Thanks for that but I actually think that's what I did. I hit quote all and then just deleted (backspaced) what I didn't want in. Still didn't work. Never mind. I'll give it another go another time. Thanks anyway.

I don't know anything about the technicalities of abortions. But my stance is clear. Women should be allowed to abort at any stage during the pregnancy. As I said, I would allow medical staff to make any attempt to save the fetus that did not threaten the health of the mother.

I think you're making quite an assumption to say that knowledge of the baby surviving is going to be more stressful than knowledge that it's been killed.

And the women might as well not go full term, that's the whole point of an abortion - not going full term. It's not about killing babies, it's about not being pregnant and going full term with a birth. The two are not the same thing. If they want the baby out and we have the means to take it out safely, they should be allowed to do so.

I am quite sure that if you asked mothers having abortions if they would be happy for the fetus to somehow be magicked from their womb and able to survive and without any obligations or contact or duty of care on the mother's behalf beyond anything the mother herself desired, you'd find just about all would allow the baby to live. Like I said, abortions aren't about killing babies, they're about not being pregnant, about not giving birth and all the responsibilities, risks and life changes that go with all of that. In practice, of course, that usually (always?) does involve killing babies.

The vatican would presumably have much preferred to see this poor 9yo die in agony together with her twins trying to deliver them naturally from her immature body. Their deaths would then have been "god's will"

Words are simply inadequate to describe my utter contempt and disgust.

Well, in relation to the leak scandal, one of his henchmen said this about the pope.

Moral superiority... Superiority... Methinks he jests.

I think perhaps your ignorrance of the process may be affecting your judgment of the ideal.


Current UK law allows abortion, no questions, up to 24 weeks. The process here is essentially injecting the baby in utero, vaginally or somtimes through the stomach wall, with an overdose of anaesthetic. Labour is then induced, in a very similair method than is used when women go over turn, then follows a long and protracted delivery, to all intense and purposes the same labour as any full term women would go through.

It's a painfull and distressing process for the women and very damaging, I'm not saying worse than going full term and adopting out, I'm not saying better, but it's not something to be taken lightly. Obviously earlier term is easier, pre 8 weeks it's a pill and a heavy period, some manual removal of left overs is necessary. Late abortions are rarer, maybe only a few thousand a year, but it doesn't alter the facts.

I doubt any women have followed this thread but you might want to discuss it with a few, because I have and you won't find that many who would choose the option of late abortion purely on pratical grounds due to the nature of the procedure, those who do, I think, do it through lack of choices rather than through excercising a choice.

Well, it's not affecting my judgement of the ideal, but it probably does mean the practical realities are different. Obviously in reality if you're a week from term, there's not much benefit in inducing. But there's probably not much downside from the mother's perspective, either. So I don't see much reason to change my stance, which is that the mother can abort at any stage and it's up to medical staff to decide whether the fetus is viable and whether to attempt to save it with the previous stated caveat of prioritising the mother's health.

Having said all that, the current system with a 24 week cut off is pretty reasonable. Assume it's enough to allow the vast majority of pregnancies to become apparent in good time for a considered decision.

I'm still not entirely sure that men should be involved at all in decisions about the rights and wrongs of abortions, but having said that, it seems to me that if women are getting to 24 weeks before aborting then something has gone wrong somewhere. Once a woman finds out she is pregnant and has doubts about whether she wants to carry to full term, then she should really have access to appropriate counselling quickly enough to be able to terminate well before 16 weeks, let alone 24.

But either way, the Catholic church are clearly just a bunch of aholes

Interesting video from 'Non-Stamp collector'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f53E18pwcAI

Lots of circular reasoning that frankly is laughable.

A christian world view is the only basis for knowledge




Its eronious to look at christian beliefs froma viewpoint that does not pre suppose their truth because christianity is true.


fking arsewipes

How anybody can believe in this ste is beyond me.

Just to state a reasonable argument against abortion:

A. Why is it generally wrong to kill?
1. because the grieving relatives left behind will be sad for a while?
2. because the killer will become a worse person by killing?
3. because the animal or person or even thing killed is deprived of its future?

B. If you can consider 3. as a powerful argument against killing, you have the standard argument against abortion. The thing aborted if left alone would typically turn into a grandparent, given 60 years or so.

Is there an intelligent counter to this not involving the words choice or soul or God or rape?