Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
Sure, I know that's the case. I'm just wondering where (if we were allowed to decide) and on what basis we (society) would decide the point that "human life becomes sacred" or "reverence and respect" is due. How would we even determine HOW to decide that, never mind what decision we'd come to?
Maybe on a referendum decision by Mna na hEireann themselves to set some point in time, say: after the third trimester of pregnancy has been well in train and the pregnant woman had not up till that point in time made a decision not to assent to her pregnancy proceeding to term and seek's an abortion when there are no medical or life threatening potential effects to her health in any way from the pregnancy. The state, if it agreed to let Mna na hEireann make the decision, would have to enact that into law and guarantee in the same law to accept full care of any baby born to the woman refused an abortion.
The point in time in the third trimester proposed to Mna na hEireann would be set on past tests of feotus's brain and body sensory advancement to that point in time by Irish Maternal medical science. I'm basing that on how medical science already does regular checks on feotuses growing within women's wombs, to see how it's health is progressing, or just by images of the feotus taken of it within the woman's womb. There must be records available of this set by standard maternal hospital procedure, checks done at regular intervals of both the woman's and the feotus's health showing the feotus's viabiltiy.
It seem's to me that if the feotus was diagnosed as having a medical condition (anencephaly or other) that meant it could NOT survive outside the woman's womb after birth and would die regardless of any medical assistance provided, then reverence and respect would be better given to the woman and the feotus by not putting the woman through a full-term or other birth. I believe that it would be an abuse of the notion of human life being sacred to, in effect, force a woman through a birth when the feotus has zero chance of survival after birth, especially if there is likely to be an extended time between birth and declared death. This medical standard of the feotus non-viability to survival outside the womb would also have to recognized as part and parcel of any abortion procedure set up under the new law. Abortion in such cases could be performed at any stage of the pregnancy after diagnosis was made of non-viability.
This way, there would be two standards set by women on how women could have abortions here, inclusive of medical necessity and regard to humanity in respect of the woman and the feotus.0 -
My only question about the morality of abortion is where the reverence and respect for human life "should" kick in, and it's clearly not where society says it does, as women have always/will always feel and act differently when it's a question of need. At what point can women/abortion clinics no longer justifiably elect to kill a foetus out of need?
With TFMR, there are other justifications, such as "putting a life out if it's (potential) misery", and sparing yourself the grief of a prolonged pregnancy, etc.
How would you determine the law then, unless you tease out what reverence and respect "should" be afforded to a human foetus?
What I was trying to illustrate with the TFMR case, much too obliquely (as it were!) I'm afraid, was that "reverence and respect" doesn't necessarily follow from granting "rights to life" or otherwise restricting access to abortion. To wit, we see women potentially endangering their own health by getting on one plane, having a "part one" overseas, and getting on another before their "part two". All in an attempt to confer a modicum of dignity on the process after being caught in the switches of the "you can have an abortion, as long as it's not here" provisions of Irish law.
Indeed, when I heard that news item I couldn't help but wonder how technically legal this was, though one might be pretty dang sure that this isn't where the DPP would want to start off prosecuting abortion cases. And indeed, might be getting "are you trying to show us up, here?" phone calls from the legislature if they did...0 -
Well I got myself in my usual oblique muddle over the notion of life is sacred yesterday. The "right to life" is presumably based on that notion, but you're quite right - there is no reverence or respect towards the life/death of a foetus where in TFMR cases, a woman is compelled to take a plane journey back here in the middle of the abortion procedure so as to grant the foetus some modicum of respect, ie. not being delivered home by courier in a cardboard box.
There is no rhyme or reason to granting full "right to life" of a foetus. Otherwise we'd hear some coherent argument for it, and not just a pile of hot air about "life is sacred".0 -
Not in our jurisdiction. U.S.S.C reverses US Circuit Court decision on Texas laws changing requirements for Abortion Clinics. This mean's that clinics can now return to operation under the pre-existing law requirements. The U.S.S.C stated that it believes the changes in Texas law were not made for the reasons given by Texas lawmakers, but were deliberately intended instead to be used as a proxy to close the clinics and reduce womens chances of obtaining abortions.0
-
Why do you presume the right to life is based on the notion that life is sacred?Well I got myself in my usual oblique muddle over the notion of life is sacred yesterday. The "right to life" is presumably based on that notion, <...> There is no rhyme or reason to granting full "right to life" of a foetus. Otherwise we'd hear some coherent argument for it, and not just a pile of hot air about "life is sacred".
And... what's a full right to life? Can we confer a partial right to life? Or a right to a partial life?0 -
Advertisement
-
Dublin woman tells court she will challenge abortion legislation
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/dublin-woman-tells-court-she-will-challenge-abortion-legislation-1.1964512Irish Times wrote:A Dublin woman has told the High Court she intends to bring a challenge to the constitutionality of provisions of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. Jane Murphy, with an address in Milltown, appeared before the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns today, stating she believes the Act is “wrong” and intends to challenge its constitutionality. Mr Justice Kearns, who in July 2013 refused Ms Murphy an injunction restraining the then Bill coming into effect on grounds the courts could not at that stage interfere as the matter was before the Oireachtas, said the subsequent enactment into law of the measure means she is now free to seek to pursue a constitutional challenge.
The issue of the constitutionality of the legislation had not been referred by the President to the Supreme Court with the effect it was open to citizens to test the constitutionality of its provisions in the courts in “appropriate circumstances”, the judge said. He told Ms Murphy there were certain procedures to be followed in relation to bringing a constitutional challenge and she may also have to show she has the necessary personal interest to bring that, other than the interest of a concerned citizen. “I object to it, I think it’s wrong,” Ms Murphy responded.
In a letter handed into court, Ms Murphy said the recent publication of guidelines in relation to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act meant the legislative framework was now complete and she was therefore returning to the court to seek a legal challenge to the legislation. She was bringing the challenge “on the basis that provisions which stand rejected by the Irish people in a referendum should not have been included in the legislation, nor voted on by the Oireachtas”. She also contended “the will of the people in relation to the 2002 referendum cannot be usurped by the legislative process”.
In July 2013, Ms Murphy was refused an injunction aimed at preventing provisions of the then Bill being voted into law. When she made that application ex parte (one side only represented), former MEP Kathy Sinnott and Mark McCrystal, who in 2012 successfully challenged the Government’s spend of public monies on its information campaign in the Children’s Referendum, also attended in court. At that hearing, Ms Murphy said she wanted the injunction in intended proceedings against Taoiseach Enda Kenny, the Minister for Health and the Government aimed at securing declarations “that provisions which stand rejected by the Irish people in a referendum cannot be included in proposed legislation, nor can they be voted on by the Oireachtas”.
She also sought a pre-emptive order the costs of the application and any subsequent judicial review be granted to her on the basis the case was brought “in the national interest and not for any personal benefit”. The intention was to prevent the Government including two provisions in the Bill and to prevent the vote on that Bill, she said. Her notice said the provision “that protection of the unborn should be limited to the later stage of implantation was rejected in referendum in 2002”. Another provision “to repeal Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 was also put to the people of Ireland and rejected in the same 2002 referendum,” it was stated.
It was unconstitutional and “an affront to the sovereignty of the Irish people” to have the provisions included in proposed legislation and voted on, the notice stated. Having heard Ms Murphy on that occasion, Mr Justice Kearns said the matter was before the legislature. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the court could not deal with it at this stage, he said.0 -
She wants it struck out as it allows for 'more' legal abortion.0 -
GMS?
Are they GMO's with PMS?0 -
It'd be interesting if the view of Chief Justice Tom O'Higgins in 1982 also applied to citizens (as well as Presidential) referrals of bills and acts to the S.C. being the end of the road for any one thinking of taking subsequent challenges.
The President may refer a bill, in whole or part, to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. If the Supreme Court finds any referred part unconstitutional, the entire bill falls. This power may not be applied to a money bill, a bill to amend the Constitution, or an urgent bill the time for the consideration of which has been abridged in the Seanad. This is the most widely used reserve power;[26] a full list is at Council of State (Ireland)#Referring of bills. In a 1982 judgement delivered under such a referral, Chief Justice Tom O'Higgins bemoaned the crude strictures of the prescribed process; especially the fact that, if the court finds that a bill does not violate the Constitution, this judgement can never subsequently be challenged.[27]0 -
Hanna Rosin on Slate.com writes:
“We shouldn’t need a book explaining why abortion rights are important [after 40 years]. We should be over that by now.
The reason we’re not, according to [Katha] Pollitt, is that we have all essentially been brainwashed by a small minority of pro-life activists. Only 7 to 20 percent of Americans tell pollsters they want to totally ban abortion, but that loud minority has beaten the rest of us into submission with their fetus posters and their absolutism and their infiltration of American politics. They have landed us in the era of the “awfulization” of abortion, Pollitt writes, where even pro-choicers are “falling all over themselves” to use words like “thorny,” “vexed,” “complex,” and “difficult” instead of doing what they should be doing, which is saying out loud that abortion is a positive social good.”
This struck a chord with me since this is the same clique which funded our own vocal pro-life extremists in 1983.
This guilt forcing meme has successfully suffused the discussion for decades.
Maybe at this time, we need a new ‘line in the sand’ in our discourse especially on radio/tv debates “abortion is a positive social GOOD”
If this is how you really feel, then I would strongly encourage this.
Dump mealy mouthed phrases like 'pro-choice' and say loud and clear "I am pro-abortion and I think abortions are a great thing."
Stop putting all the focus on the small percentage of cases involving drastic foetal abnormailities or rape victims and speak out proud and loud that you want laws where perfectly healthy foetuses can be aborted for any reason whatsoever.
If that's really what you want then that is the honest debate we should be having. Use the media as much as possible and shout your message from the rooftops.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
What's your position on abortion, Nick?If this is how you really feel, then I would strongly encourage this.
Dump mealy mouthed phrases like 'pro-choice' and say loud and clear "I am pro-abortion and I think abortions are a great thing."
Stop putting all the focus on the small percentage of cases involving drastic foetal abnormailities or rape victims and speak out proud and loud that you want laws where perfectly healthy foetuses can be aborted for any reason whatsoever.
If that's really what you want then that is the honest debate we should be having. Use the media as much as possible and shout your message from the rooftops.
I'm fine with saying I want women in Ireland to be able to get abortions/kill the unborn/murder unborn babies/whatever else you want to call it for whatever reason. I'm opposed to the forced gestation of a foetus and like women in Canada I think it should be a decision for a woman and her doctor to make.
In fairness, the anti abortion campaigners aren't above using women who've killed unborn healthy fetuses to further their message either. Abortion is ok as long as you regret it and all that.0 -
If this is how you really feel, then I would strongly encourage this.
Dump mealy mouthed phrases like 'pro-choice' and say loud and clear "I am pro-abortion and I think abortions are a great thing."
Stop putting all the focus on the small percentage of cases involving drastic foetal abnormailities or rape victims and speak out proud and loud that you want laws where perfectly healthy foetuses can be aborted for any reason whatsoever.
If that's really what you want then that is the honest debate we should be having. Use the media as much as possible and shout your message from the rooftops.
Here's the thing Nick. We are pro CHOICE, not pro ABORTION. No one celebrates abortion or sees it as a great thing. I don't read about women having abortions and go Yippee! Its sad that any woman finds herself in a position that she needs one, in an ideal world we'd love all pregnancies to be welcomed and all babies to be healthy and all mothers to be well enough to carry to term.
Life is not like that though. There will always be a need for abortion and whatever the laws around it women will find a way to do it. All the choice side want is exactly that - the choice - no one is advocating forced abortions or judging those who continue with their pregnancies. You won't find very many pro choicers who will judge the woman who carries a baby with a FFA to term, she'll get nothing but love and respect and support. We would just like the same consideration given to those who choose a different path whatever the circumstances of their pregnancy.0 -
Stop putting all the focus on the small percentage of cases involving drastic foetal abnormailities or rape victims and speak out proud and loud that you want laws where perfectly healthy foetuses can be aborted for any reason whatsoever..
"you want laws where perfectly healthy foetuses can be aborted for any reason whatsoever" is the most disingenuous hyperbole I've seen about the pro-choice argument in quite some time. You are to be congratulated for your superb effort in twisting the words of the poster you were replying to to suit yourself.
Do you honestly think that if we had laws where the choice to continue a pregnancy or have an abortion was up to the woman that we'd see any less children being born? Of course you don't. Do you honestly think a woman who was happily pregnant would just turn around one day and say "Jaysus hon, I can't fit in my clothes any more. Think I'll have an abortion, do ya mind?".
My point is that women who are happily pregnant would still be happily pregnant, but women who are having a crisis pregnancy would have the OPTION of an abortion here, instead of having to go abroad. What on earth makes you think having abortion services here for "any reason whatsoever" would change anything AT ALL about the abortion rate, or women's reasons for getting one?0 -
What's your position on abortion, Nick?
My position is that I oppose all taking of human life. That is why I am a pacifist, why I oppose capital punishment, and why I oppose abortion.
I believe a civilised society cares for its weakest and most vulnerable members - and you don't get much weaker or more vulnerable than an unborn child.
I do see the need for provision for abortion in the rare occasions where there is a real and significant physical threat to the mother's life. One death is a lesser evil than two deaths.
I would also support provision for abortion where an unborn child has a severe abnormality that is incompatible with life (for example, where a baby is going to be born without a brain, or with a condition that will inevitably result in death after a few days of pain).In fairness, the anti abortion campaigners aren't above using women who've killed unborn healthy fetuses to further their message either. Abortion is ok as long as you regret it and all that.
That makes no sense whatsoever. No-one in that scenario is saying abortion is ok. They are saying it is most emphatically not ok.0 -
My position is that I oppose all taking of human life. That is why I am a pacifist, why I oppose capital punishment, and why I oppose abortion.
I believe a civilised society cares for its weakest and most vulnerable members - and you don't get much weaker or more vulnerable than an unborn child.
I do see the need for provision for abortion in the rare occasions where there is a real and significant physical threat to the mother's life. One death is a lesser evil than two deaths.
I would also support provision for abortion where an unborn child has a severe abnormality that is incompatible with life (for example, where a baby is going to be born without a brain, or with a condition that will inevitably result in death after a few days of pain).
That makes no sense whatsoever. No-one in that scenario is saying abortion is ok. They are saying it is most emphatically not ok.
So if my daughter is raped, and is made pregnant, she stays pregnant.
If I decide my family is complete and I'm 40 and don't want any more but I'm pregnant, I stay pregnant.
If I have a diagnosis of an abnormality that would severely affect my born children's lives due to me having to care for that child, I stay pregnant.
If my friend who never wants children but can't get a tubal ligation or use hormonal contraception gets pregnant, she stays pregnant.
If my health is at risk due to pregnancy, I stay pregnant.
Any compassion at all for the born Nick?
Why do prolifers wheel out the regret brigade at events? Surely they should be telling those women they are murderers and campaigning for a change in the law to treat abortion as exactly equal to murder.
Do you think women should be prevented from bringing the unborn to be killed in other states where killing healthy fetuses on any grounds is legal?0 -
"you want laws where perfectly healthy foetuses can be aborted for any reason whatsoever" is the most disingenuous hyperbole I've seen about the pro-choice argument in quite some time. You are to be congratulated for your superb effort in twisting the words of the poster you were replying to to suit yourself.
Really? Do you think the poster was arguing for a law that provides for abortion for some reasons, but which would prohibit abortion if it were to be carried out for other reasons? That was certainly not the impression they gave.
I think this is the problem with the current abortion debate. So many arguments are so cloaked with dishonesty that when someone speaks plainly and clearly then they are accused of hyperbole or being disingenuous.0 -
Really? Do you think the poster was arguing for a law that provides for abortion for some reasons, but which would prohibit abortion if it were to be carried out for other reasons? That was certainly not the impression they gave.
I think this is the problem with the current abortion debate. So many arguments are so cloaked with dishonesty that when someone speaks plainly and clearly then they are accused of hyperbole or being disingenuous.
But you want a choice to be given to some women. So are you aligned with the prochoice side?0 -
I believe a civilised society cares for its weakest and most vulnerable members - and you don't get much weaker or more vulnerable than an unborn child.
I think a woman (ETA: or a girl) who finds herself in a crisis pregnancy is pretty damned vulnerable too, but pro-lifers never seem to think of that.0 -
iwantmydinner wrote: »I think a woman who finds herself in a crisis pregnancy is pretty damned vulnerable too, but pro-lifers never seem to think of that.
14 year old rape victims and raped asylum seekers are pretty vulnerable, I'd think.0 -
Advertisement
-
My position is that I oppose all taking of human life. That is why I am a pacifist, why I oppose capital punishment, and why I oppose abortion.
I believe a civilised society cares for its weakest and most vulnerable members - and you don't get much weaker or more vulnerable than an unborn child.
So you're a proponent of an unreal position then, in that you oppose abortion? You genuinely feel that women who know they are in no position to remain pregnant should be forced to stay that way and have a baby? Do you understand you are flying in the face of human behaviour since time immemorial? How can you feel that your attitude to the "tiny defenceless human" is so superior to the countless women who have crisis pregnancies and determined that they can't go through with it? How do you make out that one human foetus (one out of a huge number of potential fertilisations for a woman) is so much more important than the woman's choice to have it or not?
Your position makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I speak as a woman who has twice CHOSEN to have a child.0 -
Really? Do you think the poster was arguing for a law that provides for abortion for some reasons, but which would prohibit abortion if it were to be carried out for other reasons?
No, I don't. I just don't have a problem with women having an abortion for the sole reason that they don't want to be pregnant, whatever circumstances brought on their decision. That's why they do it anyway. And that won't change.0 -
That makes no sense whatsoever. No-one in that scenario is saying abortion is ok. They are saying it is most emphatically not ok.
So why did two women who had had abortions get a standing ovation at a pro-life rally in Dublin recently? Doesn't it matter what they did? Or is it ok as long as they claim to regret their abortions? (One had actually had two, iirc).
And how can anyone know they actually do regret them? Maybe they are just attention-seeking eejits who are using whatever they can to get a little time in the limelight.0 -
So if my daughter is raped, and is made pregnant, she stays pregnant.
I've thought about this if it were to happen with my own daughter. It would certainly be a horrendous scenario. But I don't see that the unborn baby deserves to be killed.
I oppose the killing of rapists, and I oppose the killing of babies who are the products of rape. That might not be comfortable, but I think it is ethical.If I decide my family is complete and I'm 40 and don't want any more but I'm pregnant, I stay pregnant.
If I have a diagnosis of an abnormality that would severely affect my born children's lives due to me having to care for that child, I stay pregnant.
If my friend who never wants children but can't get a tubal ligation or use hormonal contraception gets pregnant, she stays pregnant.
Those are certainly inconvenient and challenging situations. But I don't see that killing an unborn child is a civilised way to handle them.
That would depend on the severity of the risk to your health and life.If my health is at risk due to pregnancy, I stay pregnant.
If saving one life can only be accomplished by taking another life, that is a genuine ethical dilemma. This is why, for example, a police officer may be deemed justified in shooting a criminal who is about to shoot him. But most people would condemn the police officer if he killed someone to prevent them breaking his finger.Any compassion at all for the born Nick?
Plenty. I simply don't believe that compassion is somehow incompatible with a desire not to kill unborn children. To suggest it is demonstrates how poor the quality of debate on this subject has become.
Again, I guess that we have different ideas of how a civilised society should behave.Why do prolifers wheel out the regret brigade at events? Surely they should be telling those women they are murderers and campaigning for a change in the law to treat abortion as exactly equal to murder.
You might see it as fitting that people who do something wrong should be pilloried and abused for their lives. I see it as fitting that people have an opportunity to change and work for something better.Do you think women should be prevented from bringing the unborn to be killed in other states where killing healthy fetuses on any grounds is legal?
No, I don't. Neither do I think people should be prevented from travelling to Texas where they might seek employment as an executioner. Nor do I think Muslims should be prevented from leaving Ireland for the Middle East in order to join ISIS. Restricting people's travel rights on the basis of what they might do overseas seems to me to be a very poor way to run a country.0 -
-
Waoh there Nick. We already prevent people from travelling if their intent is to abuse children in other countries. Surely there's no greater abuse than killing a child. So you're a-ok with women taking unborn children abroad to kill them, no matter what the circumstances are? Seems a funny position to take, seeing as if a woman doesn't go abroad to kill her child her only option, unless as you said there's a certain level of incompatibility with life, she has to stay pregnant. Even if she's a child herself and a victim of rape.I've thought about this if it were to happen with my own daughter. It would certainly be a horrendous scenario. But I don't see that the unborn baby deserves to be killed.
I oppose the killing of rapists, and I oppose the killing of babies who are the products of rape. That might not be comfortable, but I think it is ethical.
Those are certainly inconvenient and challenging situations. But I don't see that killing an unborn child is a civilised way to handle them.
That would depend on the severity of the risk to your health and life.
If saving one life can only be accomplished by taking another life, that is a genuine ethical dilemma. This is why, for example, a police officer may be deemed justified in shooting a criminal who is about to shoot him. But most people would condemn the police officer if he killed someone to prevent them breaking his finger.
Plenty. I simply don't believe that compassion is somehow incompatible with a desire not to kill unborn children. To suggest it is demonstrates how poor the quality of debate on this subject has become.
Again, I guess that we have different ideas of how a civilised society should behave.
You might see it as fitting that people who do something wrong should be pilloried and abused for their lives. I see it as fitting that people have an opportunity to change and work for something better.
No, I don't. Neither do I think people should be prevented from travelling to Texas where they might seek employment as an executioner. Nor do I think Muslims should be prevented from leaving Ireland for the Middle East in order to join ISIS. Restricting people's travel rights on the basis of what they might do overseas seems to me to be a very poor way to run a country.
How compassionate. You're ok with killing the born elsewhere, but women in Ireland can't do it here, even if they're not pregnant through choice.0 -
-
No, I don't. Neither do I think people should be prevented from travelling to Texas where they might seek employment as an executioner. Nor do I think Muslims should be prevented from leaving Ireland for the Middle East in order to join ISIS. Restricting people's travel rights on the basis of what they might do overseas seems to me to be a very poor way to run a country.
Even if it was 12 a day, or approx 4,000 a year? Wouldn't that make you ask the question "is there something wrong with my thinking on this, if such a sizeable proportion of people feel the need to leave the country to be this "uncivilised"?" If not, must be nice to be that convinced of your righteousness. I think we should all make you King immediately.0 -
iwantmydinner wrote: »I think a woman (ETA: or a girl) who finds herself in a crisis pregnancy is pretty damned vulnerable too, but pro-lifers never seem to think of that.
Really? So the only people who have ever shown any compassion to those in such a position are those who advocate abortion?
Don't you see that such hysterical hyperbole is only another demonstration of how low the quality of debate has sunk?
Here's an idea. Why not admit that there are lots of people who are greatly moved by the plight of a girl or a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy? Some of those people think abortion is a good answer. Others don't. But once you start suggesting that only your side has any compassion, then you've the plot.0 -
Advertisement
-
I've thought about this if it were to happen with my own daughter. It would certainly be a horrendous scenario. But I don't see that the unborn baby deserves to be killed.
I oppose the killing of rapists, and I oppose the killing of babies who are the products of rape. That might not be comfortable, but I think it is ethical.
Those are certainly inconvenient and challenging situations. But I don't see that killing an unborn child is a civilised way to handle them.
That would depend on the severity of the risk to your health and life.
If saving one life can only be accomplished by taking another life, that is a genuine ethical dilemma. This is why, for example, a police officer may be deemed justified in shooting a criminal who is about to shoot him. But most people would condemn the police officer if he killed someone to prevent them breaking his finger.
Plenty. I simply don't believe that compassion is somehow incompatible with a desire not to kill unborn children. To suggest it is demonstrates how poor the quality of debate on this subject has become.
Again, I guess that we have different ideas of how a civilised society should behave.
You might see it as fitting that people who do something wrong should be pilloried and abused for their lives. I see it as fitting that people have an opportunity to change and work for something better.
No, I don't. Neither do I think people should be prevented from travelling to Texas where they might seek employment as an executioner. Nor do I think Muslims should be prevented from leaving Ireland for the Middle East in order to join ISIS. Restricting people's travel rights on the basis of what they might do overseas seems to me to be a very poor way to run a country.
All of the above is fine Nick. For you.
But what decisions you make don't impact on me and my life just as mine don't impact on you. I am a mature adult, I am well able to make decisions based on what is best for me and my family. If I was pregnant as a result of rape or if I found out my baby had a FFA I'd have an abortion. Not having access to it here won't make a difference but it will make an already difficult decision harder. You're not really defending anybody. Lack of abortion hasn't stopped those 4500+ women each year - that we know of - ending their pregnancies has it?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement