Abortion

Madam_X

Doesnt seem like far to many.

oranbhoy67

Madam_X wrote: »

Doesnt seem like far to many.

so you think having 5 abortions is fine???

oranbhoy67

Again from over the water a famous columnist basically boasts about her 5 abortions and likens them to having your "tonsils or appendix removed"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2002/may/25/weekend.julieburchill

Madam_X

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

so you think having 5 abortions is fine???

No, obviously. What I meant was: you claimed far too many women have abortions as a form of contraception, yet you backed it up with two examples and said otherwise you know this for a fact (but you dont) and you're sure many other women feel the same way as she does, yet you've nothing to base this high number on. I'm sure some do, but it doesn't seem feasible that very high numbers of women are so blasé. I don't agree with Barbra Windsors attitude either btw. And I think Julie burchill is a cuntt.

tomtherobot

Madam_X wrote: »

No, obviously. What I meant was: you claimed far too many women have abortions as a form of contraception, yet you backed it up with one example and said otherwise you know this for a fact and you're sure other women feel the same way as she does. I'm sure some do, but it doesn't seek feasible that very high numbers of women are so blasé. I don't agree with her attitude either btw.

So did the 200,000 Irish women who traveled to the UK for abortion do so for medical emergency. I never knew pregnancy was so life threatening?

oranbhoy67

Madam_X wrote: »

No, obviously. What I meant was: you claimed far too many women have abortions as a form of contraception, yet you backed it up with two examples and said otherwise you know this for a fact and you're sure other women feel the same way as she does. I'm sure some do, but it doesn't seek feasible that very high numbers of women are so blasé. I don't agree with her attitude either btw. And I think Julie burchill is a cuntt.

ok sorry i misread you


well like you say i have noted 2 famous people who i found after a quick search.. so i wonder how many "normal" people do the same .


anyway to me 2 people killing 10 children between them is 2 people too many
as all life is sacred, to me . not for religious reasons but just for my own personal morals.

jimmycrackcorm

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Because there aren't enough abortions threads right now....

Only because there aren't enough traveller threads atmosphere.

Madam_X

tomtherobot wrote: »

So did the 200,000 Irish women who traveled to the UK for abortion do so for medical emergency. I never knew pregnancy was so life threatening?

Well you know that it's not a case of each woman going "Oops, knocked up - off I go for an abortion" (which would be cavalierly treating it as a mere form of contraception) and that there's mostly far more to each case.

Maximus Alexander

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

Or heres a better idea. Stay the fuck out of other peoples business and let them to their own choices instead of claiming propaganda when youre full of it yourself.

Nonsense post.

If someone smothered their six month old baby would you suggest that we "Stay the fuck out of other peoples business and let them to their own choices"?

For some people, abortion is no different.

Fromthetrees

tomtherobot wrote: »

And do you think the state should pay for counseling for you? I mean it was your decision and not a medical emergancy?

The state should pay for any person who needs counselling in this state regardless of the psychological need, less suicide and all that would be my reasons.
Abortion is a horrible and scary thing, I hate the idea of it, and I did right up until that came up and knocked on my door, and before I even answered I changed my 'idea' to reality.

dark crystal

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

Again from over the water a famous columnist basically boasts about her 5 abortions and likens them to having your "tonsils or appendix removed"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2002/may/25/weekend.julieburchill

In fairness, Burchill's a terrible mother - she happily admits to abandoning her two young sons after she split from their dads. She's also made an art out of attention whoring.

There's really no excuse for 5 abortions in this day and age, when contraception is freely available. Anyone can make a mistake, but at some stage you need to grow the fuck up, take some personal responsibilty and protect yourself.

mariano rivera

tomtherobot wrote: »

Now, normally i stay away from abortion debates because i find they're full of extremist 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.....

I read the first few lines of this. Abortion thread blah blah de blah

However, I would like to add this


Ray Darcy is a bollix

Smidge

Actor wrote: »

You forgot about the intent part. The intent with ectopic pregnancies in Ireland is to save both lives if possible. The intent of "abortion" is to kill unborn life for the benefit of the mother's individual circumstances.

An ectopic pregnancy is never viable.
The mother risks certain death if untreated.

This is however, a pregnancy with a foetus.

Can anyone honestly say they would not support termination in this case(as some posters have made reference to being that there is never a medical reason)?

Turtwig

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Nonsense post.

If someone smothered their six month old baby would you suggest that we "Stay the fuck out of other peoples business and let them to their own choices"?

For some people, abortion is no different.

False dichotomy.
Attach the baby to someone and make it dependant on that someone for survival but also affecting the quality of life of that someone.

What you talked about is an entity that is free of the mother's body. You are most certainly not comparing like for like. To use the most extreme case analogy. Suppose a six month old baby was dehumanised to be the equivalent of a clump of inanimate dust. That still wouldn't mean that somebody is allowed to do whatever they want to it. I mean, a painting by Caravaggio is exactly the equivalent of dust but you can't do what you like with that. Morals and ethics still apply but the key thing here is that there's no sharing or trading of values to be discussed between another party. Attach the Caravaggio to the somebody and you're back in similar territory. Which is basically how one end of the spectrum see it. The other group simply replace the Caravaggio with a live human being.

up for anything

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

and therin lies the problem

What problem?

tomtherobot wrote: »

But contraception is the loss of potential life, we don't grieve that? Havin a **** could be the loss of potential life, do you grieve if you have a ****?

Speak for yourself. Lots of people grieve having to use contraception. I did myself until I was in a position to get pregnant. However, I didn't grieve the loss of potential life from the abortion I had years before that. It is possible without being hypocritical to feel opposing feelings at different times of your life.

Having a ****, as you so eloquently put it, is the loss of potential life but I don't know many who cry about it or dwell on it afterwards, although I am sure there are some who do. I don't because no loss of potential life results from my masturbating.

Periods got the nickname the curse because it was a curse if it arrived and a curse if it didn't.

Maximus Alexander

mishkalucy wrote: »

An ectopic pregnancy is never viable.
The mother risks certain death if untreated.

This is however, a pregnancy with a foetus.

Can anyone honestly say they would not support termination in this case(as some posters have made reference to being that there is never a medical reason)?

I see this argument come up regularly amongst those in favour of abortion. Along with rape pregnancies.

I'm strongly opposed to abortion if it is introduced in any way that would allow it to be used as a contraceptive. It should never be available as a way to escape from your bad decisions.

However, of course the mother's life is more important than that of her embryo. Absolutely, if the mother's life is at risk should she proceed with the pregnancy, or if the psychological trauma of carrying a baby to term would be too great as a result of a rape, then abortion should be an option.

The main issue I have have, is how do you legislate for one, without allowing the other? If someone can show me that legislation, I'll vote in favour of it.

Personally, and I know this sounds a bit self righteous, I can't see how anyone can disagree with my viewpoint on this issue. I think it's pretty fair and rational. Normally in arguments I can at least understand other perspectives, even if I don't agree. But not on this, for whatever reason.

Smidge

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I see this argument come up regularly amongst those in favour of abortion. Along with rape pregnancies.

I'm strongly opposed to abortion if it is introduced in any way that would allow it to be used as a contraceptive. It should never be available as a way to escape from your bad decisions.

However, of course the mother's life is more important than that of her embryo. Absolutely, if the mother's life is at risk should she proceed with the pregnancy, or if the psychological trauma of carrying a baby to term would be too great as a result of a rape, then abortion should be an option.

The main issue I have have, is how do you legislate for one, without allowing the other? If someone can show me that legislation, I'll vote in favour of it.

Personally, and I know this sounds a bit self righteous, I can't see how anyone can disagree with my viewpoint on this issue. I think it's pretty fair and rational. Normally in arguments I can at least understand other perspectives, even if I don't agree. But not on this, for whatever reason.

I think I can disagree with this pretty safely

Maximus Alexander

mishkalucy wrote: »

I think I can disagree with this pretty safely

I think you read the "should" and "she" backwards.

up for anything

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It should never be available as a way to escape from your bad decisions.

Ah yes, allow the pregnancy to continue to full term and bring a baby into the world to live with your bad decisions.

Madam_X

tomtherobot wrote: »

How can you say it's a painful decision but there's still no wrong in it. It's only painful if there is suffering involved.

There is. Just because a person chooses to do something, doesn't mean they don't suffer at the same time. Pretty obvious.

Maximus Alexander

up for anything wrote: »

Ah yes, allow the pregnancy to continue to full term and bring a baby into the world to live with your bad decisions.

Why is adoption never considered as an option?

Anyway, my parents made plenty of bad decisions and I'd still prefer the option of life.

Smidge

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I think you read the "should" and "she" backwards.

My bad, damn you hayfever:(






off topic but is anyone else suffering, cant see a damn thing lately?

Maximus Alexander

Jernal wrote: »

False dichotomy.
Attach the baby to someone and make it dependant on that someone for survival but also affecting the quality of life of that someone.

What you talked about is an entity that is free of the mother's body. You are most certainly not comparing like for like. To use the most extreme case analogy. Suppose a six month old baby was dehumanised to be the equivalent of a clump of inanimate dust. That still wouldn't mean that somebody is allowed to do whatever they want to it. I mean, a painting by Caravaggio is exactly the equivalent of dust but you can't do what you like with that. Morals and ethics still apply but the key thing here is that there's no sharing or trading of values to be discussed between another party. Attach the Caravaggio to the somebody and you're back in similar territory. Which is basically how one end of the spectrum see it. The other group simply replace the Caravaggio with a live human being.

I hate to come across as terse, or blunt, in response to your well thought out and phrased response. You're not emotionally charged or aggressive, which is refreshing in these debates.

But a six month old is completely and utterly dependent on its mother. Substitute a two week old, or an eight month foetus, still in the womb, if it makes it easier.

up for anything

But you would have known nothing about it if they'd aborted you instead of bringing you into the world.

Why should adoption be an answer? There is a huge difference mentally and physically between aborting a fetus and entrusting the care of a living, breathing baby that you have given life to to complete strangers. Never mind that they have been vetted by the entirely and oh so trustworthy HSE!

Sponge25

Madam_X wrote: »

So you'll wait to have sex until you're in a relationship only with a woman with whom you'd like to start a family. Fair play and best wishes.

I'd be more than happy to have an baby with my gf, although I wouldn't choose too now I most certainly wouldn't "abort" the child!

Turtwig

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I hate to come across as terse, or blunt, in response to your well thought out and phrased response. You're not emotionally charged or aggressive, which is refreshing in these debates.

But a six month old is completely and utterly dependent on its mother. Substitute a two week old, or an eight month foetus, still in the womb, if it makes it easier.

Yeah but the mother isn't required for the six month old to survive. Currently there is no way for a foetus to survive outside the womb of its mother. Kill the mother of a six month old (taking another extreme lol) and the six month old can still be looked after by another entity.

What I meant by dependent was that the foetus and mother are attached to one another. If you sever the connection the foetus will be destroyed. In the case of the six month old, separate mother and baby connection and that baby could still survive, reach adulthood and hunt down whoever or whatever it was that severed the connection in the first place.

Maximus Alexander

up for anything wrote: »

But you would have known nothing about it if they'd aborted you instead of bringing you into the world.

And therein lies the tragedy. The odds of any us as individuals having ever come to have a consciousness or perspective on the world are vanishingly small.

There are over 70,000 billion combinations available for human DNA. Which means there are more people who will never exist, than will live and die until the end of time. And that's not even accounting for the fact that even genetically identical twins have separate and unique consciousness.

So to let somebody come that close, and then take away the opportunity, is not a decision any of us should be allowed to make. You have no way of knowing how grateful that person would be for the opportunity to look at the universe.

Sponge25

Abortion for rape victims and mothers who's life is in extreme jeapordy is justifiable but I honestly believe if I found out my future wife supported abortion i'd divorce her.

It disgusts me. I have no pitty for people who suffer mental stress after abortion, that's generally what happens when you do something terribly wrong!

Dangerous Man

up for anything wrote: »

But you would have known nothing about it if they'd aborted you instead of bringing you into the world.

Why should adoption be an answer? There is a huge difference mentally and physically between aborting a fetus and entrusting the care of a living, breathing baby that you have given life to to complete strangers. Never mind that they have been vetted by the entirely and oh so trustworthy HSE!

So rather than take a baby to term and give him or her the chance of life with a family that has been vetted by a gov organization - abort it in case it doesn't have a nice life? Really?

up for anything

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

And therein lies the tragedy. The odds of any us as individuals having ever come to have a consciousness or perspective on the world are vanishingly small.

There are over 70,000 billion combinations available for human DNA. Which means there are more people who will never exist, than will live and die until the end of time. And that's not even accounting for the fact that even genetically identical twins have separate and unique consciousness.

So to let somebody come that close, and then take away the opportunity, is not a decision any of us should be allowed to make. You have no way of knowing how grateful that person would be for the opportunity to look at the universe.

I'll leave it here because you are entering the realm of metaphysics with that argument and it really has no place, to my mind, in the bringing or not bringing of a child into the world based on it. Goodnight/morning.

Turtwig

Sponge25 wrote: »

Abortion for rape victims

I can never understand this position by people who are against abortion. Suppose a bisexual father raped ten men, does that mean we should kill all his wife's children? I mean you seriously seem to consider the foetus a human person yet you're ok with it being killed if its parent was a rapist? Surely the child is innocent in all this. Protect the rights of most vulnerable? Or whatever?

I understand the position from those who generally want abortion but I cannot fathom how someone who is so vehemently against abortion would be o.k with it in the cases of rape. It's just mind boggling.

Maximus Alexander

Jernal wrote: »

I can never understand this position by people who are against abortion. Suppose a bisexual father raped ten men, does that mean we should kill all his wife's children? I mean you seriously seem to consider the foetus a human person yet you're ok with it being killed if its parent was a rapist? Surely the child is innocent in all this. Protect the rights of most vulnerable? Or whatever?

I understand the position from those who generally want abortion but I cannot fathom how someone who is so vehemently against abortion would be o.k with it in the cases of rape. It's just mind boggling.

I think the point is that the rape victim's health is more important than that of the baby. The psychological trauma of carrying a baby resulting from rape is likely to to ruin you for life. It's not about the baby being guilty.

cartell_best

70 billion combinations for human DNA? you need to re-examine that statement.

Back on Topic, guys & girls: Abortion? Old fashioned kind of way from my perspective - No...In certain circumstances, of course it is. But from someone (me - gay) thats not designed in a way that would more than welcome a child, I love the thoughts of new life. I love seeing my brothers and sisters introduce a new existence on this planet.

However, my heart goes out to the ladies that feel that they have reached a certain point in life, that only a certain course of action will give them a certain level in life....but the thing is, they should not feel bad or have any kind of pain resulting from what they believe is and what they feel is right and apropriate.

These ladies are no different than anybody on this planet. Life is not pre-determined on a specific level but an opportunity given when another person is willing and able to give another life an experience...which is but up to the person who decides to do so.

Madam_X

Sponge25 wrote: »

I'd be more than happy to have an baby with my gf, although I wouldn't choose too now I most certainly wouldn't "abort" the child!

So you have had non procreational sex despite telling others not to as they're not mature enough. Well done.

Maximus Alexander

cartell_best wrote: »

70 billion combinations for human DNA? you need to re-examine that statement.

I'm not a biologist, and the actual number is unknown. But the number you've written is 10^3 times lower than the one I did, so you might want to re-examine that.

Executive Steve

dodderangler wrote: »

Ffs another abortion thread
I say we should abort these threads!!!

Would have thought Boards.ie would have had ways of shutting threads like this down

Dangerous Man

Executive Steve wrote: »

Would have thought Boards.ie would have had ways of shutting threads like this down

It does. But if you read through the thread you'll actually see that despite the fact that the topic in question is extremely divisive, people have done a damn good job, collectively, of arguing their cases and being respectful of each other's positions.

It doesn't help to not talk about stuff like this. I think that's something that both sides can agree on.

up for anything

Dangerous Man wrote: »

So rather than take a baby to term and give him or her the chance of life with a family that has been vetted by a gov organization - abort it in case it doesn't have a nice life? Really?

Someone asked the reason why more consideration isn't given to adoption and I was giving one reason. There are more but you'd need to stop thinking off the cuff to figure them out.

Why do you think that there are so very few newborn nationals available for adoption since forced adoptions ceased and the option of abortion in the UK became available?

Why should the rights of the fetus supersede those of the pregnant woman on whom it is dependent?

I've always found it strange that there is an element of pregnant woman blaming in connection with the natural premature ending of a pregnancy. The terms miscarriage and losing the baby make it seem like she is to blame or has just been careless.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I think the point is that the rape victim's health is more important than that of the baby. The psychological trauma of carrying a baby resulting from rape is likely to to ruin you for life. It's not about the baby being guilty.

The psychological trauma of carrying an unwanted baby resulting from any sexual encounter is likely to ruin you for life. It's not about the baby being guilty.

Maximus Alexander

up for anything wrote: »

The psychological trauma of carrying an unwanted baby resulting from any sexual encounter is likely to ruin you for life. It's not about the baby being guilty.

Tough break. If it's a result of your decision making then you harden up and deal with it, rather than taking someone else's life.

up for anything

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Tough break. If it's a result of your decision making then you harden up and deal with it, rather than taking someone else's life.

Oooh punishment by enforced baby. Almost Shariya/Christian fundamentalist in its thinking. That is a longer life sentence than I'd get for murdering someone already in this world.

I dislike the way you assume babies result from a deliberate decision. Another almost biblical slant. I'd imagine if this system came into being again it wouldn't be long before the babies resulting from these enforced pregnancies would once again be made to suffer along with their mothers.

So how do you intend to punish the father?

Maximus Alexander

It's bizarre to me how you view "not killing babies" to be the same thing as "punishing women".

In life, if you make poor decisions, you have to live with the consequences. That's how society works. It's not because you are being punished, it's because other people are not responsible for freeing you from your commitments.

If I put my life savings into starting up a business and it fails, leaving me broke, I have to deal with that. Nobody is punishing me, I have put myself in that situation and it's my responsibility to deal with the results. The same is true in all areas of life, and killing people is never an acceptable solution.

Unless you're referring to rape, which I have previously covered, then babies do result from deliberate decision; the decision to have sex.

Fathers, unfortunately, can't carry babies. Which is a shame, because I am certain there are plenty of cases where they would take that burden than have their baby aborted. What about the fathers who are being "punished" right now, by having their babies aborted without their consent?

up for anything

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It's bizarre to me how you view "not killing babies" to be the same thing as "punishing women".

In life, if you make poor decisions, you have to live with the consequences. That's how society works. It's not because you are being punished, it's because other people are not responsible for freeing you from your commitments.

If I put my life savings into starting up a business and it fails, leaving me broke, I have to deal with that. Nobody is punishing me, I have put myself in that situation and it's my responsibility to deal with the results. The same is true in all areas of life, and killing people is never an acceptable solution.

Unless you're referring to rape, which I have previously covered, then babies do result from deliberate decision; the decision to have sex.

People escape from and deal with poor life decisions all time. It's a fact of life. Dragging an innocent baby into dealing with a poor life decision that I have made is not something I see as right. If someone was to be punished for life by a poor business decision then the world would grind to a halt because no one would take that chance. By your lights, I should be punished enough by the guilt of having taken a life.

Fathers, unfortunately, can't carry babies. Which is a shame, because I am certain there are plenty of cases where they would take that burden than have their baby aborted. What about the fathers who are being "punished" right now, by having their babies aborted without their consent?

You didn't answer the question I asked in your eagerness to wave fathers' rights at me which means in your world fathers get away scot free.

Actor

eviltwin wrote: »

Yes I have had an abortion, no I have no regrets.

I find that hard to believe. Did you have an abortion for contraceptive purposes?

eviltwin wrote: »

And I had counselling, months and months of it in fact but not for the reasons you think.

I'm not proud of it but I'm not ashamed either, I haven't done anything wrong.

I'm not surprised that you're "not proud of it". Why would you need counselling seeing as you state you've done nothing wrong? Abortion is wrong and frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself. I sympathise with you, but in no way do I condone the decision you have made. I guess you'll have to live with that decision till the day you meet your Maker.

Maximus Alexander

up for anything wrote: »

You didn't answer the question I asked in your eagerness to wave fathers' rights at me which means in your world fathers get away scot free.

That's because your question was both nonsensical in light of my overall response, and a straw man.

Your posts are built on fallacies, which makes you very hard to have a meaningful debate with.

Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this thread because the topic makes me way too unhappy, and these discussions never go anywhere.

Matt_Trakker

A foetus is not a living thing. It is a life, but just as a weed, a bacteria, a germ etc is a life. However, it is not a person.

It has no personality, cannot exercise higher cognitive thought, it isn't a rational or self-aware being, it cannot make decisions.
It's not a person, it may become a person if a miscarriage or termination doesn't occur but it isn't a person, ergo you are not killing a person. Abortion cannot be seen as murder. You're terminating a life form yes, but it's no different than killing bacteria, weeds, germs etc.

This is.......errr..........'gospel' :p

Actor wrote: »

I'm not surprised that you're "not proud of it". Why would you need counselling seeing as you state you've done nothing wrong? Abortion is wrong and frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself. I sympathise with you, but in no way do I condone the decision you have made. I guess you'll have to live with that decision till the day you meet your Maker.

Wow, just wow. You sympathise, but you don't really and then you have the cheek to try to enforce your nonsense 'maker' beliefs.
Whoever you are Actor, you're a nasty piece of work.

Actor

up for anything wrote: »

You didn't answer the question I asked in your eagerness to wave fathers' rights at me which means in your world fathers get away scot free.

The whole "father's rights" thing is a red herring in this debate.

Actor

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

A foetus is not a living thing. It is a life, but just as a weed, a bacteria, a germ etc is a life. However, it is not a person.

It has no personality, cannot exercise higher cognitive thought, it isn't a rational or self-aware being, it cannot make decisions.
It's not a person, it may become a person if a miscarriage or termination doesn't occur but it isn't a person, ergo you are not killing a person. Abortion cannot be seen as murder. You're terminating a life form yes, but it's no different than killing bacteria, weeds, germs etc.

This is.......errr..........'gospel' :p

Evidently you haven't thought about this issue in any great depth.

Do you think those in a vegitative state should be "put down"?

optogirl

Actor wrote: »

Evidently you haven't thought about this issue in any great depth.

Do you think those in a vegitative state should be "put down"?

If it was me or my partner in a vegetative state - yes. We've already discussed that. Sadly it is not our right to make that decision.

seamus

Actor wrote: »

Do you think those in a vegitative state should be "put down"?

If a person is in a persistent vegetative state, then I see no issue with taking the merciful route for all and allowing them to die quickly, painlessly and with dignity.

Would you rather that they be kept alive? For what purpose?

Actor

Sponge25 wrote: »

Abortion for rape victims and mothers who's life is in extreme jeapordy is justifiable but I honestly believe if I found out my future wife supported abortion i'd divorce her.

It disgusts me. I have no pitty for people who suffer mental stress after abortion, that's generally what happens when you do something terribly wrong!

Agree. Still don't support abortion for rape victims. It's terrible that they've been raped, but two wrongs don't make a right. In fact, abortion is a more severe crime than rape.