Abortion - time for a new debate?
Discussion
BryanUsrey said:
I think this a great post. Abortion, while it may be an hot issue, is not the root cause of the problem. Education needs to occur from a younger age to try to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
Not going to fix the culture of teenagers having kids just for the benefits and free house.
On the other hand, I think we should apply distance selling regulations to having kids. If they weren't what you wanted you should be able to return them.
Actually I wonder how many childless couples there are who would like to adopt, one of the 184K "potentials"
My brother in law and his wife, adopted 2 kids are it was fairly stressful.
Actually I wonder how many childless couples there are who would like to adopt, one of the 184K "potentials"
My brother in law and his wife, adopted 2 kids are it was fairly stressful.
George111 said:
Termination is very harmful to the women involved too - they are led to believe it's a simple medical procedure which is over with quickly and they then continue with their lives as if it's never happened . . . but there are 1000's of women in therapy and counselling, often for many years, because of what they did.
There are also 1000s of women who walk away from the clinic without giving the matter another thought. The women who do take it badly would probably have an abortion anyway, even if it were illegal, so would still be in the same position anyway, if they hadn't died on the kitchen table.George111 said:
We live in a culture where some men regard women and sex as disposable . . . fun activities. This is not how sex is supposed to be - it's for bonding, procreation and pleasure between married couples. Call me what you will (I've got a very thick skin !) but this is how it is supposed to be - casual sex is not respecting ourselves - either men or women - and it causes the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies.
See, this is the problem. You have your own moral code, which is fine, but you seek to impose it on others, which isn't. Personally, I see no reason why an unmarried couple shouldn't enjoy sex. But if an unmarried couple didn't want to have sex, I wouldn't wish to make it compulsory. Other people's sex lives are not my business.And what evidence do you have that casual sex is the cause of most abortions. And what constitutes casual sex in your book, 1st date, 3rd date, unmarried?
I'm pro choice, but I have respect for the sincere views of many who are anti abortion. But when people start to impose a faux morality on others, I lose interest.
Before I had any kids I thought the whole abortion thing was pretty straight forward, i.e. good for women ... their choice. Now I have had three kids and been through the scans, I know what 22 weeks means....that's my baby...son...daughter....kicking around on a screen in front of my eyes...alive. I still think its a women's choice, and better all round... can't possibly describe why.
We should force pharma companies to make something for men that they must take (no side effects) that stops this nonsense. The amount of money spent on unsolvable cancer is just stupid when other real benefits are within reach....
We should force pharma companies to make something for men that they must take (no side effects) that stops this nonsense. The amount of money spent on unsolvable cancer is just stupid when other real benefits are within reach....
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm pro choice, but I have respect for the sincere views of many who are anti abortion. But when people start to impose a faux morality on others, I lose interest.
I'm sure the "never made it to birth" infants will be touched by your indifference.When a fully formed infant at 22 weeks with beating heart and sucking its thumb is killed inside the womb and broken into pieces for extraction - because the complete infant is too big to fit the exit route - that is IMO a bad thing.
Ozzie Osmond said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm pro choice, but I have respect for the sincere views of many who are anti abortion. But when people start to impose a faux morality on others, I lose interest.
I'm sure the "never made it to birth" infants will be touched by your indifference.When a fully formed infant at 22 weeks with beating heart and sucking its thumb is killed inside the womb and broken into pieces for extraction - because the complete infant is too big to fit the exit route - that is IMO a bad thing.
George111 said:
This is not how sex is supposed to be - it's for bonding, procreation and pleasure between married couples.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're religious. George111 said:
Call me what you will (I've got a very thick skin !) but this is how it is supposed to be - casual sex is not respecting ourselves - either men or women
Casual sex is ace! Maybe if the religious types indulged then there would be a lot less running about shooting each other in the head for worshipping the 'wrong God'.As for abortion, it should always be the woman's choice.
PlankWithANailIn said:
We should force pharma companies to make something for men that they must take (no side effects) that stops this nonsense. The amount of money spent on unsolvable cancer is just stupid when other real benefits are within reach....
That's a tad naive. After 50 years or so the female contraceptive pill is still not infallible or side effect free.Ozzie Osmond said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm pro choice, but I have respect for the sincere views of many who are anti abortion. But when people start to impose a faux morality on others, I lose interest.
I'm sure the "never made it to birth" infants will be touched by your indifference.When a fully formed infant at 22 weeks with beating heart and sucking its thumb is killed inside the womb and broken into pieces for extraction - because the complete infant is too big to fit the exit route - that is IMO a bad thing.
Ozzie Osmond said:
I'm sure the "never made it to birth" infants will be touched by your indifference.
When a fully formed infant at 22 weeks with beating heart and sucking its thumb is killed inside the womb and broken into pieces for extraction - because the complete infant is too big to fit the exit route - that is IMO a bad thing.
Yes far better we force the mother to have the kid so she can abandon it on a park bench to freeze to death.When a fully formed infant at 22 weeks with beating heart and sucking its thumb is killed inside the womb and broken into pieces for extraction - because the complete infant is too big to fit the exit route - that is IMO a bad thing.
or maybe she can forget to feed it while high on drugs so the kid can have a nice strave to death maybe with some physical abuse thrown in for good measure.
The world is not woolly and filled with kittens
Clearly neither of the last two contributors have understood the issue.
- Are you saying abortion should be allowed at any instant right up to birth? Like, say, two days before?
- Or do you accept that a civilised society should agree some sort of sensible cut-off point - as has been the case for a very long time?
Ozzie Osmond said:
Clearly neither of the last two contributors have understood the issue.
You're right, the debate should really only be around cut-off. But your example is quite extreme since, as has already been pointed out, late term abortions are very rare in this country and are generally performed for medical rather than personal reasons. - Are you saying abortion should be allowed at any instant right up to birth? Like, say, two days before?
- Or do you accept that a civilised society should agree some sort of sensible cut-off point - as has been the case for a very long time?
Ozzie Osmond said:
The debate is simply about where that cut-off should be.
But it never is. Because those who advance the agenda for reducing the cut off point (David Alton, Anne Widdicome and others) are invariably catholics who see reducing the cut off point as the first step in their religious crusade. If you could exclude these loons form the debate, then sensible discussion could ensue.
Engineer1 said:
oyster said:
Babies can survive being born at 22 weeks yet the law still allows them to be terminated at that point. That isn't right.
They may survive but they almost certainly won't thrive, some of the issue is that hospitals love to be the best and saving the miracle 22week baby sells well the follow up rarely happens so the child may die early or never catch up. If a baby can live when born at that stage (whether or not it has disabilities) then it seems wrong to me that it can be aborted.
Abortion before say 12 weeks I have no issue with. After that then it gets greyer or me.
Interestingly, I went with my daughter and wife to an open day at Cardiff university, where we attended the talk on Pharmacy, where the Speaker explained how interesting and diverse Pharmacy was, and then went on to explain his own research field which was the 'design' of drugs and food, which could be intravenously 'fed' to a baby, born at approx 15 weeks gestation, with a greater chance of a successful outcome.
So whilst on the one hand I support a woman's right to termination, I also have to say, if you wish to exercise that right, please do not delay, because medical technology is changing the point at which a foetus can survive outside the womb, and what was acceptable yesterday will not be acceptable tomorrow.
So whilst on the one hand I support a woman's right to termination, I also have to say, if you wish to exercise that right, please do not delay, because medical technology is changing the point at which a foetus can survive outside the womb, and what was acceptable yesterday will not be acceptable tomorrow.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff