Abortion

eviltwin

Wompa1 wrote: »

Actually I heard an interesting point on a radio show before. Who started calling it Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life? Surely it should be called Pro-Abortion vs Anti-Abortion. Just call it as it is rather than glorifying either position.

I don't know anyone who wants to see pregnant women have abortions. I don't. I would love all pregnancies to be wanted and planned but living in the real world we have to provide for the alternative. So I'm pro-choice - whatever the choice might be - not pro-abortion

Otacon

tomtherobot wrote: »

The only justified killing I know of is self-defense?

What if the fetus' presense threatens the life of the mother? Do you give preference to the actual life [mother] or the potential life [fetus]?

eviltwin

tomtherobot wrote: »

Please explain to me what it is about abortion that is traumatic, if it's not killing? I'm sorry I can't see it? If you're pro-abortion surely you saying that a life isn't being destroyed.

Are some people here saying that abortion is killing, but it's justified. How so? The only justified killing I know of is self-defense? I don't see how that applies.

My abortion was very traumatic for me, the fact I had to travel, the secrecy, the worry, the fears, the lack of understanding, finding some people won't let me forget it and move on from it, the fact people like you get off on making people like me feel like crap. I don't believe I killed a person but I am aware some people think I'm no better than Myra Hindley, thats upsetting to me. All of those are reasons why I needed counselling.

Malari

tomtherobot wrote: »

Please explain to me what it is about abortion that is traumatic, if it's not killing? I'm sorry I can't see it? If you're pro-abortion surely you saying that a life isn't being destroyed.

Are some people here saying that abortion is killing, but it's justified. How so? The only justified killing I know of is self-defense? I don't see how that applies.

Well I would say that yes, it's killing, but in my opinion it's justified because I feel the rights of the woman who does not want to be pregnant outweigh the rights of the foetus to be born.

Nodin

tomtherobot wrote: »

Please explain to me what it is about abortion that is traumatic, if it's not killing? I'm sorry I can't see it? If you're pro-abortion surely you saying that a life isn't being destroyed.

Are some people here saying that abortion is killing, but it's justified. How so? The only justified killing I know of is self-defense? I don't see how that applies.

There are other forms of traumatic experience than "killing".

People who've had cancer have counselling. People who've had any serious illness have counselling. People who've survived a crash have counselling. People who've suffered severe discrimination, are demonised and can't turn the community for support often turn to counselling.

Theres a vast difference between your alleged inability to see how something can be justified or viewed in a certain way and it being so.

humanji

tomtherobot wrote: »

Just to clarify, I can see why abortion is traumatic.

Really?

If you kill somebody it will be traumatic.

Oh wait, you don't.

There's more than one reason to need counselling. For example, if some needed to have an abortion, but were stuck near someone claiming they were murderers and killing the innocent. That would be fairly traumatic. Not because of the abortion, but because of the judgement they've to wrongly suffer through.

There are many other reasons.

What I can't understand is why pro-abortionists, who say that it isn't killing, still say that counseling is required?

You can't understand, or you're refusing to accept?

Corkfeen

tomtherobot wrote: »

My tone is flippant because i think abortion is killing. Killing happens all the time, it's horrible, it's wrong but it happens. I don't think abortion is any special type of killing to be given special treatment.

Erm, even if we accept your stance that it is murder which I don't. Convicted murderers avail of counselling too. So you do want to give people who have had an abortion, 'special treatment' by denying them the right to avail of a service that everyone else can.

There's tons of reasons why people need counselling for example I needed it as a result of being in hospital for a while however it does not mean that being in hospital was wrong, it simply means that it's an extremely draining event. The same applies to people who have had an abortion, not to say that some don't regret it but for many it is the best option for them. Either way there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to get counselling.

Wompa1

tomtherobot wrote: »

Please explain to me what it is about abortion that is traumatic, if it's not killing? I'm sorry I can't see it? If you're pro-abortion surely you saying that a life isn't being destroyed.

Are some people here saying that abortion is killing, but it's justified. How so? The only justified killing I know of is self-defense? I don't see how that applies.

Skylinehead wrote: »

Pro-abortion basically means you are in favour of abortions (abortions for all! :pac:), whereas pro-choice means you are in favour of the woman having the choice of keeping the child or abortion. Anti-abortion is pretty much the same as pro-life.

But if I'm Pro Death Penalty. It doesn't mean I think everyone should get the death penalty. It's semantics and I never understood why.

If you are Pro allowing women to have an abortion no matter what the circumstances. Whether they have been raped, ill or just using it as a get out. Then I would say you are Pro Abortion.

Pro Choice makes it sound a lot less about the living being inside the ladies and more about themselves.

Any Gynies in the house to weigh in? All I know about the process is the foetus's I saw at the Bodies exhibition and what I've read or saw through my life. I have to say, the actual foetus I saw looked a lot like a living being

Gurgle

Wompa1 wrote: »

Actually I heard an interesting point on a radio show before. Who started calling it Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life? Surely it should be called Pro-Abortion vs Anti-Abortion. Just call it as it is rather than glorifying either position.

This has always pissed me off.

Pro-abortionists started calling their position pro-choice to make it sound all free and liberal, the opposition therefore being against freedom and liberty.

Anti-abortionists started calling their position pro-life to make it sound like anyone who disagreed with them is anti-life.

As you said, its pro or anti abortion. Anyone who calls themselves pro-choice / pro-life is a bullshìt artist and can be safely ignored.

Scanlas The 2nd

LizT wrote: »

Wompa1 wrote: »

Actually I heard an interesting point on a radio show before. Who started calling it Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life? Surely it should be called Pro-Abortion vs Anti-Abortion. Just call it as it is rather than glorifying either position.

I would consider myself to be pro choice but not necessarily pro abortion. There's a difference.

Drop the pro crap.

LizT

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Drop the pro crap.

What do you mean by pro crap?

Chuck Stone

Wompa1 wrote: »

But if I'm Pro Death Penalty. It doesn't mean I think everyone should get the death penalty. It's semantics and I never understood why.

Do you think that a woman should be forced to have a child?

A raped woman?

An woman who will lose her life if she does?

I can't see how you'd be anti-abortion.

DUCWIDT?

humanji

Gurgle wrote: »

This has always pissed me off.

Pro-abortionists started calling their position pro-choice to make it sound all free and liberal, the opposition therefore being against freedom and liberty.

Anti-abortionists started calling their position pro-life to make it sound like anyone who disagreed with them is anti-life.

As you said, its pro or anti abortion. Anyone who calls themselves pro-choice / pro-life is a bullshìt artist and can be safely ignored.

I'm anti-abortion, but believe that that should only apply to me, and that others should be allowed to choose for themselves. I have no right to force my opinions on others. The world isn't black and white.

Neewbie_noob

tomtherobot wrote: »

Now, normally i stay away from abortion debates because i find they're full of nazi fembots or holy joe types but this morning, i found the country's favorite moral crusader aka Ray D'arcy, preaching on about the rights of women who've had abortions. This led me to the conclusion that there's a general consensus these days that abortion is now acceptable to the majority (ok not just this alone), but if this is the case, i think it raises two issues going forward (as they say)

Firstly, maintenance payments for children? How can a society, or individual, who supports a woman's exclusive right to chose to have an abortion at the same time come to fathers with the paw out looking for money to support children. If a father has no choice whether the child is alive or not how can he be demanded to support that child? Makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Secondly, the Ray D'arcy show this morning was talking about counseling for women after abortion. Seemingly the HSE already pays for this. I can't understand how state support for counseling for women who've had abortions is justified. On one side of the debate, pro abortionists say it's a procedure to remove a physical growth which isn't alive. If that's the case why the need for counseling? On the other side, anti-abortionists say it's murder, so why would the state be counseling murderers? Did I miss something, do we not still have old folk being left to rot on trolleys, surely the HSE has greater priorities now than counseling women who've chose to have an abortion.

As you may have guessed, i'm anti-abortion. I'm not religious I just believe that an unborn child is alive. Why else would people mourn the loss of unborn or stillborn children? Or require counseling after 'terminating' one? Given that i believe that an unborn child is alive I think killing one is wrong and cannot be justified above the social or material needs of the parent(s). No more or less than i think it would be ok to kill your elderly parents just because they don't suit where you are in you're life right now.....

When it comes to maintenance - the man took part in creating it, therefore he is responsible for upkeep.

When it comes to abortion - the foetus is apparently "part of the woman's body".

It's just a double standard. You can whine and protest until you are blue in the face, but unfortunately, it won't change. I think the UK should open up a bilateral agreement with Ireland so the father of the child will have to sign a waiver to let her abort his son / daughter.

When it comes to maintenance the man is the father.
When it comes to abortion it's only the woman's child.

In saying that I'm sure most of the fine ladies of boards.ie and Ireland don't have that attitude, but it seems to be the most prevalent attitude among the staunch pro-choicers.

tomtherobot

Otacon wrote: »

What if the fetus' presense threatens the life of the mother? Do you give preference to the actual life [mother] or the potential life [fetus]?

If you consider, like i do, that the unborn child (call it a fetus if it makes it easier for you to justify killing them) is alive then you're just asking to chose one life above another.

And if there's any chance that the mother will live, surely we should allow both the chance to live.

People seem to resort to these largely hypothetical situations. I believe in the vast majority of circumstances abortion is chosen because it is more convenient to the parent(s).

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't know anyone who wants to see pregnant women have abortions. I don't. I would love all pregnancies to be wanted and planned but living in the real world we have to provide for the alternative. So I'm pro-choice - whatever the choice might be - not pro-abortion

So abortion is ok for unplanned pregnancies and not just the 'justified' cases, it's a form of contraception?

Musiconomist

Why is it people who claim to be religous are the ones who try control everyone else?

Could you not try to forgive people more? Attempt more understanding and compassion, rather than judgement. Isnt that the message of Jesus?

eviltwin

tomtherobot wrote: »

If you consider, like i do, that the unborn child (call it a fetus if it makes it easier for you to justify killing them) is alive then you're just asking to chose one life above another.

And if there's any chance that the mother will live, surely we should allow both the chance to live.

People seem to resort to these largely hypothetical situations. I believe in the vast majority of circumstances abortion is chosen because it is more convenient to the parent(s).



So abortion is ok for unplanned pregnancies and not just the 'justified' cases, it's a form of contraception?

You started off on point we hadn't seen before, that post abortion counselling should be stopped, now you're just turning it into another argument about the rights and wrong of abortion.

Newsflash, its been done before and by plenty of people more articulate than you.

jaja321

tomtherobot wrote: »

If you consider, like i do, that the unborn child (call it a fetus if it makes it easier for you to justify killing them) is alive then you're just asking to chose one life above another.

And if there's any chance that the mother will live, surely we should allow both the chance to live.

People seem to resort to these largely hypothetical situations. I believe in the vast majority of circumstances abortion is chosen because it is more convenient to the parent(s).



So abortion is ok for unplanned pregnancies and not just the 'justified' cases, it's a form of contraception?

Shows what little you know then, doesn't it.

tomtherobot

Chuck Stone wrote: »

An woman who will lose her life if she does?
DUCWIDT?

What woman will lose her life? not might, will? If you think an unborn child is alive, how can you chose one life over another?

humanji wrote: »

I'm anti-abortion, but believe that that should only apply to me, and that others should be allowed to choose for themselves. I have no right to force my opinions on others. The world isn't black and white.

Personally im not gonna abuse kids, but if someone else out there wants to.....

humanji

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

When it comes to maintenance - the man took part in creating it, therefore he is responsible for upkeep.

When it comes to abortion - the foetus is apparently "part of the woman's body".

It's just a double standard. You can whine and protest until you are blue in the face, but unfortunately, it won't change. I think the UK should open up a bilateral agreement with Ireland so the father of the child will have to sign a waiver to let her abort his son / daughter.

When it comes to maintenance the man is the father.
When it comes to abortion it's only the woman's child.

In saying that I'm sure most of the fine ladies of boards.ie and Ireland don't have that attitude, but it seems to be the most prevalent attitude among the staunch pro-choicers.

Again, it's more complicated than that. The father should have a say in an abortion, but logically can't have the final say. The foetus is almost parasitic in nature. It can't survive without the mother in those circumstances. In fact, you could almost say both parties should have counselling over the matter...

Neewbie_noob

Abortion should only ber permitted in the following 2 cases:

• Ectopic Pregnancy
• Cancer of the uterus

partyatmygaff

humanji wrote: »

And if you don't take it that the unborn child is alive?

Then you need to have a read of a biology or better yet a physiology book before repeating factually incorrect opinions. It is certainly a living human organism and to be perfectly accurate it's a living child of its two parents.

Whether or not you think said child organism has the same right to life as a fully developed human organism is the question. Very few would argue that the child's right to life supercedes the mother's right to life. Even the strongest opponents of abortion wouldn't support the idea of allowing a pregnancy to continue if it would involve death to the mother. So to that effect, the child cannot be allowed to kill its mother. Whether the mother can or cannot choose to kill her child is the question. In some cases, it's usually the best choice for those involved. For example, child with an incredibly serious birth defect like anencephaly has almost no chance of surviving pregnancy let alone life after birth. Carrying an anencephalic child to term isn't in the best interests of the mother or child. On the other hand, for the vast majority of other cases, it's not always clear whose best interests are being given priority in choosing to abort. A healthy child in utero has a whole new world awaiting them to grow in, experience and explore. As far as i'm concerned, you need an astoundingly good reason to choose to abort and there aren't many.

From a legal point of view, i've no qualms with therapeutic abortions. As for all other abortions, I wouldn't agree with allowing abortions without exception but at the same time I wouldn't be hugely against the idea of taking each case on its own merits and deciding whether or not the abortion in question can be justified. As for who would be responsible for making that decision, i'd say a group comprising both medical and non-medical ethicists.

Wompa1

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do you think that a woman should be forced to have a child?

A raped woman?

An woman who will lose her life if she does?

I can't see how you'd be anti-abortion.

DUCWIDT?

I don't think a woman should be forced to have a child when it's in extreme circumstances. If it's just an unplanned pregnancy then I'd encourage putting a child up for adoption rather than terminating it. There's lots of couples out there who can't have kids who would love the chance.

This will sound crazy but I don't think people should have sex unless they are willing to deal with the consequences. You should be aware of the possibility of STI's and pregnancy if you can't handle either than don't do it.

humanji

tomtherobot wrote: »

What woman will lose her life? not might, will? If you think an unborn child is alive, how can you chose one life over another?

And if the child has no chance of surviving the birth and having the birth would kill the mother?

Personally im not gonna abuse kids, but if someone else out there wants to.....

Please tell me you're joking and know how moronic that statement is and how irrelevant it is to the topic on hand. Otherwise there's no hope for you or this thread.

Rabidlamb

System is lovely as it is, if women really really want one then off to the next door neighbours where nobody will know you.
It's the perfect Irish solution to an Irish problem.

tomtherobot

jaja321 wrote: »

Shows what little you know then, doesn't it.

I stand to be corrected, where is it commonly not a convenience?

Also just to keep this on track, why are we funding abortion counseling? I still haven't heard a valid argument for this? If you're saying abortion isn't killing that's fine, i don't agree, but yes the argument's been done. But how can you then justify state funding of abortion counseling?

Neewbie_noob

In response to the person who mentioned rape as grounds for abortion, that might be a slippery slope. Rape is a very broad term, and like abortion is not black and white. What if a woman lies about being raped ?? I beg your forgiveness if that is a harsh statement, but I thought I'd put it out there.
And why should an innocent child conceived through these circumstances be subject to being painfully terminated just because of the heinous crime of the man who raped a woman. I'm not a woman and know very little on the topic of rape and abortion, but again, it should not be as black and white as that.

humanji

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Then you need to have a read of a biology or better yet a physiology book before repeating factually incorrect opinions. It is certainly a living human organism and to be perfectly accurate it's a living child of its two parents.

I was trying to keep things as simple as possibly. Otherwise we're onto the roundabout topic of when exactly we class the organism as a human, when does it have rights, etc etc, which just goes on for ever and ever.

Nodin

tomtherobot wrote: »

I stand to be corrected, where is it commonly not a convenience?

Also just to keep this on track, why are we funding abortion counseling? I still haven't heard a valid argument for this? If you're saying abortion isn't killing that's fine, i don't agree, but yes the argument's been done. But how can you then justify state funding of abortion counseling?

This was pointed out to you here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80621716&postcount=56
and here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80621548&postcount=44

Stark

tomtherobot wrote: »

Now, normally i stay away from abortion debates because i find they're full of nazi fembots or holy joe types but this morning

tomtherobot wrote:

I don't have any innocent unborn child blood on my hands

What exactly are you contributing to the debate that's worthwhile again?

eviltwin

tomtherobot wrote: »

I stand to be corrected, where is it commonly not a convenience?

Also just to keep this on track, why are we funding abortion counseling? I still haven't heard a valid argument for this? If you're saying abortion isn't killing that's fine, i don't agree, but yes the argument's been done. But how can you then justify state funding of abortion counseling?

I said it earlier. When you deal with problems early on before they have a chance to grow into bigger problems you actually save money in the long run. And helping people through their mental health issues helps everyone, the person, their family, and society as a whole.

Nodin

tomtherobot wrote: »

I stand to be corrected, where is it commonly not a convenience?

Also just to keep this on track, why are we funding abortion counseling? I still haven't heard a valid argument for this? If you're saying abortion isn't killing that's fine, i don't agree, but yes the argument's been done. But how can you then justify state funding of abortion counseling?

You were asked a question here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80622008&postcount=75

You might be as good as to answer it.

seamus

tomtherobot wrote: »

Also just to keep this on track, why are we funding abortion counseling? I still haven't heard a valid argument for this?

Because it's a health service which some people require. I've yet to hear you provide any valid reason why we shouldn't provide it (and indeed what you propose we should do with women who require post-abortion counselling).

humanji

tomtherobot wrote: »

I stand to be corrected, where is it commonly not a convenience?

Also just to keep this on track, why are we funding abortion counseling? I still haven't heard a valid argument for this? If you're saying abortion isn't killing that's fine, i don't agree, but yes the argument's been done. But how can you then justify state funding of abortion counseling?

If a human being needs help, other human beings should help them. That's pretty much as simplistic as it gets.

We've a health care system which (supposedly) is there to maintain the physical and mental health of the Irish people, no matter the ailment. In a perfect world we couldn't need the counselling because we wouldn't have abortions because all children would be planned and brought up healthy in a loving environment. But we don't live in a perfect world, so we should at least try to make it a bit more comfortable.

LizT

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

In response to the person who mentioned rape as grounds for abortion, that might be a slippery slope. Rape is a very broad term, and like abortion is not black and white. What if a woman lies about being raped ?? I beg your forgiveness if that is a harsh statement, but I thought I'd put it out there.
And why should an innocent child conceived through these circumstances be subject to being painfully terminated just because of the heinous crime of the man who raped a woman. I'm not a woman and know very little on the topic of rape and abortion, but again, it should not be as black and white as that.

I would argue with your wording - innocent child and painfully terminated?

hattoncracker

tomtherobot wrote: »

jaja321 wrote: »

Shows what little you know then, doesn't it.

I stand to be corrected, where is it commonly not a convenience?

Also just to keep this on track, why are we funding abortion counseling? I still haven't heard a valid argument for this? If you're saying abortion isn't killing that's fine, i don't agree, but yes the argument's been done. But how can you then justify state funding of abortion counseling?

Because it's more cost effective than child benefit.

That's what you want to hear isn't it?

Get your head out of your rear end, will you? If you don't want an abortion don't have one, but don't stop anyone else. If abortion was legal in Ireland post abortion counselling would be part of the treatment, then you wouldn't have to pay for it.

Neewbie_noob

LizT wrote: »

I would argue with your wording - innocent child and painfully terminated?

What's not innocent about the child? I don't know of any children born with court convictions.

Abortion, at late stages can be painful. The child's nervous system will have already developed and in later stages abortions are performed by mechanical means.

Morag

I was interested in the points you made and in taking part in the discussion and then I saw this.

tomtherobot wrote: »

pro abortionists

So there's not much point in trying to have a discussion with you.


Also current the push is to get the legislation put in place for the 20 year old Hugh court Ruling on the X case which is for abortion only where there is a substantive risk to the woman's life as determined by medical experts. It is not about abortion in any other circumstances.


Other countries were abortion is not criminal or so taboo don't have women needing as much post abortion counseling,
but then gain they don't face people calling them baby murders like Irish women do.

tomtherobot

eviltwin wrote: »

I said it earlier. When you deal with problems early on before they have a chance to grow into bigger problems you actually save money in the long run. And helping people through their mental health issues helps everyone, the person, their family, and society as a whole.

But if it's not killing, why is it a mental health problem? Why aren't people going for counseling after using contraception, if that's all abortion is.

I will allow that there might be extreme medical cases where a child's poor chances of survival are weighed against a mother's good chances. Of course counseling would be justified in this case. I don't see this as abortion specific. If there's a bad car accident and the ambulance crew chose to treat the most likely survivor above the one most likely dying, that's justified. That's a medical decision and I can see why the survivors need counseling.

Gurgle

humanji wrote: »

I'm anti-abortion, but believe that that should only apply to me, and that others should be allowed to choose for themselves. I have no right to force my opinions on others. The world isn't black and white.

So you're pro legalizing abortion and providing clinics to carry out abortions on demand. But you wouldn't have one yourself.

In what way is that position not pro-abortion?

I think its a fundamental human right to be allowed to end a bad marriage.
But I don't want a divorce myself, so I'm anti-divorce.
:rolleyes:

Neewbie_noob

If abortion on demand is brought out I hope to God our tax payers' money doesn't go towards it. Why should someone who doesn't believe in abortion be funding it through their tax??

humanji

Gurgle wrote: »

So you're pro legalizing abortion and providing clinics to carry out abortions on demand. But you wouldn't have one yourself.

In what way is that position not pro-abortion?

I think its a fundamental human right to be allowed to end a bad marriage.
But I don't want a divorce myself, so I'm anti-divorce.
:rolleyes:

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm pro-choice, but would not choose to have an abortion myself.

humanji

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

If abortion on demand is brought out I hope to God our tax payers' money doesn't go towards it. Why should someone who doesn't believe in abortion be funding it through their tax??

They wouldn't, and it's highly unlikely that universal abortion on demand would be allowed in this country. All of this is hypothetical and will be for quite some time.

Dangerous Man

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

If abortion on demand is brought out I hope to God our tax payers' money doesn't go towards it. Why should someone who doesn't believe in abortion be funding it through their tax??

Because that's how democracy works. It's really basic stuff to be honest.

tomtherobot

humanji wrote: »

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm pro-choice, but would not choose to have an abortion myself.

Again, i chose not to abuse kids, but if somebody else wants to fine. We call all see that for all intents and purposes this stance would be pro-pedophilia.

I just want to reiterate and clarify that i would not consider the decision to chose a child most likely to die over a mother most likely to live as abortion. This is a tough medical decision and shouldn't be hijacked by the abortion as convenience brigade.

Stark

tomtherobot wrote: »

I just want to reiterate and clarify that i would not consider the decision to chose a child most likely to die over a mother most likely to live as abortion. This is a tough medical decision and shouldn't be hijacked by the abortion as convenience brigade.

Which is the only scenario that the legislation being drawn up will deal with. Anything more is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. It's only the nut cases who would prefer the mother to die in a threat to life scenario or be sent to England where she'll be "out of sight, out of mind" who have anything to worry about.

Skylinehead

tomtherobot wrote: »

I stand to be corrected, where is it commonly not a convenience?

Also just to keep this on track, why are we funding abortion counseling? I still haven't heard a valid argument for this? If you're saying abortion isn't killing that's fine, i don't agree, but yes the argument's been done. But how can you then justify state funding of abortion counseling?

You've heard plenty of arguments, you just chose to ignore them. There's counselling available (and used) for transplants such as kidney removal, that's not killing anybody.

cat87

I'm sorry but it's typical that a man started this thread, a woman should have a choice, it's her body. I'm not pro or against abortion, but I think in certain cases there should be abortion like if the girl was raped or if her life was in danger or even if the girl was very young and not able to care for the baby properly.

tomtherobot

Stark wrote: »

Which is the only scenario that the legislation being drawn up will deal with. Anything more is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. It's only the nut cases who would prefer the mother to die in a threat to life scenario or be sent to England where she'll be "out of sight, out of mind" who have anything to worry about.

TBH i think it's unfair on people who have to deal with these horrible and rare situations to even call it abortion. They shouldn't be lumped in with the people who chose killing an unborn baby as a lifestyle choice.

And i can't see why the taxpayer should be paying for their counseling. The only argument i'm seeing is because it might cost us less in the long run but i don't buy this and surely the pro-abortionists can come up with something better.

I'm just seeing an argument that for pro-abortionists, abortion is somehow more difficult and complicated than contraception but no-one will explain how. I don't buy the comparison to major surgery or organ transplant because abortion isn't even an overnight procedure in most cases than i'm aware.

tomtherobot

cat87 wrote: »

I'm sorry but it's typical that a man started this thread, a woman should have a choice, it's her body. I'm not pro or against abortion, but I think in certain cases there should be abortion like if the girl was raped or if her life was in danger or even if the girl was very young and not able to care for the baby properly.

Why is it typical that a man started this thread and what makes you think i'm a man?

If you're going down the it's the woman's choice route, why would men have to pay child support? They don't even have if the child lives or not.