Your right to an Abortion

nicola09

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Im a young fella, and I know lots of people my age who would share my opinion.

Its not strictly the old, or religious, who are against abortion. In fact the religious element damages the argument because people are so anti RCC these days that they view the ban on abortion a religious thing, when it is anything but.

I know lots of people who share my opinion too, that's why we need a referendum to get those opinions officially.

I didn't bring religion into the argument because in Ireland the Catholic Church interference in women's rights issues had ramifications far beyond the issue of campaigning against abortion. Opposition to and defeat of the Mother and Child Scheme, the illegality of contraception until 1980, incarceration of women in Magdelene Laundries...abortion is quite frankly the tip of the iceberg as far as I'm concerned.

Ickle Magoo

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Yeah I would largely agree that it is a contradiction, as I said earlier I have some issues with my own position.

IVF is a bit different in that the aim of that is to create life(maybe it already exists from fertilization?) not destroy it.

Does a embtyo have a right to life? The courts say no, I dont know and havent decided.

But IVF often creates more embryos than are used in a pregnancy - why is the destruction of frozen embryos okay and in utero not?

The embryonic phase lasts up to 8wks gestation, the courts don't say embryos have no right to life or abortion up to that point would be legal.

Wolfe Tone

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But IVF often creates more embryos than are used in a pregnancy - why is the destruction of frozen embryos okay and in utero murder?

The embryonic phase lasts up to 8wks gestation, the courts don't say embryos have no right to life or abortion up to that point would be legal.

They say that once implantation occurs there is a right to life.
Its a pretty complicated area, frozen embryos are by definition not "unborn" as they can never actually be born, hence they don't have a right to life.

My personal opinion is that any abortions etc, after implantation are morally wrong. Before hand? I don't know, IVF is generally beneficial in that the end result is a life that could never have come about naturally, the aim is not to extinguish human life.

Now, the various contraceptive methods, that prevent implantation, the morning after pill etc, are they moral?

I don't know, I'm in two minds. Once implantation occurs the pregnancy is, for want of a better term, a "proper" one, its a significant event. But is it any more significant that fertilization? I don't know, does life start then? Should that life have rights? Again, I don't know. Is it OK for a woman to do something to her body which means she is unable to get pregnant, stopping implantation etc? I wold lean towards saying yes, at that stage it is her body and there is no second life involved.

The position I have come to hold is a form of compromise, it allows for things like IVF and the morning after pill for say people who were raped.

I would be against experimentation on embryos in labs and such, so that means I would attribute some rights etc to them, but not the right to life?

drkpower is right, its not a simple issue at all.

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

They say that once implantation occurs there is a right to life.

Just to clarify this, as it is an often misinterpreted point.

The Supreme Court did not say that a pre-implantation embryo does not have a right to life. Or any other right.

They simply said that the word 'unborn' in Article 40.3.3 of the constitution does not include the pre-implantation embryo. The result is that Article 40.3.3 does not refer to the embryo. That does not necessarily mean that the embryo does not have any rights. It just means that, if they do exist, they havent been enumerated yet.

Wolfe Tone

drkpower wrote: »

Just to clarify this, as it is an often misinterpreted point.

The Supreme Court did not say that a pre-implantation embryo does not have a right to life. Or any other right.

They simply said that the word 'unborn' in Article 40.3.3 of the constitution does not include the pre-implantation embryo. The result is that Article 40.3.3 does not refer to the embryo. That does not necessarily mean that the embryo does not have any rights. It just means that, if they do exist, they havent been enumerated yet.

Under the constitution they have none.

Morag

Ectopic pregnancies are ended as a matter of course and it is the proscribed policy and proceedures for treating them is to administer Methotrexate. This is by pro-life standards legal abortion in Ireland but it's funny how that never gets brought up.

Ickle Magoo

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Under the constitution they have none.

They must have some, they cannot be given to science for experimentation and nor can they be implanted in persons unknown...

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Under the constitution they have none.

I dont want to get mired in a minor legal point but that is not necessarily correct, in the sense that the Supreme Court could determine that the embryo has certain unenumerated rights within the constitution. It is unlikely, i will grant you, but it is possible.

beeftotheheels

Sharrow wrote: »

Ectopic pregnancies are ended as a matter of course and it is the proscribed policy and proceedures for treating them is to administer Methotrexate. This is by pro-life standards legal abortion in Ireland but it's funny how that never gets brought up.

1 in 60m apparently could result in a fit and healthy baby apparently so the pro-liffers better get on this sharpish!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/sep/10/vikramdodd

Macha

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

They must have some, they cannot be given to science for experimentation and nor can they be implanted in persons unknown...

Actually, I think the legislation in this area is pretty vague and non-existant. An Irish solution, as it were.

Stargazer7

Magic Beans wrote: »

Abortion is a good choice if your aim is to be hospitalised due to the mental trauma associated with the knowledge that you have terminated the life of your unborn child.

Details. More Details

I could post more links like that all day. The facts they contain far outweigh the glib pro-abortion arguments being trotted out here.

Let's hear from someone who has had an abortion. Tell us about it, be honest, be really honest.

The fact that women can have mental health difficulties following an abortion does not mean having an abortion ALWAYS leads to such issues. And if it does then the woman should be helped, not demonised and not reminded of the stigma involved in such an act. You speak about glibness on the "pro-abortion" side (ignoring the fact that we are discussing pro CHOICE which is a totally different thing) and yet what I see from the pro life side is a huge amount of insensitivity. Like the example given of the shock tactics on the street showing aborted foetuses or miscarried babies show an unbelievable lack of sensitivity and compassion on the pro life side.

I do not dispute that there are ethical issues with abortion and that it can and often does have a hugely traumatic effect on the women who undergo the procedure. But all I see is judgement, judgement, judgement. It is a personal choice and scaremongering and throwing insults isn't going to help anyone.

Suaimhneach

Hey everyone,

Glad to see the debate here (I think...). Anyway, blog post on the experience of today here, and more pictures & facebook page here.

A quick summary: it was a really scary experience. "Peaceful cristians" shouting 'Murderer' at us... people shoving stuff in our faces... people trying to cause fights... it was enlightening, and if anything it has only strengthened my resolve to actually try and see some change in this country. Some photos:



Y U NO GTFO? I just had to bring some meme to it. There were other people with internet memes, much to my delight.



Woman hurling abuse and shouting "murderer" at us... Worth opening to full size to see the venom in her!



Another guy telling us we were going to hell.... :rolleyes:

The only thing I'll add to the converstation here, mostly because so many others have said so much so eloquently, is this (from the blog post);

These are my opinions, but I will preface them with this; I am not a medical practictioner and therefore I will not debate the finer points of when an abortion should or should not be. I am not a philospher, so I will not debate the concept of soul and when it exists.

But I think that:

• The reality is that women who need an abortion are simply going abroad for one, and pulling the wool over our eyes is not the solution.
• It should be a right of the woman to decide whether or not she wishes to carry a child, and out dated religious zealots should not be forcing their opinions down our throats.
• Ireland needs to fall in line with first world standards of health care for women and its is embarrassing that we even need to fight for this right.

I borrowed the term "anti-choice" because "pro-lifers" doesnt work. And they were changing "life" at us, over and over again, and we chanted back "choice", but it feels wrong. I'm not against life...?! Anyway, I'm going to attend the meetings of Choice Ireland who helped the guys who organised this. And I'm also going to try get involved in the Slut Walk scheduled for September (I fear the term "slut walk" wont translate well to our media, but I guess that's part of the problem).

What do you guys think?

Kimia

What makes me most uncomfortable about this thread and the views of the young men like Wolfe Tone is that to me, and maybe I'm interpreting this wrong, but it appears that there is more concern about the perception that the woman is taking away the man's right to children. To me it doesn't appear to be to do with the protection of an unborn child, it appears to be about the 'how dare these women think they can decide what to do with my child'.

I think the reason that men get so involved in this issue is that they have absolutely no idea what it's like to be in our shoes. They have never ever been called a slut for having sex, they've never had the fear of becoming pregnant and enduring the shame of being an unmarried mother. I was born in the 80's and when I was in school in the 90's this was still the attitude. I have a cousin who had her kids young and unmarried between 7-10 years ago and this was the attitude of some people even then.

Men have never experienced the fear of a missed period, or even having a period (fecking things), all in biological preparation for getting pregnant and giving birth. They have never experienced taking contraceptives that make you put on weight, turn into a hormonal mess or even risk your life in some cases.

Men also have no idea what it's like to face your body being taken over by something else, something that you have no control over. The fear of the birth, the hormones, the fact that you'll now be responsible for that human forever and ever, it's scary, terrifying. I really don't believe a man ever truly feels this way, it's not physically possible and to say that a man and a woman feel the very same way about the child and what that child represents is impossible.

Therefore it's not possible for a man to have an equal say because that's the way nature made us - in babymaking, a woman gets to carry 100% of the load. That's the way the cookie crumbles and nothing is ever going to change that. Yes it's not ideal, tbh I'd love to not have to be the one to have the babies but hey that's life.

Finally, to threaten women's points of views with the possibility that 'no man will ever want you' is laughable and pathetic. No woman will ever want a man who can't make his point without threats.

* I am also aware that there are lots of things I as a woman will never experience as I'm not a man. That's not the point of this post and I hope this pre-empts any such replies.

seenitall

Suaimhneach wrote: »

What do you guys think?

I think that all the people in these pics you posted look downright scary, with their righteous scowling and overall hostile expressions. They'd certainly scare the heck out of me, but not in the way they'd intend to do, I'm afraid. Well done to yourself and others who went, personally I just wouldn't have the stomach for that kind of thing.

Also, you have this "keyboard warrior"'s (I'm afraid I wouldn't even qualify as that, tbh) support for the slut walk, too. I would agree with those who think that it is an opportunity to at least try and reclaim the word, the male analogy of which (if it even exists? man-slut? man-whore?) is more a source of pride or at the very least much, much more neutral in comparison to its female, at the moment highly derogatory, equivalent.

histories

I am pro-choice and it makes me beyond angry that these pro-"life" people feel they get to say what happens to a woman's body. Abortion is a medical procedure that should be available for any woman. What's the alternative? Women having backstreet abortions? Putting their lives at risk for pity sake. This whole attitude of forcing a woman to have a child turns my stomach and being perfectly honest puts me in mind of the forced medical experiments carried out on the Jews during WW2.

Take a second and think of all the children that are in orphanges, millions of them across the world. I would sooner have an abortion than put a child into care where they might suffer god knows what kind of abuse. These pro-life people seem to only care that the child is born. Well are they going to raise it, feed it, clothe it, love it, provide it with an education, keep it safe? Like fcuk they are, you can't claim to be for "the children" when you don't think long term and the hell you might be inflicting on them.

One poster said that they do not think that a woman who has been raped should be allowed to avail of an abortion as it is not the child's fault. It might not be the child's fault but it isn't the woman's either. She had a man rape her, force himself on her, is it really fair that she be forced to carry and give birth to a child conceived through such an horrific situation? To be raped again only this time by the system.

Even when a woman wants a child labour can be quite traumatic, can you imagine how traumatic it would be to have to give birth to a child you don't want? To be forced to carry this parasite for all the world and endure the trauma of giving birth is beyond my imaginings!

For those that are pro-life - how would you feel if you were forced to undergo a medical procedure, to have the choice taken out of your hands and be forced to undergo a painful and traumatic experience, which could very well damage you physically and most definately psychologocally?

To take the choice away from women, to criminalise them is to strip away their identity, their humanity and what you are left with is little more than a living, breathing incubator.

Suaimhneach

I am actually concerned that the opposite will happen, that instead of there being a low attendance because of 'keyboard warriors' there'll be a mass turn out of girls dressed provocatively who don't really get the point. Who knows?

I dont think I'll dress any differently, the whole thing is meant to be that how women dress, whether its incredibly sexy or in a damn burka, neither is an invitation or an excuse for rape. Stuff like this terrifies me:

When a jury member was asked why he agreed to acquit a 23-year-old accused rapist, he argued that the victim had been wearing skinny jeans, and he doubted "those kind of jeans can be removed without any sort of collaboration."

From Jezebel.

That's kind of terrifying.

shinikins

I've read throught this thread, and wanted to scream from pure frustration at times! The chant "Abortion on Demand" has been trotted out more than once, what sane woman would use abortion as a form of contraception? Leaving aside the fact that it is quite expensive, between £500-£1500 sterling-it is a major medical procedure, and carries with it the same risks as any other operation. No-one chooses it lightly. Its not like a woman forgets to take the Pill one day and says "feck it, I can always have an abortion"

I'll be clear here. I'm not pro or anti anything. For me, personally I can't see it as a choice I will ever have to make. I'm a mature adult in a committed relationship, and I hope to have children some day. But were I to become pregnant as a result of rape, I may not hold the same choice. I will never make unilateral decisions affecting 51% of the population just because I don't want to have an abortion. Every woman should have a choice, and a say in her what happens to her body.

Suaimhneach

The "abusive of abortion on demand" was a new arguement to me. I presumed, as any sane logical person should, that when abortion comes into the country there'll be appropriate supports and systems in place, and that perhaps sex education would improve, and not that in fact everyone would just stop bothering with contraceptives.

There is another post here about the difference between the pix they put up and that which we experienced!

EGAR

I am pro abortion. Totally and utterly a woman's choice whether or not she wants to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy. It should not be State dictated.

recedite

Kimia wrote: »

Men also have no idea what it's like to face your body being taken over by something else, something that you have no control over. The fear of the birth, the hormones, the fact that you'll now be responsible for that human forever and ever, it's scary, terrifying.

Its a fair point. I'd be in favour of greater supports for all women during pregnancy. The "forever and ever" bit is optional though; there are couples out there waiting to adopt, going abroad for adoption out of desperation.
Without the next generation of workers coming through, our society would be up $hit creek, and we know there is already a pensions time bomb on the way. Those who give of themselves to rear the next generation are more valuable to society than all the overpaid politicians and bankers put together.

The OP started a parallel thread over on the religion/atheists & agnostics forum; interesting to see the differences in how the threads developed.

Malari

recedite wrote: »

The OP started a parallel thread over on the religion/atheists & agnostics forum; interesting to see the differences in how the threads developed.

I've just been reading that thread and it's much more the way I feel about it. I feel that these people have as much right to protest what they feel is murder, as the OP has to show up and stage a counter-demonstration.

Call it what you like, but I, and thousands of other Irish women would travel to obtain one if necessary. What I can't stand is the accusation that I will never find anyone to love me, that all men would run a mile if I even declare that I don't want children, that my life will forever after be a struggle against mental collapse and post-murder guilt. Those things are unequivocally untrue for many women who have had abortions.

Morag

recedite wrote: »

Its a fair point. I'd be in favour of greater supports for all women during pregnancy. The "forever and ever" bit is optional though; there are couples out there waiting to adopt, going abroad for adoption out of desperation.

Sounds simple doesn't it execpt the fact that adoption is not a real option for many women as it means people will see she is pregnant and will make a huge fuss, I know grandparents who tried to block the adoption of their grandchild.

recedite wrote: »

Without the next generation of workers coming through, our society would be up $hit creek, and we know there is already a pensions time bomb on the way.

Are you kidding me?
Ireland has the highest birth rate and fertility rate in the EU and the populations level are higher then they have been for over 200 years and it's rising.

recedite wrote: »

Those who give of themselves to rear the next generation are more valuable to society than all the overpaid politicians and bankers put together.

Only if they are doing it right and many are not but you don't see pro lifers working for those kids are at risk and those who are in care. Don't see them out protesting for the kids who have died in care.

Wolfe Tone

Kimia wrote: »

What makes me most uncomfortable about this thread and the views of the young men like Wolfe Tone is that to me, and maybe I'm interpreting this wrong, but it appears that there is more concern about the perception that the woman is taking away the man's right to children. To me it doesn't appear to be to do with the protection of an unborn child, it appears to be about the 'how dare these women think they can decide what to do with my child'.

Rubbish, complete and utterly rubbish, I am furious that you are trying to make this a "man v woman" thing and implying that it is some sort of insecurity on my part, and not my firmly held belief that the unborn have rights which need to be protected.

I think the reason that men get so involved in this issue is that they have absolutely no idea what it's like to be in our shoes. They have never ever been called a slut for having sex, they've never had the fear of becoming pregnant and enduring the shame of being an unmarried mother. I was born in the 80's and when I was in school in the 90's this was still the attitude. I have a cousin who had her kids young and unmarried between 7-10 years ago and this was the attitude of some people even then.

Yeah, I get that but we have all been an unborn child at some stage, this is not just a "woman thing" which only women should have input into. Anyway, plenty of women are against abortion.

Men have never experienced the fear of a missed period, or even having a period (fecking things), all in biological preparation for getting pregnant and giving birth. They have never experienced taking contraceptives that make you put on weight, turn into a hormonal mess or even risk your life in some cases.

Men also have no idea what it's like to face your body being taken over by something else, something that you have no control over. The fear of the birth, the hormones, the fact that you'll now be responsible for that human forever and ever, it's scary, terrifying. I really don't believe a man ever truly feels this way, it's not physically possible and to say that a man and a woman feel the very same way about the child and what that child represents is impossible.

Therefore it's not possible for a man to have an equal say because that's the way nature made us - in babymaking, a woman gets to carry 100% of the load. That's the way the cookie crumbles and nothing is ever going to change that. Yes it's not ideal, tbh I'd love to not have to be the one to have the babies but hey that's life.

Finally, to threaten women's points of views with the possibility that 'no man will ever want you' is laughable and pathetic. No woman will ever want a man who can't make his point without threats.

* I am also aware that there are lots of things I as a woman will never experience as I'm not a man. That's not the point of this post and I hope this pre-empts any such replies.

I'd agree with the bolded part, and largely disagree with the rest.

You don't seem to understand this isn't about mens rights. What some women here are asking for is the right to kill another human being. Its about that human beings rights. That totally innocent life. I think it is disgusting that you have acted so disingenuously in saying what you have about my motivations.

bronte

Thought I'd bring your attention to this lovely piece of cinema I caught wind of recently.

http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2011/06/pro-life_horror_film_the_life.html

"The two people who end up facing the consequences are on either side of the fence and they're unbending. That's how I felt when I first read the script and how I still feel about it," Lindsey Haun, best known for her work on HBO's True Blood, offered as explanation of the ending twist of her latest feature, the pro-life horror film 'The Life one' which premiered Saturday night at the Hoboken International Film Festival.
"The woman who is completely pro-life and who never changes her opinion, and the woman who is pro-choice and never considers the other side, they're so pig-headed in their own views and not willing to debate, so they face the consequences," Haun, who plays pro-choice victim Staci Horowitz, concluded.
And that's one interpretation of the pro-life horror film, a passion project of its writer and producer, HIFF founder and NJ state senate candidate Kenneth del Vecchio. But it's the wrong one.
The Life Zone went viral across the internet Friday after blogs The Frisky and Talking Points Memo picked up on the film's trailer which focuses on three pregnant women who appear to have been kidnapped from abortion clinics and forced to see their pregnancies to term by their doctor and jailor. But despite garnering more than 20,000 hits on YouTube in the last four days, only fifty people - including the film's cast and producers - attended this weekend's screening, and even those who starred in the movie didn't know how to interpret its twist ending.
The plot as it played out: Three pregnant women wake up imprisoned in a hospital. Their only other contact is with their jailor - a mystery man played by Robert Loggia who occasionally appears on video to answer the women's questions and explain the consequences of their disobedience - and an obstetrician, actress Blanche Baker as Dr. Victoria Wise, who will deliver the captive women's babies whether or not their pro-choice views are changed.
The captive women are clothed in nightgowns and served warm milk and given opportunities to read books and watch movies explaining both sides of the abortion debate. Among the films is Del Vecchio's own 2009 feature, O.B.A.M. Nude, a satire of the Obama presidency.
As Dr. Wise explains it, "we'll have an abortion think tank over the next seven months."
The pregnant women are often tortured by dreams of death and despair - montages of swarming bees, swirling tornadoes and speeches by Hitler one night, African-Americans and foreigners shouting "abort me" in foreign tongues the next - while Dr. Wise experiences flashbacks to the dissolution of her marriage which fell apart when she learned she couldn't bear children. Her parents cursed her for not taking better care of her body, a poor diet, too much work, while her husband - The Karate Kid's bad sensei Martin Kove - divorces her, leaving her for a woman capable of having his children, a moment that pushes Dr. Wise to desperate measures.
Finally two of the three women come to accept human life exists inside them and less anxiously anticipate giving birth. But Staci still refuses to accept that the life inside her is anything more than a fetus. In her third trimester she attempts to injure herself and miscarry. It has unintended consequences.
All three women deliver and finally the first of the plot's twists are revealed. Staci, most opposed to pregnancy, is blessed with two children - twins - while her fellow captives only give birth to one baby each.
Later, Staci wakes up. The two new mothers are no longer captives, they've presumably ascended to heaven with their babies. It's revealed all along the women had been in Purgatory, after having died on the operating table of abortion clinics. But because Staci attempted to miscarry even after a second chance at motherhood, and because she never accepted the error of her ways until she experienced the physical joy of giving birth, of seeing her children for the first time, she will be doomed to eternity in Hell.
Loggia is Satan and he informs Staci she will spend all eternity in a cycle of pregnancy and childbirth and Dr. Wise will forever be her doctor, as the movie's final twist plays out: Wise too will spend eternity in Hell. She was so weak she committed suicide when her marriage collapsed and must suffer the fate of forever bringing life into the world, endlessly having to appreciate what she did not value on Earth.
"It was not a dramatic turn," Del Vecchio explained yesterday of the film's final moments - the triple-birth scene scored to a swelling crescendo which drowns out the revelation that Staci has given birth to twins along with the revelation of the doctor's suicide - all obscured by sound and editing issues director Rod Weber was still working to smooth out through the night. Del Vecchio explained The Life Zone is simply the classic straightforward story with a twist.
"It's like the Twilight Zone. Life, like pro-life; zone, like the Twilight Zone. And if you've seen Twilight Zone episodes, it punches you in the face in the end," Del Vecchio added, though he was quick to note he still felt the film's presentation of the issues was balanced. "I think the audience will walk away not knowing what the filmmaker's position is, it gives both sides of the coin."

Trailer here:

Shockingly the writer/producer is a republican candidate.
This is his pet project.
What's even more hilarious is the twist ending that he claims is unbiased.
Basically if you are a woman, you are here for one reason only and if you dare to resist your purpose on earth you will be punished.
At first I was convinced this was just a really good troll, but scarily I think this Del Vecchio kid actually believes the crap he comes out with.
That people out there genuinely think this way is frankly disturbing.

King of Kings

apologies again for posting ( i know it's a ladys forum) but I just wanted a quick response to some comments on my post.

Macha wrote: »

Because they want to take away my right to choose. My body, my choice. It's that simple.

I'd argue that it's more than just your body - . no doubt you'll counter it and we'll go around in circles.

ztoical wrote: »

I. By this logic the state or the father has the right to stop me doing all sorts of things while pregnant. Should we now start locking up women who smoke, drink or take drugs while pregnant? .

I'd have no problem with this - if applied through a state agency with procedures etc...

I think it's incredibily wrong to drink regularily / heavily or take drugs during pregnancy - to risk something like fetal alcohol syndrome on another life is disgusting.

I recently spent time in the rotunda and it was sickening the pregnant women smoking. My gf found it quite distressing too so it's not just me a male lashing women with my ignorance of what its like to be a woman.

metrovelvet

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Rubbish, complete and utterly rubbish, I am furious that you are trying to make this a "man v woman" thing and implying that it is some sort of insecurity on my part, and not my firmly held belief that the unborn have rights which need to be protected.




Yeah, I get that but we have all been an unborn child at some stage, this is not just a "woman thing" which only women should have input into. Anyway, plenty of women are against abortion.



I'd agree with the bolded part, and largely disagree with the rest.

You don't seem to understand this isn't about mens rights. What some women here are asking for is the right to kill another human being. Its about that human beings rights. That totally innocent life. I think it is disgusting that you have acted so disingenuously in saying what you have about my motivations.

It's the most impossible moral quagmire ever.

It's about the bodily integrity of two people, the mother and the baby. I recognise that the foetus, baby...whatever you want to name it is a human life. I recognise the mother is also a human life. Im not one for the bunch of cells argument. I think that is a crock of **** cop out.

So you have two human lives at stake. What do you do?

With pregnancy and birth comes risk, one cant forget that. Childbirth used to be the number one killer of women, and there is still risks involved with pregnancy and birth.

Seriously, I dont have an answer. I dont like abortion because someone wants to get a promotion or they had an affair with an opposite race man and want their kids to match.

We all like to think of the abortion getter as a victim of some kind, the 12 year old who was raped, the 45 year old who has finished raising her family and has a high risk of an abnormal fetus, things like that... but the reality is...there is more than that going on in the abortion clinics.

*Just to add re: time limits. You cant get an amnio done until around the 18th -20th week, which is why second term abortions are in place, in case someone wants to abort a baby with chromosomal abnormalities.

Kimia

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Rubbish, complete and utterly rubbish, I am furious that you are trying to make this a "man v woman" thing and implying that it is some sort of insecurity on my part, and not my firmly held belief that the unborn have rights which need to be protected.

I am not trying to make it a man v woman thing. I'm just giving my opinion on the matter. Take from it what you will.

Yeah, I get that but we have all been an unborn child at some stage, this is not just a "woman thing" which only women should have input into. Anyway, plenty of women are against abortion.

As my post states, for right or for wrong, only a woman can decide what to do with her body. Biology has stated that women are the incubators, therefore we have the control. Such is life. Nothing you or anyone can say will make this change.

I'd agree with the bolded part, and largely disagree with the rest.

You don't seem to understand this isn't about mens rights. What some women here are asking for is the right to kill another human being. Its about that human beings rights. That totally innocent life. I think it is disgusting that you have acted so disingenuously in saying what you have about my motivations.

They are not asking for the right to kill another human being. They want the right to have control over their own body legally. I think it's disgusting that anyone, man or woman, would ever have the audacity to try and argue otherwise. Until the baby can live on its own, it's part of the woman's body, literally, so the choice is hers. The choice doesn't and mightened have to necessarily be abortion, but it's her choice to make because it's her body. It's not the potential fathers, it's not some pushy organisation, and it's certainly not yours, some random young guy.

Wolfe Tone

Kimia wrote: »

I am not trying to make it a man v woman thing. I'm just giving my opinion on the matter. Take from it what you will.




As my post states, for right or for wrong, only a woman can decide what to do with her body. Biology has stated that women are the incubators, therefore we have the control. Such is life. Nothing you or anyone can say will make this change.




They are not asking for the right to kill another human being. They want the right to have control over their own body legally. I think it's disgusting that anyone, man or woman, would ever have the audacity to try and argue otherwise. Until the baby can live on its own, it's part of the woman's body, literally, so the choice is hers. The choice doesn't and mightened have to necessarily be abortion, but it's her choice to make because it's her body. It's not the potential fathers, it's not some pushy organisation, and it's certainly not yours, some random young guy.

Yes they are.

beeftotheheels

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Yes they are.

Can I ask your views on something like the Ms D case where there was no chance, if the pregnancy went to term, that she would have a living baby at the end of it? Can you really argue that terminating a bundle of cells which will never take a breath is murder?

metrovelvet

Kimia wrote: »

They are not asking for the right to kill another human being. They want the right to have control over their own body legally. I think it's disgusting that anyone, man or woman, would ever have the audacity to try and argue otherwise. Until the baby can live on its own, it's part of the woman's body, literally, so the choice is hers. The choice doesn't and mightened have to necessarily be abortion, but it's her choice to make because it's her body. It's not the potential fathers, it's not some pushy organisation, and it's certainly not yours, some random young guy.

Yes, they are asking for that right. Let's at least be honest about it.

But at least you are consistent, in that you think its her choice as long as the baby is still in her body, which is about 38 weeks or so.