Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

Pumpkinseeds

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

Or they could have their baby instead.

Jesus, you're all heart, but then again your post is typical of the hand-wringing won't someone think of the children god bothering squad. A bog standard 'fcuk the mother so long as the child isn't aborted' stance.

NachoBusiness

You know what's really irksome about these debates, it's that the vast majority of reasons of just why it is that women choose to have an abortion these days, are rarely if ever mentioned. Instead, what we get is the sanctimonious and shameful use of rare cases where women, that should have been been able to receive an abortion, were denied one.

I'd have no issue with abortions up to the 11th or 12th week. I'd vote for that given the choice and higher should the mother's life be in genuine danger but I sincerely hope to fcuk that the day never comes in this country where a woman that is almost six months pregnant can walk into a clinic and have that baby aborted, as it is in the UK.

Now I know I will get flack for using the word 'baby' here and that's to be expected as there is nothing the so called 'pro choice' folks hate more than graphic descriptions of just what is at stake with an abortion. They would much rather see abortion (at no matter what stage of the pregnancy) described in very clinical ways, using words such as fetus and termination etc. That way the reality that an unborn developing human (that can move it's fingers, arms, legs and toes, and respond also to external stimuli) is having it's life in the womb ended, along also of course with the possibility of having one outside it, can easily be ignored.

In 2013 almost 44% of women in their mid to late 20s in the UK that had an abortion, had already had one. That figures jumps to 47% for the ages of 30 to 35 and 45% in the over 35’s. To put real numbers to that, in 2012 50,000 women in the UK that had an abortion had already had one. The most disgusting stat of all though is that of all the abortions that were carried out between the 20 to 24 week stage (that's between five and six months pregnant to make it a little less clinical) almost two thirds of these abortions were carried out simply because the woman did not want to proceed with the pregnancy for reasons other than the baby's health. In other words, no fetal abnormalities etc, which we are quite often told are the usually the main reason for abortions at this late stage in the UK.

Let's be honest, abortion is being used as a means of birth control and it needs to stop. Two million abortions in the UK in the last ten years. The numbers are a disgrace. The UK should lower the abortion limit also. It's barbaric that a child in the womb that has over a 25% of surviving if they were lucky enough to be born premature 76 out of 332 born at 23 weeks survived in 2011) could in fact have it's life ended at that same stage instead, should that is, it's mother decide to have them aborted instead.

tl;dr

We need sensible abortion laws in Ireland. Mimicking the UK is far from the answer.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Someone was telling me recently that baby-boomers are actually presently responsible for much of the STD increases in the West.

Bloody hippies.

I think it comes back to fear of pregnancy being the main driver for contraception, std's tend to be down the list. "Surw I'm on the pill" seems to be about it!

K-9

The UK tends to be an outlier when it comes to abortion figures. I don't think any other European country has a similar rate.

K-9

inocybe wrote: »

'abortion as a contraceptive' is a nonsensical phrase. People who are using contraceptives properly can also need abortions you know.

More aware than mmost on that one! Though we didn't go down the abortion route.

RDM_83 again

NachoBusiness wrote: »

The most disgusting stat of all though is that of all the abortions that were carried out between the 20 to 24 week stage (that's between five and six months pregnant to make it a little less clinical) almost two thirds of these abortions were carried out simply because the woman did not want to proceed with the pregnancy for reasons other than the baby's health. In other words, no fetal abnormalities etc, which we are quite often told are the usually the main reason for abortions at this late stage in the UK.

I posted similar in another thread on AH recently suprise suprise it was not replied too :rolleyes:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95798201

It doesn't suit the narrative that some of the more fundamental pro-choice want to portray, its as lazy and dishonest an argument as any picture of tiny baby hands the pro-life side will push out, the difference is the pro-choicers claim to hold the moral high ground of being logical and rational and not needing to falsify arguments.

Mal-Adjusted

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

A bog standard 'fcuk the mother so long as the child isn't aborted' stance.

That's how she got into the mess in the first place


....I'll get my coat

UCDVet

From a practical point of view, I don't see much difference between using birth control and having an abortion.

UCDVet

Daqui88 wrote: »

Some generalisation that is.

Excluding medical complications that arise from abortions, I think they're effectively the same. I find every argument against abortion equally as valid against birth control and even abstinence.

Pumpkinseeds

Daqui88 wrote: »

Really, you think the attitude is "fukc the mother". No one is asking for the mother's life to be terminated because the baby might be depressed.

Really, you think think the attitude of forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want is acceptable? Depression is only one reason, frankly I don't think a woman should have to provide a reason for having a termination.

gandalf

Hmmm as this is after hours I thought I'd just like to add this.

Some would consider this NSFW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWE_M0CX9So

Pumpkinseeds

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Really, you think think the attitude of forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want is acceptable? Depression is only one reason, frankly I don't think a woman should have to provide a reason for having a termination.

Women being able to have n abortion and give no reason? This is the sort of abortion on demand barbaric sh*t that some disgusting people people want alright. No respect for life at all.

I really would like to know what is going on in the brain of a person that thinks killing unborn babies is acceptable. As that's exactly what they are falling over themselves to promote.

Un Croissant

Only read the first few posts. Did we figure out what the flegs were about?

gctest50

nox100.......The Irish people don't want abortion on demand, .........

"The Iiiiirish people" Joe

I'm Irish - I want freedom of choice for women & I ain't no white-knighting tool

gctest50

gctest50 wrote: »

"The Iiiiirish people" Joe

I'm Irish - I want freedom of choice for women & I ain't no white-knighting tool

There is no way a vote would pass abortion, not a chance. There are enough decent people left in the country to see to that.

Un Croissant

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

There is no way a vote would pass abortion, not a chance. There are enough decent people left in the country to see to that.

I'm not so sure. I can imagine the no side would put up a nasty fight, perhaps alienating a lot of people. I'd predict a low enough turnout but a pass.

orubiru

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

Women being able to have n abortion and give no reason? This is the sort of abortion on demand barbaric sh*t that some disgusting people people want alright. No respect for life at all.

I really would like to know what is going on in the brain of a person that thinks killing unborn babies is acceptable. As that's exactly what they are falling over themselves to promote.

Look. It's not "killing unborn babies". What the hell is wrong with you? How many times does it need to be explained?

People who want abortion on demand are not "disgusting people". They have the backing of most EU governments and those governments have taken expert medical advice when implementing the regulations regarding abortion.

You are so detached from reality here. After the first trimester there are strict regulations on abortion, it's not "on demand". During the first trimester it is allowed on demand for good reasons. Can you even speculate on what those reasons might be or are you just refusing to look into it?

RDM_83 again

Un Croissant wrote: »

I'm not so sure. I can imagine the no side would put up a nasty fight, perhaps alienating a lot of people. I'd predict a low enough turnout but a pass.

Really depends what you mean by "abortion".
Fetal disorders, would definitely pass provided its not like the UK with its wide definitions.
For victims of rape, would 90% pass.

With a fairly restrictive say 14-16 weeks time limit I could see elective abortion possibly passing dependent on other conditions attached by bill.

A UK style law I just wouldn't see passing, you can't successfully ridicule the slippery slope argument when your sitting next door to one of the best examples of it.

Its a different debate to Gay marriage/Divorce and doesn't cleave as easily down idealogical lines as you might expect.
People tend to self censor about the topic but I know people that are strongly atheist social liberals that would be pretty strongly pro-life but you wouldn't know it unless you actually knew them well as its presumed if your under 35 and fit the rest of that profile your broadly pro-life.
Then you have the pragmatic view point which might influence people, despite my posting I'd probably vote for a German style system because to me it seems like the best in terms of harm reduction for everyone involved.

gctest50

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

There is no way a vote would pass abortion, not a chance. There are enough decent people left in the country to see to that.

So - people that would vote yes to freedom of choice for women are not decent people?

gctest50

gctest50 wrote: »

So - people that would vote yes to freedom of choice for women are not decent people?

But its not just a woman its also an unborn child, what about the rights of the unborn child, why should they have a chance to live. They cant make the choice so they need others to make it for them in not allowing abortion.

orubiru

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

But its not just a woman its also an unborn child, what about the rights of the unborn child, why should they have a chance to live. They cant make the choice so they need others to make it for them in not allowing abortion.

But the "unborn child" absolutely needs the womans body and resources to survive. What if she does not consent to this?

If we agree that both have rights then fair enough but if the woman does not give consent to giving up her body and her resources then why are we agreeing to force her to do that anyway?

Are we gonna say "she gave consent when she decided to have sex"?

eviltwin

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

But its not just a woman its also an unborn child, what about the rights of the unborn child, why should they have a chance to live. They cant make the choice so they need others to make it for them in not allowing abortion.

That's unfortunate but the wishes of the woman take precedence over the unborn for me.

K-9

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

There is no way a vote would pass abortion, not a chance. There are enough decent people left in the country to see to that.

Well I doubt the extreme of 24 or 28 weeks would.

In the cases of rape, incest and unviable pregnancies, would pass by a large majority. Even most of Fg would back that.

Qualitymark

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

There is no way a vote would pass abortion, not a chance. There are enough decent people left in the country to see to that.

Funny, that's just the reason I think the vote would pass.

People often surprise you. Many years ago a neighbour, deeply Catholic, family rosary every night, said to me "They should bring in abortion here, the doctors here could do with the money, why let England have it all."

The Golden Miller

I'm in college, have a part time job, pay rent etc. I'm broke basically, and have another 3 years of college ahead of me. Got my girlfriend pregnant and she's in a similar situation. Abortion wasn't an option. If someone conceives a baby (and unless they are raped or fatal foetal abnormality etc), they are as good as murderers in my eye's. It's functioning to some degree from the minute it's conceived, hence alive. You made your bed, so go and lie in it, instead of taking the cowards way out and trying to convince yourself it's "not alive" because it's not outside the womb. All your doing is fooling yourself, trying to justify murder to yourself, so you don't feel bad for killing it

The Golden Miller

eviltwin wrote: »

That's unfortunate but the wishes of the woman take precedence over the unborn for me.

Well it's not unfortunate, because in the real world in Ireland, the rights of the unborn take precedence.

orubiru

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I'm in college, have a part time job, pay rent etc. I'm broke basically, and have another 3 years of college ahead of me. Got my girlfriend pregnant and she's in a similar situation. Abortion wasn't an option. If someone conceives a baby (and unless it's rape or someone was told they couldn't have a kid, even then I'd be on the fence), they are murderers in my eye's. It's functioning to some degree from the minute it's conceived, hence alive. You made your bed, so go and lie in it, instead of taking the cowards way out and trying to convince yourself it's "not alive" because it's not outside the womb. All your doing is fooling yourself, trying to justify murder to yourself, so you don't feel bad for killing it

So, I think this post confirms that Sex Education in Ireland is woefully inadequate.

The Golden Miller

orubiru wrote: »

So, I think this post confirms that Sex Education in Ireland is woefully inadequate.

Not really. It shouldn't even be needed to point out the obvious. The fact it's there, leaves even less of an argument to justify abortions. I made a mistake, and I'll deal with it and love my child unconditionally, as I'm not a coward who runs from my problems

The Golden Miller

orubiru wrote: »

Are we gonna say "she gave consent when she decided to have sex"?

If it's unprotected, why not? She knew the risk. The pro-choice groups seems to set parameters to suit themselves, can no one else move them, or is it set in stone?

stinkle

The Golden Miller wrote: »

If it's unprotected, why not? She knew the risk. The pro-choice groups seems to set parameters to suit themselves, can no one else move them, or is it set in stone?

And if she was raped and therefore couldnt give consent?

Or if a woman is on the pill and conscientious about taking it, but suffers a stomach upset out of the blue after taking it? Sperm can survive for a number of hours in the female body so that could mean getting pregnant after having sex a day or so previously.

Or if a condom was used and they guy just didnt put it on properly/on time - is that a woman's fault too?

Qualitymark

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I'm in college, have a part time job, pay rent etc. I'm broke basically, and have another 3 years of college ahead of me. Got my girlfriend pregnant and she's in a similar situation. Abortion wasn't an option.

That's absolutely grand, and I hope you have a lovely life together and enjoy your baby.

But really, your own life choices shouldn't be imposed on others who may not have the same beliefs.

It's a pity After Hours doesn't allow images to be posted. In this 2007 BBC piece about abortion across Europe http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm the graphic illustration is interesting.

orubiru

Six Seasons wrote: »

Maybe someone else's choices shouldn't be imposed upon the unborn baby.

Maybe. Did you actually ready the article though?

As another poster said before, don't you wonder why other reasonable and rational people have a point of view that is different from yours?

Does the fact that most countries have abortion available on request before 12 weeks not make you think "hang on, there must be a reason why they've allowed that"?

You will notice, in the link that was posted, that "12 weeks" is mentioned a lot.

You will also notice medical consultation, counseling, authorization being mentioned a lot also. It's not like some crazed lunatics are encouraging these women to have abortions. They are getting advice and assistance from medical doctors.

So, I would ask "pro life" people to go and figure out the reasoning behind that "12 week" limit. How was the decision made to have abortion available on request up to 12 weeks but not after? Why did they decide to allow it before 12 weeks? Is that just an arbitrary line or are there medical and ethical reasons why it's considered OK up to 12 weeks?

I'd also ask what special insight you have on this that overrides the current medical opinion in a lot of those countries?

There is a massive difference between "believing" that life begins at the moment of conception and having an educated medical understanding of the reality of the situation.

It seems like people are willing to throw out the validity of medical knowledge because they've been suckered in by sensationalized catchphrases and slogans.

Medical professionals can explain to us that a zygote doesn't have a central nervous system. Medical professionals can explain to us when the neocortex develops. They didn't just come to this "12 weeks" decision on a whim.

So, we have the medical community offering up facts and insightful information. They are offering consultation, counseling and those are based on the accumulation of many thousands of hours worth of education and research.

On the other side of the argument we have comments like this

The Golden Miller wrote: »

You made your bed, so go and lie in it, instead of taking the cowards way out and trying to convince yourself it's "not alive" because it's not outside the womb. All your doing is fooling yourself, trying to justify murder to yourself, so you don't feel bad for killing it

and

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

I really would like to know what is going on in the brain of a person that thinks killing unborn babies is acceptable. As that's exactly what they are falling over themselves to promote.

Hm.

K-9

Qualitymark wrote: »

That's absolutely grand, and I hope you have a lovely life together and enjoy your baby.

But really, your own life choices shouldn't be imposed on others who may not have the same beliefs.

It's a pity After Hours doesn't allow images to be posted. In this 2007 BBC piece about abortion across Europe http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm the graphic illustration is interesting.

We really do make it somebody elses problem, and why?

I think we could so much more if we faced up to the problem here. I mean sending women abroad to take back their baby's remains in a box is barbaric, inhumane and unchristian.

And for what? To satisfy some puritanical feeling of self satisfaction and delusion that we don't allow abortion.

Facing up to the problem gives us much more hope of trying to reduce the number.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

I think we could so much more if we faced up to the problem here. I mean sending women abroad to take back their baby's remains in a box is barbaric, inhumane and unchristian.

.

If they gave enough of a damn about the baby to want to bring it back in a box and bury it they wouldn't be killing it in the first place.

Throwing it in the bin on their way out of the clinic would be a more fitting conclusion to the scenario.

seamus

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

If they gave enough of a damn about the baby to want to bring it back in a box and bury it they wouldn't be killing it in the first place.

Throwing it in the bin on their way out of the clinic would be a more fitting conclusion to the scenario.

Let's just conveniently forget about those babies who are already functionally dead before the abortion, shall we?

The pro-life side have absolutely no humanity or morality. It's sickening.

Shenshen

Six Seasons wrote: »

I'm in favour of abortion before twelve weeks, but I also acknowledge why someone would believe it's immoral to end the zygote's before then. There is no clear objective set of morals which we should choose to live by, they are very much subjective.

I always wonder - if such a person was caught in a fertility clinic which for some reason went on fire and they could either carry out a baby or a box full of 1000 frozen zygotes, would they choose the frozen zygotes? On the basis that they'd be saving 1000 lives rather than one?

tipparetops

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

If they gave enough of a damn about the baby to want to bring it back in a box and bury it they wouldn't be killing it in the first place.

Throwing it in the bin on their way out of the clinic would be a more fitting conclusion to the scenario.

Pity your mom did not throw you in a bin.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Let's just conveniently forget about those babies who are already functionally dead before the abortion, shall we?

The pro-life side have absolutely no humanity or morality. It's sickening.

Lets not forget the fact of the matter is that in the vast majority of cases people are going to have abortions in the UK because they dont want the baby not because there is anything worng with it. I would not have an issue with an abortion being carried out here in an instance where the child has no chance of survival, its a whole different ball game to abortion as a form of contraception.

orubiru

Six Seasons wrote: »

I'm in favour of abortion before twelve weeks, but I also acknowledge why someone would believe it's immoral to end the zygote's before then. There is no clear objective set of morals which we should choose to live by, they are very much subjective.

I agree with you completely.

I am also happy to acknowledge why someone believes it is immoral. I would, however, encourage them to look at the opposing point of view in favour of just ranting about "killing" and "murder".

In Ireland there is no choice. At the moment choice is being denied and it seems that many of those who would deny choice refuse to consider the reasons why other nations do things differently.

K-9

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

If they gave enough of a damn about the baby to want to bring it back in a box and bury it they wouldn't be killing it in the first place.<br />
<br />
Throwing it in the bin on their way out of the clinic would be a more fitting conclusion to the scenario.

<br />
<br />
How touching your concern for women, and foetuses who are unviable. Here you have it folks, a psychopathic post that shows up clearly what you think.

orubiru

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

If they gave enough of a damn about the baby to want to bring it back in a box and bury it they wouldn't be killing it in the first place.

Throwing it in the bin on their way out of the clinic would be a more fitting conclusion to the scenario.

OK but this is just judgement of people who have abortions. You are just appealing to emotion "You don't give a damn about babies! You want to kill them!"

You are not providing a logical or reasoned argument.

Anyone who cares to inform or educate themselves can clearly see that an abortion before 12 weeks is in no way comparable to "killing babies". This is understood by most rational adults.

Would it be helpful for you if a doctor explained to you why an abortion is not the same as killing a baby? Or, are you intending to just keep going with that mantra regardless?

Samaris

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

If they gave enough of a damn about the baby to want to bring it back in a box and bury it they wouldn't be killing it in the first place.

Throwing it in the bin on their way out of the clinic would be a more fitting conclusion to the scenario.

See previous comments about twelve weeks.

Whatever you may think, it is very very rarely an easy decision to make. To impose your disdain, expressed in those sorts of words..nggh. It certainly suggests to me that you've rarely been confronted with such an awful decision.

A person who has been raped, who feels the consequences of the rapist's actions taking over their body for nine months, and taking over their life after.

A child under the age of rightful consent, through their own choices or not.

A person at risk from pregnancy, forced by the beliefs of you and those like you, to risk her own life for an accident.

A person who knows that she cannot bring this child to term, that the child will die before it's born, or will be born with terrible issues and live a short life of pain. As far as you and those like you seem to be concerned, they must carry the child until they miscarry, despite the pain and horror.

A person who knows they cannot afford to bring up a child, that took their precautions and the precautions failed.

You may agree with some or all of the above, or you may agree with none of them, but at base, it is not your bodily autonomy. And in many of these cases, it is still a deeply upsetting and traumatic experience, not helped at all by having to leave their own country in shame to seek help elsewhere. Obviously many people DO give that damn.

I think that question of would you save the live baby or one thousand zygotes from a burning building is rather applicable to you! It's certainly worth the consideration. It should, under the ideals of a zygote being a person, be a no-brainer, hm?

captbarnacles

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I'm in college, have a part time job, pay rent etc. I'm broke basically, and have another 3 years of college ahead of me. Got my girlfriend pregnant and she's in a similar situation. Abortion wasn't an option. If someone conceives a baby (and unless they are raped or fatal foetal abnormality etc), they are as good as murderers in my eye's. It's functioning to some degree from the minute it's conceived, hence alive. You made your bed, so go and lie in it, instead of taking the cowards way out and trying to convince yourself it's "not alive" because it's not outside the womb. All your doing is fooling yourself, trying to justify murder to yourself, so you don't feel bad for killing it

You sound angry at the decision you made and that other people who are not bound by your morals can make a a different decision.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

How touching your concern for women, and foetuses who are unviable.

I already addressed this above.

K-9 wrote: »

Here you have it folks, a psychopathic post that shows up clearly what you think.

Not sure how you are defining the word "psychopathic" if you are using it to refer to my post.

Samaris wrote: »

A person who has been raped, who feels the consequences of the rapist's actions taking over their body for nine months, and taking over their life after: I'm still undecided on this one

A child under the age of rightful consent, through their own choices or not: Shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion if they made the choice to have sex, otherwise falls into the above undecided bracket

A person at risk from pregnancy, forced by the beliefs of you and those like you, to risk her own life for an accident. If the threat to the mothers life is extremely high then allowed, as it already is

A person who knows that she cannot bring this child to term, that the child will die before it's born, or will be born with terrible issues and live a short life of pain. As far as you and those like you seem to be concerned, they must carry the child until they miscarry, despite the pain and horror. I'd allow it in this instance

A person who knows they cannot afford to bring up a child, that took their precautions and the precautions failed. Definitely no to abortion in this instance, there are other options if they really really dont want the child after its born.

Samaris wrote: »

I think that question of would you save the live baby or one thousand zygotes from a burning building is rather applicable to you! It's certainly worth the consideration. It should, under the ideals of a zygote being a person, be a no-brainer, hm?

A poor analogy as there is a massive difference between a zygote in a box and one developing inside a woman.

Samaris

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

Lets not forget the fact of the matter is that in the vast majority of cases people are going to have abortions in the UK because they dont want the baby not because there is anything worng with it. I would not have an issue with an abortion being carried out here in an instance where the child has no chance of survival, its a whole different ball game to abortion as a form of contraception.

Oh really, how often do you think that is applicable? There are some people that use the morning after pill as a form of contraception, and that's rather foolish in and of itself (whether or not it's abortion is up to whoever's speaking at any given moment, I suppose!) But I can assure you that no-one (bar perhaps a couple of disturbed people) would use abortions at 12 weeks +, or even 12 weeks- as a form of contraception. Abortion isn't exactly painfree or easy on the body as is. There are definitely more sensible methods out there. Abortions are emergency procedures.

Edit: I see your response! Bear with me, I'm editing this post in answer ^^

Edit to the edit: Rightie. OK, well, I'm glad at least that you aren't 100% against in all cases. There is a question of what age should the child be to consider it entirely her fault though. A nine year old? Twelve? Fourteen? Fifteen? There's a reason we consider a child to be under the age of consent, and having a separate rule for how young they can be and still be forced to carry the result is questionable, morally and legally. Purely legally, if the other party was over the age of consent, then it was rape in statuary terms.

The threat to them other's life - well, Savita Halappanavar didn't benefit much by that! I grant that there are always tragic exceptions, but the law in that case seems to be dubiously written in the extreme.

Alrightie, I accept your issues with the last case, opinions differ.

As for the question, you're right, it is a poor analogy, but not because the zygote developing in the woman is different from the frozen zygote. They are both potential life, not life under law. But it is a different thing from a living, breathing baby who can live without the mother as life-support. Still, it is an interesting question to consider, and it gave me a moment's pause for thought.

Gunslinger92

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

A poor analogy as there is a massive difference between a zygote in a box and one developing inside a woman.

You're dead serious aren't you...

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

Oh really, how often do you think that is applicable? There are some people that use the morning after pill as a form of contraception, and that's rather foolish in and of itself (whether or not it's abortion is up to whoever's speaking at any given moment, I suppose!)

I would think that in the majority of cases that it is done as a choice not as a necessity for health reasons or even in the case of rape etc.

I would not consider the morning after pill abortion as it simply isn't and it is a very sensible approach to immediately seek it if you think something went wrong with contraception or you didn't use it for whatever reason. That's not so its not foolish if people are more or less planning to use it in advance as a form of contraception.

Akrasia

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I'm in college, have a part time job, pay rent etc. I'm broke basically, and have another 3 years of college ahead of me. Got my girlfriend pregnant and she's in a similar situation. Abortion wasn't an option. If someone conceives a baby (and unless they are raped or fatal foetal abnormality etc), they are as good as murderers in my eye's. It's functioning to some degree from the minute it's conceived, hence alive. You made your bed, so go and lie in it, instead of taking the cowards way out and trying to convince yourself it's "not alive" because it's not outside the womb. All your doing is fooling yourself, trying to justify murder to yourself, so you don't feel bad for killing it

Was abortion just 'not an option' for you, or did your girlfriend have any say in the matter

Shenshen

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

I would not consider the morning after pill abortion as it simply isn't and it is a very sensible approach to immediately seek it if you think something went wrong with contraception or you didn't use it for whatever reason. That's not so its not foolish if people are more or less planning to use it in advance as a form of contraception.

So you wouldn't consider a zygote inside a woman's body to be a growing baby after all, then?

What age does it have to be to qualify, in your view?

Varik

orubiru wrote: »

Are we gonna say "she gave consent when she decided to have sex"?

It's how it works for men.