding laws. Is it not arrogant to impose fines for speeding, when driving at high speeds is another's "life choice"?

donfers

the theory that keeps getting trotted out that it's some kind of conspiracy by misogynists to stop women having control of their bodies is absolute garbage although I can understand why people with certain agendas spin the abortion issue into some kind of oppression of women thing and I find it disgusting that they do it

If men were the ones who had babies I'd wager that 99% of the pro-lifers would maintain their position but maybe 50% of pro-choicers would magically adapt their views (yes I can but speculate here)

I couldn't give a flying fcuk what any man or woman does with their bodies as long as it doesn't affect someone else - the key point is how you interpret the rights of the foetus/baby, it's nothing to do with the sex of the baby-carrier, it's to do with the rights of the baby

oh and I am liberal and left-wing in most of my politics so the stereotyping of pro-lifers being holy joes is another garbage myth, if anything I view the unborb baby as the ultimate underdog, and like immigrants, women, the disabled, the poor, Palestinians etc you would think the underdog cause would appeal to lefties

It's deplorable some of the comments here from the pro-choice brigade towards people who are pro-life, some of the remarks are way over the top, hateful and nasty and again I am appalled that these apparently liberal types can have such extreme and one-sided views, truly these are not liberals, rather closer to fascists now

sensibleken

common sense brigade wrote: »

I am not being flippant as I myself have had a baby and am fully aware how hard the 9 months is.

I think its arrogant to play god with unborn babies
It doesnt affect me but it still doesnt make it ok to take the life of another.My opinion. That is because my view is life begins at conception. No civilized society should permit one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human, and abortion is no different.
Let a referendum happen in the future and we will all see which way it goes. I do think it will be close.

Just curious. What is your definition of life?

I ask because there are definitions of life which a sperm is equal to an embryo.

So when we talk about life, what are we talking about. Value? Consciousness? potential?

common sense brigade

What is your definition of life?

I believe life begins at conception.
Day 1: fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.Day 22: heart begins to beat Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop .By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear Weeks 9 and 10: Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop. The baby can turn his head, and frown. The baby can hiccup Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb.
Isint it amazing how that little 'clump of cells', progresses.
If your comfortable with Abortion thats fine.
I'm just not .

ScumLord

donfers wrote: »

If men were the ones who had babies I'd wager that 99% of the pro-lifers would maintain their position but maybe 50% of pro-choicers would magically adapt their views (yes I can but speculate here)

I'd wager if men had to go through pregnancy abortion clinics would line every street. It's easy to say abortions are wrong when you'll never have to seriously contemplate it.

prinz

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd wager if men had to go through pregnancy abortion clinics would line every street. It's easy to say abortions are wrong when you'll never have to seriously contemplate it.

Once again insinuating that an abortion has no knock-on effect on a man whatsoever. Do you think if a man gets a girl pregnant and she decides to get an abortion he forgets about it 20 seconds later?

common sense brigade

I'd wager if men had to go through pregnancy abortion clinics would line every street. It's easy to say abortions are wrong when you'll never have to seriously contemplate it.

Disagree with this. Have alot more faith in Men having being raised by men and no mother.
Do you also think then that Men should have no say if we have an abortion referendum? I mean if it doesnt affect them surely then they shouldnt get a vote.
Which of course is totally wrong. The man is the father not just the sperm donor. He has rights, and the Law here needs to be changed to address those rights.
Have to go now. happy christmas to all of ye on both sides of the debate. hope you all have a lovely christmas.

sensibleken

common sense brigade wrote: »

I believe life begins at conception.
Day 1: fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.Day 22: heart begins to beat Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop .By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear Weeks 9 and 10: Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop. The baby can turn his head, and frown. The baby can hiccup Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb.
Isint it amazing how that little 'clump of cells', progresses.
If your comfortable with Abortion thats fine.
I'm just not .

So human life begins when all chromosomes are present. What if theres an extra one. Is that not human?

Do all cells which have the correct amount of chromosomes have the same value as a baby or adult?

ScumLord

prinz wrote: »

Once again insinuating that an abortion has no knock-on effect on a man whatsoever. Do you think if a man gets a girl pregnant and she decides to get an abortion he forgets about it 20 seconds later?

Well it all depends, if it's a woman he loved and was expecting to raise a family with I'm sure he'd have a problem with it. If it's some woman he slept with 4 moths ago turning up at he's door saying she's pregnant I don't think he'd have to much of a problem with her having an abortion. Men are career driven and won't want anything standing in their way a man would be much more likely to abort. I think that's the way it is now and would only get worse if they were the ones expected to give birth and look after the child.

common sense brigade wrote: »

Disagree with this. Have alot more faith in Men having being raised by men and no mother.
Do you also think then that Men should have no say if we have an abortion referendum? I mean if it doesnt affect them surely then they shouldnt get a vote.
Which of course is totally wrong. The man is the father not just the sperm donor. He has rights, and the Law here needs to be changed to address those rights.
Have to go now. happy christmas to all of ye on both sides of the debate. hope you all have a lovely christmas.

The man doesn't have to carry the baby and give birth to it, that's really the bottom line. The man only really has a responsibility if he wants it and is let.

It's not really fair but ultimately the responsibility rests with the person who is giving birth so at the end of the day it's the woman's decision what she does with her life until a child is born into the world when her responsibility is to the child putting her own life second.

No one should have the right to force another person to suffer by their moral code.

prinz

ScumLord wrote: »

Well it all depends, if it's a woman he loved and was expecting to raise a family with I'm sure he'd have a problem with it. If it's some woman he slept with 4 moths ago turning up at he's door saying she's pregnant I don't think he'd have to much of a problem with her having an abortion..

That's a very cynical view of the male sex tbh, not to mention rather odd.

ScumLord wrote: »

The man only really has a responsibility if he wants it and is let.

It doesn't really work that way in practice.

ScumLord wrote: »

No one should have the right to force another person to suffer by their moral code.

So no more prisons then.

ScumLord

prinz wrote: »

That's a very cynical view of the male sex tbh, not to mention rather odd.



It doesn't really work that way in practice.



So no more prisons then.

I think prisons are a complete waste of time, I don't believe in state sponsored retribution to be honest I want to see rehabilitation. But that's another story.

It not odd to think men are more career driven it's well documented it's a trait of males across the animal kingdom and it's also well known men do runners when the issue of children is brought up. I'm not saying it happens as regularly as some might think it's rare enough but it happens and realistically there really is no restraint on the man to stick around if he can live with the guilt of running away then there's nothing stopping him from doing so.

prinz

ScumLord wrote: »

I think prisons are a complete waste of time, I don't believe in state sponsored retribution to be honest I want to see rehabilitation. But that's another story..

Ah here, who wants to hear about beliefs and moral codes...

ScumLord wrote: »

It not odd to think men are more career driven it's well documented it's a trait of males across the animal kingdom and it's also well known men do runners when the issue of children is brought up. I'm not saying it happens as regularly as some might think it's rare enough but it happens and realistically there really is no restraint on the man to stick around if he can live with the guilt of running away then there's nothing stopping him from doing so.

...and there are times when women do the same. I was referring more to the point that you would think even in the case of a one night stand or whatever that a guy wouldn't give a second thought about an abortion. Even if he was staunchly pro-choice, you think that news would go in one ear and out the other, never to be considered again?

scientific1982

sensibleken wrote: »

Just curious. What is your definition of life?

I ask because there are definitions of life which a sperm is equal to an embryo.

So when we talk about life, what are we talking about. Value? Consciousness? potential?

When the egg and sperm are joined together forming a zygote, that is a new human life.

sensibleken

scientific1982 wrote: »

When the egg and sperm are joined together forming a zygote, that is a new human life.

So what makes that more valuable than say a skin cell?

jugger0

Abortions are sick... keep your fupping legs closed if you dont want a child.

scientific1982

sensibleken wrote: »

So what makes that more valuable than say a skin cell?

Because a skin cell doesnt have the potential to form a fetus. It lacks pluripotency.

sensibleken

scientific1982 wrote: »

Because a skin cell doesnt have the potential to form a fetus. It lacks pluripotency.

Ok so its the potential but is that potential also not in the sperm and egg? I know they cannot on their own but the zygote only has the potential to turn into a foetus, so why is the potential for something the same as the actual thing?

scientific1982

sensibleken wrote: »

Ok so its the potential but is that potential also not in the sperm and egg? I know they cannot on their own but the zygote only has the potential to turn into a foetus, so why is the potential for something the same as the actual thing?

You're right that the zygote only has the potential to form a fetus, but the zygote is a new individual. It is genetically different from its mother and father.

sensibleken

scientific1982 wrote: »

You're right that the zygote only has the potential to form a fetus, but the zygote is a new individual. It is genetically different from its mother and father.

true but why is that valuable? It is individual only on a genetic level

Im sorry if these questions seem assinine but im just trying to understand the life begins at conception arguement.

scientific1982

sensibleken wrote: »

true but why is that valuable? It is individual only on a genetic level

Im sorry if these questions seem assinine but im just trying to understand the life begins at conception arguement.

Because its human life and we're all products of our genetics. Could you tell me what you mean by "valuable" in this context.

sensibleken

scientific1982 wrote: »

Because its human life and we're all products of our genetics. Could you tell me what you mean by "valuable" in this context.

Well what i mean is that in order to determine that the unborn child/embryo etc is more important than a womans right to not have a child if she wishes for whatever reason, we all know they vary, then the embryo is of greater value than that. im wondering what you are using to measure that value

At the moment of conception. Ie before it even becomes an embryo it is genetically little different to a skin cell

genetics are important. i grant you and none of us would be here if we were not a single celled zygote once. But similarly we would not be here if there was not a sperm before that yet everyone can agree that dumping your sperm is no big deal.

scientific1982

sensibleken wrote: »

Well what i mean is that in order to determine that the unborn child/embryo etc is more important than a womans right to not have a child if she wishes for whatever reason, we all know they vary, then the embryo is of greater value than that. im wondering what you are using to measure that value

At the moment of conception. Ie before it even becomes an embryo it is genetically little different to a skin cell

genetics are important. i grant you and none of us would be here if we were not a single celled zygote once. But similarly we would not be here if there was not a sperm before that yet everyone can agree that dumping your sperm is no big deal.

At the moment of conception, it is vastly different from a skin cell. And it is ok to use condoms because the sperm is a part of you, its not seperate individual.

Marcus.Aurelius

sensibleken wrote: »

true but why is that valuable? It is individual only on a genetic level

Im sorry if these questions seem assinine but im just trying to understand the life begins at conception arguement.

Since "God" has decided that we should auto-abort up to 40% of all foetuses, the argument seems to fall flat on it's face, or blastocyte. Besides, the human foetus does not feel pain until well after the maximum abortion time-limit imposed in most countries where abortion is available on demand. Moreover, many other cells have the capacity to become individuals thanks to genetic technology. The space for any god to hide in is becoming increasingly cramped and untenable.

With any luck, the god-botherers will let other humans decide how to run their lives instead of imposing their own stonge age morality on them.

Some day......

prinz

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

With any luck, the god-botherers will let other humans decide how to run their lives instead of imposing their own stonge age morality on them.Some day......

I'll ask you the same question I asked another poster who failed to answer for some reason. What do you say to atheists who are anti-abortion? If the "god-botherers" is your only card to play perhaps you should take some time to have another think.

Marcus.Aurelius

prinz wrote: »

I'll ask you the same question I asked another poster who failed to answer for some reason. What do you say to atheists who are anti-abortion? If the "god-botherers" is your only card to play perhaps you should take some time to have another think.

It would depend largely on why they thought they should deny such a choice to women. If you are offering a particular answer from a hypothetical atheist I am happy to engage with you on it. On the surface of it I think I would safely say that there are very few educated atheists or skeptics who would be against abortion-on-demand.

But please, if you have a reason aside from metaphysics, I'd be happy to comment.

Donkey Oaty

sensibleken wrote: »

But similarly we would not be here if there was not a sperm before that yet everyone can agree that dumping your sperm is no big deal.

Not everyone:

Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.

Ref: CDF 137, Persona humana 9.

See the Vatican Website for further moral guidelines that would be amusing if they weren't so alarming.

KamiKazeKitten

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

I think I would safely say that there are very few educated atheists or skeptics who would be against abortion-on-demand.

I'm pro-choice, but that's very arrogant. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they are uneducated.

Marcus.Aurelius

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

I'm pro-choice, but that's very arrogant. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they are uneducated.

I said very few. Not zero. And I didn't say they were uneducated because they disagreed with me. Please let's keep the hyperbole out as long as we can.

prinz

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

It would depend largely on why they thought they should deny such a choice to women. If you are offering a particular answer from a hypothetical atheist I am happy to engage with you on it..

Well there is at least one on this thread that I am aware of, so I was just wondering, do you have anything other than slurs on religious people to argue about? Or are you just going to stick with the line that anyone who is anti-abortion on deman is a "god botherer" and nothing more? Simply put, because it's about as useful as claiming everyone pro-choice is an "educated atheist". Such a claim would be nonsense.

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

On the surface of it I think I would safely say that there are very few educated atheists or skeptics who would be against abortion-on-demand..

..and I think it would be safe to say you'd be wrong in that assumption. For example the Libertarians For Life group in the US would be quite sizeable.

Donkey Oaty

jugger0 wrote: »

You payed some guy to murder your unborn baby, arent you brave! im glad you can sleep at night with your decision i know i would never be able to.

In my opinion the poster is brave. The kind of inflammatory language you are using here really does not contribute anything to the debate.

scientific1982

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

It would depend largely on why they thought they should deny such a choice to women. If you are offering a particular answer from a hypothetical atheist I am happy to engage with you on it. On the surface of it I think I would safely say that there are very few educated atheists or skeptics who would be against abortion-on-demand.

But please, if you have a reason aside from metaphysics, I'd be happy to comment.

I'm a fairly well educated atheist and I think abortion, with the exception of extreme cases, is ethically wrong.

Marcus.Aurelius

prinz wrote: »

Well there is at least one on this thread that I am aware of, so I was just wondering, do you have anything other than slurs on religious people to argue about?

Like I said, I'm happy to comment on any non-metaphysical reasoning you may present.

..and I think it would be safe to say you'd be wrong in that assumption. For example the Libertarians For Life group in the US would be quite sizeable.

Who said they were educated? Scientists the lot of them, huh? I assumed it was obvious I was talking about people suitably educated in biological sciences, i.e. those who can talk ad nauseum about the reality of conception, and the science behind the processes involved.

Cheers

Marcus.Aurelius

scientific1982 wrote: »

I'm a fairly well educated atheist and I think abortion, with the exception of extreme cases, is ethically wrong.

Very cool. Do you have a scientific basis for it, such as the time where the foetus is distinguishable from other mammalian ones? Or do you see any foetus as equal in worth to any other human life?

Purely from a scientific POV, would you agree that a foetus is not much different to any other lump of cells until the brain becomes sufficiently developed so as to confer intelligence? (shall we say humanity?)

Any other information would be great, I find this sort of thing fascinating.

ArtyC

prinz wrote: »

This argument has been dealt with.



I feel bad for you, but it doesn't change my opinion.

your entitled to your opinion. i never said you werent- i'm entitled to my opinion no?



Presumably from this you mean you were on the pill and anti-biotics you were taking interfered with it? Question: why were you having sex when you should have known that the anti-biotics can affect your contraception?

it was a few days after.....so i thought i was fine, yes a mistake.....so obviously being as intelligent as you are you never make them no?

Would I? Thanks for that newsflash.

yes i was on a rant by now, i work serving the public and find that people who go around professing their opinions so freely and adamantely usually do so for the negative aspects of life. i was generisling here so i do apologise. but i know what talk goes on in small towns and would not want to be subjected to it. was a very small part in my decision- which does not paint me in a good light- but then who really doesn't care about what people think of them?


Yes because it's only due to the Catholic Church that someone could have an issue with abortion right? No other religions have anything to say on the matter apparently, and there could be no other reason to have an opinion.

seeing as this is an irish website and as of the last concensus 74% of ireland professed to be roman catholic, making it the highest percent of practising catholics in western europe. so yes i went with the majority religion here.......only you who has enough free time to force your opinions on others must have a breakdown on the rest of the religious beliefs on this subject.........g'wan make me rue the day

Donkey Oaty

scientific1982 wrote: »

I'm a fairly well educated atheist and I think abortion, with the exception of extreme cases, is ethically wrong.

Maybe you could clarify this - do you recognise that it is possible to think that abortion is ethically wrong, yet still be pro-choice?

biko

jugger0 wrote: »

You payed some guy to murder your unborn baby, arent you brave!

jugger0, that kind of language isn't on.
This thread has gone too far from the initial premise, the news article.

For general discussion use Humanities.