Your right to an Abortion

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

...... is quite simply, the taking of a persons life.

Is it really that simple, though?

For instance, do you believe that the oral contraceptive pill, the IUD, or the morning after pill should be illegal? They all have the potential act of 'taking of a persons life'.

Ickle Magoo

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

More people wanting to legalize the murder of babies out of "choice", wheres their choice eh?

Its disgusting that some try and portray abortion as somehow being forward, progressive etc, while in actual fact it is barbaric in the extreme and is quite simply, the taking of a persons life.

(of course there is an exception imo where the mother has a very high chance of dying if the pregnancy is carried to term)

I presume you feel strongly against a whole raft of contraceptives and the MAP then?

Wolfe Tone

drkpower wrote: »

Is it really that simple, though?

For instance, do you believe that the oral contraceptive pill, the IUD, or the morning after pill should be illegal? They all have the potential act of 'taking of a persons life'.

To answer that question fully I would have to know the exact moment when life begins, I don't.

Is it fertilization? Implantation?

I think it may be best to say implantation as once that happens everything is in place, ideally, for the pregnancy to be carried to term. Its a fair position/compromise I think.

Ickle Magoo

So you can make up some arbitrary line but others aren't allowed to draw the same arbitrary line a bit further down the road? Bit hypocritical...

Wolfe Tone

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So you can make up some arbitrary line but others aren't allowed to draw the same arbitrary line a bit further down the road? Bit hypocritical...

Its not "arbitrary" at all, as I said implantation is a very important part of the process, and once that happens, imo, it is unjustifiable for an abortion to be carried out, except if it poses a huge risk to the mothers life.

This position is a fair compromise as it still allows things such as IVF and the contraceptives.

How far "down the road" would you put it at then?

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Its not "arbitrary" at all, as I said implantation is a very important part of the process, and once that happens, imo, it is unjustifiable for an abortion to be carried out, except if it poses a huge risk to the mothers life.

Why is implnatation any more important than fetilization?

But more importantly, why do you get to choose that it is the critical event yet those who, for instance, believe that the development of conciousness is the critical event, do not get to choose?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well it definitely shouldn't be legal once the foetus is out of nappies, but anything before that is kind of a grey area

Truley

bluewolf wrote: »

While I'm utterly completely prochoice I can understand where prolifers are coming from with protests
gosh I have mellowed out in the last few years!!

So have I! I'm pretty much 100% 'pro choice' but at the same time I can completely empathize with people who aren't. When I was a teenager I would have considered myself very against abortion but this was never down to any religious or anti feminist/ anti freedom reasons. I guess since you're told all your life that killing = bad the natural conclusion I had come to was that killing unborn babies = bad. I don't think there was ever anything wrong with feeling this way

As I got older my views changed but only out of gaining more life experience and a slightly more skeptical outlook of the world. It's not like I suddenly realized that abortion was a positive thing or a 'right' thing to do. I don't feel this way. I think it's something that just ... is, it's a method of dealing with unwanted pregnancy that people want to use and I don't feel I have the right to prevent them doing it.

There are a lot of very good, rational people that don't agree with abortion and I can accept that and understand where they're coming from. I don't understand all the aggression that's leveled at people who don't agree with abortion. Although I agree that Youth Defense are a crowd of loonies.

Wolfe Tone

drkpower wrote: »

Why is implnatation any more important than fetilization?

But more importantly, why do you get to choose that it is the critical event yet those who, for instance, believe that the development of conciousness is the critical event, do not get to choose?

Why does anyone get to choose?

The people chose that position via many referendums.

What position do you want? A free for all where people can have late term abortions etc etc?

Its not simply about what the mother wants, there are two people involved(three if you involve the dad)

Ickle Magoo

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Its not "arbitrary" at all, as I said implantation is a very important part of the process, and once that happens, imo, it is unjustifiable for an abortion to be carried out, except if it poses a huge risk to the mothers life.

This position is a fair compromise as it still allows things such as IVF and the contraceptives.

How far "down the road" would you put it at then?

Of course it's arbitrary - what about those who consider life to begin at sentience? What about those who consider life to begin and independence? You have decided that's where YOU draw the line - but that's based entirely on your own arbitrary point of view, which is just a couple of arbitrary stops before my own.

There are those against contraceptives, IVF, abortion - all arguing with the same cries of unjust and heinous barbery...I don't see what makes any one of them right beyond their own personal views - which is all anyone in the abortion debate has.

Wolfe Tone

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Of course it's arbitrary - what about those who consider life to begin at sentience? What about those who consider life to begin and independence? You have decided that's where YOU draw the line - but that's based entirely on your own arbitrary point of view, which is just a couple of arbitrary stops before my own.

There are those against contraceptives, IVF, abortion - all arguing with the same cries of unjust and heinous barbery...I don't see what makes any one of them right beyond their own personal views - which is all anyone in the abortion debate has.

You didnt answer the question, how far down the road would you put it?

wild_cat

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Its not simply about what the mother wants, there are two people involved(three if you involve the dad)

What about pregnancies that have resulted from rape or incest?

Would you FORCE a woman to carry a child she didn't have a choice in creating?

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Its not simply about what the mother wants, there are two people involved(three if you involve the dad)

I agree that there are two entities involved. I am simply illustrating that your initial assertion that the matter is 'simple' is way off the mark. But I think even your own follow up posts have demonstrated that that is the case.:cool:

Wolfe Tone

wild_cat wrote: »

What about pregnancies that have resulted from rape or incest?

Would you FORCE a woman to carry a child she didn't have a choice in creating?

What stage the pregnancies are at is something which is relevant. Up to when do you think that person should be allowed to abort?

gargleblaster

Truley wrote: »

So have I! I'm pretty much 100% 'pro choice' but at the same time I can completely empathize with people who aren't. When I was a teenager I would have considered myself very against abortion but this was never down to any religious or anti feminist/ anti freedom reasons. I guess since you're told all your life that killing = bad the natural conclusion I had come to was that killing unborn babies = bad. I don't think there was ever anything wrong with feeling this way

As I got older my views changed but only out of gaining more life experience and a slightly more skeptical outlook of the world. It's not like I suddenly realized that abortion was a positive thing or a 'right' thing to do. I don't feel this way. I think it's something that just ... is, it's a method of dealing with unwanted pregnancy that people want to use and I don't feel I have the right to prevent them doing it.

There are a lot of very good, rational people that don't agree with abortion and I can accept that and understand where they're coming from. I don't understand all the aggression that's leveled at people who don't agree with abortion. Although I agree that Youth Defense are a crowd of loonies.

The aggression is directed at people who disagree? This is not my impression at all. The aggression is directed at those who wish to push their belief onto others.

No one is forcing anyone who disagrees with abortion to have one. But some of those who disagree with abortion are doing everything in their power to stand in the way of anyone who disagrees with them.

Wolfe Tone

gargleblaster wrote: »

The aggression is directed at people who disagree? This is not my impression at all. The aggression is directed at those who wish to push their belief onto others.

No one is forcing anyone who disagrees with abortion to have one. But some of those who disagree with abortion are doing everything in their power to stand in the way of anyone who disagrees with them.

That would be a good argument against those against gay marriage etc, but this is different in that it involves a child.

wild_cat

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What stage the pregnancies are at is something which is relevant. Up to when do you think that person should be allowed to abort?

Not until you answer my question first or does it mean that you'd be willing to consider abortion up to a certain point in the case or rape or incest?

I'm quite happy with the 26/24 week rule the English have in place. But if needs be it should be increased.

gargleblaster

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

That would be a good argument against those against gay marriage etc, but this is different in that it involves a child.

Not really. You've already conceded that you're not unconditionally opposed to abortion (sorry, "murder"). You just don't seem to appreciate that not everyone has the same view as you do where the limits are set.

Ickle Magoo

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You didnt answer the question, how far down the road would you put it?

I take it you didn't bother reading the thread then?

dark crystal

wild_cat wrote: »

Not until you answer my question first or does it mean that you'd be willing to consider abortion up to a certain point in the case or rape or incest?

I'm quite happy with the 26/24 week rule the English have in place. But if needs be it should be increased.

You think an abortion should be available for someone who has had 6 months to get one and still hasn't? In fact, you think abortions should be performed after 6 months?

You do realise there is a chance that the foetus can survive outside the womb at that stage? Yet, you think the mother's right to terminate supercedes that fact?

Wolfe Tone

wild_cat wrote: »

Not until you answer my question first or does it mean that you'd be willing to consider abortion up to a certain point in the case or rape or incest?

I'm quite happy with the 26/24 week rule the English have in place. But if needs be it should be increased.

No, abortion should not be allowed in those cases, it is not the childs fault.

So if it is over that amount of time you would "force" the woman to carry the child? Or you would have the child killed at a late stage in development?

wild_cat

dark crystal wrote: »

You think an abortion should be available for someone who has had 6 months to get one and still hasn't? In fact, you think abortions should be performed after 6 months?

You do realise there is a chance that the foetus can survive outside the womb at that stage? Yet, you think the mother's right to terminate supercedes that fact?

If there are severe birth defects it should be allowed over the 6 month mark - hence why I said needs be. What if a woman could only afford the abortion after saving for the 6 months?

I'm well aware of what my beliefs in tail..... and I won't back down on them. I've heard the same pro life argument again and again. It hasn't changed my mind yet and it never will, no matter how many rants/opinions I hear.

wild_cat

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

So if it is over that amount of time you would "force" the woman to carry the child?

Nope. See my post above. Personally I'd rather kill myself than carry the child or rape. But of course the unborn are worth more than me.

Wolfe Tone

wild_cat wrote: »

Nope. See my post above. Personally I'd rather kill myself than carry the child or rape. But of course the unborn are worth more than me.

No, they are worth just the same.

wild_cat

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

No, they are worth just the same.

So as long as the "host" dies to its ok for the "baby" to die to?

An eye for eye?

Wolftone supporting suicide instead of abortion?

dark crystal

wild_cat wrote: »

If there are severe birth defects it should be allowed over the 6 month mark - hence why I said needs be. What if a woman could only afford the abortion after saving for the 6 months?

I'm well aware of what my beliefs in tail..... and I won't back down on them. I've heard the same pro life argument again and again. It hasn't changed my mind yet and it never will, no matter how many rants/opinions I hear.

No one is asking you to back down. Opinions and rants can apply on both sides of the debate, btw.

By the way, I'm pro choice, but I do believe there should be stricter limits set on the time limits available for terminations.

As far as I'm aware, women in the UK can get an abortion on the NHS, so the affordibility issue is a moot point.

Hermione*

I really, really, REALLY hate the term "pro-life". I have never been able to understand why this movement isn't more accurately and correctly called the anti-abortion movement.

Wolfe Tone

wild_cat wrote: »

So as long as the "host" dies to its ok for the "baby" to die to?

An eye for eye?

Wolftone supporting suicide instead of abortion?

Thats just stupid, I don't support suicide ffs.

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

No, they are worth just the same.

Again with the simplistic statements. But do you even really believe that the woman and the unborn have equal rights?

I suspect not. Try this: If a woman has a, lets say, 60% risk to her life if she proceeds with a pregnancy, do you believe that she is entitled to a termination?

Bear in mind that if mother and foetus are genuinely equal, the right answer would be to prohibit a termination and let both parties take their chances, rather than killing one to save the other.

gargleblaster

Hermione* wrote: »

I really, really, REALLY hate the term "pro-life". I have never been able to understand why this movement isn't more accurately and correctly called the anti-abortion movement.

I call them anti-choice myself.