Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

do you think abortion is right? is it wrong?

i think it sucks, personally.

you know it does somewhat sucks but then it when comes down to wether its good or bad thing its the woman who decides if she wants one. it isn't for other people to get involved. thats how i feel.

I don't think it is fair for somebody to decide whether a baby is born, but it seems that is the way it is

I think it's abortion is a sad thing. I mean you're ending a life before it even begins. But then again what if the person does have a baby and then it's abused and god knows what else. Is that worse then having had an abortion off the bat? I'm for it, but I don't like the idea of it. Until we have a process of making sure unwanted babies can be cared for completely and perfectly, abortion will always be an option

i think that there is nothing wrong with abortion

their are many sides to abortion but most are only opinions

Woah, you are touching on a sore subject My personal opinion is that whether or not it can possibly be justified is based upon circumstance. A couple of possible scenarios where it could be justified (though certainly not a pleasant option) are

1) Where the infant has been conceived by an act of rape.
2) Where there is solid evidence that proves the foetus to be severely deformed.

However, it is NEVER a happy circumstance

I would say though that making it completely illegal would be unwise, because (as with the drug issue) if it were illegal then it would still be carried out, but in dangerous and unsanitary conditions by bad/unqualified doctors. As it is legal (this isn't much comfort) it can be ensured that it is relatively safe.

yea ok, i can see why abortion could be an "acceptable" option, but what if that baby that was killed couldve grown up to cure cancer or something? just look at how much we're missing... abortion is like murder, without a trial.

Woman should be allowed to choose if shes to keep the child or not. Its not up to government or pressure groups or what not, its up to her.

There are any factors, as shaber said, like the cases of rape, the cases of sevirely deformed children, children whith incurable diseases, parnets who are unable to support a child, woman who doesnt want another chld, woman whos life might be in danger if she has one...etc, the list goes on.

If the woman decides and agrees on abortion, it should be perfectly fine.

Exactly, it's no one's place to decide but the mothers, not the middle-aged bible-thumping white men in the American government.

^thats what people need to understand

I have no problem with abortion.

I am firmly against abortion as a firm of birth conrol. A woman should not go out, have sex, be stupid enough to get pregnant, and then get an abortion. That's wrong. However, If a woman or teen is raped, and becomes pregnant, I think abortion should be allowed in that case, especially if she is raped by a family member. It would not be fair to force the woman to go through the trauma of giving birth to a child that could ultimately belong to a rapist, her brother, her uncle, her father, etc.

there is nothing wrong with abortion

as long as it isn't used as a method of birth control, I think it's a bit too drastic and -I dunno maybe- a bit too dangerous for that

I have no problem with abortion as long is it aint used as a form for birth control

if there are good reasons, yes (rape and such)
if it's like fire said, you had a night out, had sex and later found out you got pregnant : no, not by a long shot, you should have thought about safe sex first

think almost everybody feels that way

yup...true

I don't like the idea of abortion at all. If you're not ready for the responsibility, don't have sex. If you get pregnant, face the consequences. Hell, at least give it up for adoption. Their is so many couples who can't have a kid of their own that would love to take in the fetus that you want to kill. I for one would never let somebody abort my child. Only in extreme situations should their be an abortion: its a rape baby, the birth could harm the mother, etc. I don't really wanted to interfere with "a woman's choice" because this is my opinion and they are allowed to have theirs, but only stupid people put themselves in positions where an abortion is "needed" as they say. And by need, I mean they want an abortion.

I think the debate should probably be narrowed to abortion on demand, rather than abortion in general- I think nearly all will agree that abortion is fine if there is a compelling medical reason for it. And when I say 'demand', I think common sense should also point out that there are both good and bad reasons for demanding it.

So, with regards to that- well, then I think it comes down to one simple factor. At what point is a foetus really alive? No-one is really sure. But at the point where it is alive onwards, no-one has the right to take its life away- that includes the Mother, and that is regardless if she was raped or not. Because that would simply be murder, and two wrongs do not make a right.

That is the tricky question then, isn't it? When IS it alive? I am sure none of us accept the Chinese method of 'acceptable' abortion which includes the technique of partial-birthing a seven month term baby, clearly recognisable as human, puncturing its skull and vacuuming its brains out.

So you have to take it back and back until you try and define the point where it is ok. So don't get TOO mad at the religious types who try and yell at you for aborting at all- they may be wrong, but their reason for doing so is because they are convinved it is life from conception onwards, and so they think it is always murder.

i have never had an abortion and i never will............for one mom always told me its frownd on because my daddie is irish and a catholic and second...if you guys took precaution then u wouldnt need to even consider it..........I'm sorry but thats just how i feel

All in all, I agree with what most said. Abortion is acceptable as long as it has to do with medical reasons or a rape. And probably when the family cannot afford to raise another child, and so on. In no means though is it acceptable just because a couple (or whatever) is just too bored of taking precautions I'm ok with it being legal and such. Sometimes it's necassery.

well about when a baby is considered to be alive, I KNOW THIS MIGHT CHANGE ONCE STORM OR (AND THIS ISN'T GOING TOO HAPPEN EASILY) MY GIRLFRIEND GETS PREGNANT, For me it is fairly simple, the thing is alive once it is been born no sooner no later, like the belgian law says you become a person once you are born and can live for a few seconds without being connected to your mother.

i think if a woman is too young, cant afford a child, cant look after a child, doesnt want a child, was raped etc etc

then she should be able to choose not to have a child.
'pro-life' people make me sick.

I'm against that, they should know a child takes up a lot of money

Yersie, pregnancy aint always planned

Yeah, I agree!

use a condom and such than the chances of getting pregnant aren't high

abortion is a good thing when a)the child will have a medical problem--Down's syndrome, any of the various "trisomy" diseases (all of which, except Down's syndrome, result in a stillborn child or one that dies within a few days), etc, or b) if it was an accidental pregnancy, especially if the woman can't take care of a child. I don't believe that it is EVER "murder"--at the stage where an embryo can be successfully aborted, it is no more than a lump of cells. It is not a concious being. What I find interesting is how many "pro-life" people are in favor of the death penalty. That is murder.

no BC is foolproof so there is always a chance of being impregnated.

And condoms, you dont eat candy with the paper wrapping on do you?

when was that ever stopping you down, finti

In medical law, if the pregnancy puts the mother's life in danger, mother comes first, even if that means baby dies.

Even though a preganancy cannot be aborted after 24weeks (because it is a full baby but depends on mother in next few months) a foetus actually develops organs and a functioning brain in 10weeks of pregnancy.

Its an ethical question, but when is a foetus a baby? If it is morally wrong to kill human beings, is it wrong to kill foetuses?

It depends on how long since conception...

never used a condom Yersie

hehe

well I can only assume it is better without a condom finti. never tried that one myself, but you are right they aren't 100% safe

I think a women should have the right to choose whether she goes through with a pregnancy or not, especially if she wasn't planning the pregnancy. Hoever, having recently learned exactly how abortions are carried out, I dont think I could go through with one myself. I couldnt live with knowing I'd done that to my baby. But really it depends on the individual.

you christian

No by no means, never cared for them

no one gets my lame jokes

What a terrible topic!!!! Have all of you gone content oriented in this forum?????!!! Are you nuts?!!!!

*waves to queeq* I already was

I personally believe that all life deserves a chance, thats why we fight for freedom, justice, and or way of life. We are willing to die not just for a flag but for all who grace in its presence... Even in the case of rape life should be given that chance... we as a society should be ready to care for something that we may have fostered to case this person to rape. We as humans should stand by our human imperfection and foster those gifts given to us by God. For all of us in the end are in this together. No one knows what wonders or atrocities any bit of life can create.

I'm completely pro-choice - people should be allowed to make their own decisions.

Having said that, I am AGAINST abortion, BUT, I think it should always be your choice, and I would support anyone who chose abortion, as long as it was a well thought out decision.

did that make sense?

they do ruin the experience
but then they do help you avoid aids and pregnancy
so worth using i suppose
although the pill is good if you know and trust the girl

Man, I remember in high school a bunch of hardcore anti-abortionists were walking around handing out flyers that showed pictures of dead babies and crap like that. It pretty much had the oposite effect on me then they desired, ever since then I have been for abortion because I don't want anything in common with those wackos.

I cannot understand Phoe's view. Either you think it is wrong or you do not. If you think it is wrong, then it remains wrong reagrdless of the person's choice involved. if you do not, then it does not matter anyway.

I mean, you cannot say you think murder is wrong but you support someone else's right to murder if they choose to- and if you think abortion is wrong, then murder is what you are bringing it down to.

I don't bloody know, that's my problem. I wish there was morte hard evidence.

I think she just meant that she's ok with other people having abortions, but she would never have one herself.

I have the same with horror-fans

Well horror fans don't go to highschools preaching garbage and passing out pictures of dead babies to push their agenda's on teenagers.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say you have a daughter, and she was raped by her grandfather and he got her pregnant...would you honestly want her to be forced to give birth to that child? That's completely absurd. Why put her through that trauma? Abortion, in cases like this, is a god thing. Abortion as form of birth control, as most of us have said, is stupid. Use a condom or the pill!

no, but they like horrorflicks

But that is my point. This is not like pornography, where you can say you do not like it but support another's right to use it.

If you think abortion is wrong it is because you think a human life is being killed. There is simply no circumstance I can see in which you would then support someone else's right to do it.

Horror flicks don't have pictures of dead babies in them.

Anyway, I remember these wackos got arrested after a few minutes (the high school was right across the street from the police department, shows how smart they were huh?) for causing a disruption and harrassing people. They also had big posters and picket signs with dead babies and pictures of disgaurded fetus's and all that crap. Man, they pissed me off.

The "brain" you speak of that is present during fetal development only functions to moniter its pulse and other vital functions. It cannot "think" or "feel" with it.

nevermind BF

I wish we knew that for a fact, but we don't. We know bugger all for certain.

Anyway, like I say, the Chinese partial birth and then kill babies that might actually easily survive if incubated. Where do you draw the line? Where does life begin?

Do you support abortion of babies that could actually live if removed from the womb? That happens a lot.

Well I understand where she's coming from.

I myself probably wouldn't want to have an abortion if I accidentally got a girl pregnant, but on the other hand, if someone else wants too that's there choice. Hence why it's called pro choice, I feel anyone should be able to make the choice and be able to have an abortion if they want too, I don't have a problem with it, it's just not something I would do myself.

But Phoe does not say she simply would not chose to do it, she says she is against abortion- i.e. that she thinks abortion is wrong.

Which, as I say, means you think it is murder, in which case no-one has the right to choose it, from that logic, their body or otherwise.

Yeah, she worded in a questionable manner, but I think that's probably waht she meant. She's for a persons right to choose, but she wouldn't do it herself.

Okidokey... well, I shall see what the Phoemeister has to say.

Well, you might be against that, but it DOES happen. There will never be a day that suddenly all people will use precautions... So, if it does happen, it's better abortion to be available... even though it IS kind of murder

Raventheonly> Indeed sometimes raped women do not choose to do an abortion. But it's totally, totally up to them, IMO.

yeah, it was pretty stumpid of me thinking people will actually use their BRAINS for a change

There is no precaution that is 100 percent reliable, there is always a chance something may go wrong. There could be a whole in the condom, someone's birth control pill may be defective and so on.

Many people DON'T have brains, and you should consider that some are too immature, etc... which isn't an excuse ofc.
And yeap, what BF said

use a combo

Still not fool proof. There is always a chance that something may go wrong.

^^ what he said

Because I PERSONALLY would never have an abortion, but I wouldn't say someone was a monster for having one.

OK, yeah I worded it kinda wrong...

what I meant is that abortion is wrong FOR ME, I think it'd be wrong FOR ME to do it. other people have the right to choose whether they want the baby or not. I would encourage them to think very carefully about what they were doing, because once they've done it, the can't change their minds. But I would support them on their decision

If you combine the pill and a condom, it is almost 200% effective.

Life begins when the fetus begins to develop. It has a heartbeat, and it has been proven that it can distinguish voices and things of that nature.

it is not even 100% effective

Abortion is not murder.

In some cases it is the best solution for both mother and unborn fetus.
(i.e. when it is not wanted and/or cannot be cared for)

See... the problem is, we can all say abortion is murder/abortion is not murder at each other all day, the point remains that

a. That is imprecise, the question is at what POINT is it murder, not whether it is murder at all (technically speaking killing the baby the day before it was due to be born is abortion- but also clearly murder!)

b. As for what point it is, science has no firm idea.

It is a very nasty problem.

And I don't get this 'best for the child if no-one wants it' thing. Strikes me as irrelevant. Either it is not murder in which case it is ok to get rid of it whether it is wanted or not, if the mother so desires, or it IS murder, in which case it makes no difference whether the child is wanted or not, it would still be wrong- you would not kill a baby abandoned on the street, would you?

Idd...It's murder if the fetus has developed beyond a certain point IMHO..

i dont think its murder.
society has a law that its illegal to terminate it after a certain period of time.
therefore if its done before that time "it is ok to get rid of it whether it is wanted or not, if the mother so desires".


"you would not kill a baby abandoned on the street, would you?"
no but thats a stupid thing to say.

Not from conception, that is too strict.

At 14 weeks, the foetus has finger nails and eyelashes for christ's sake....... yet they can still be aborted up to 20 or so weeks....... think about how much more it has changed between 14-20 wekks.

I am NOT saying abortion is completely wrong, far from it, but it should be avoided at all costs, obviously.....

I don't think anymore can really be said on this subject, everyone seems to be in agreement, more or less

And Ush, I don't think the word "alive" is appropriate babe, it's alive from the moment the sperm fertilises the egg.......

I know we were all once foetuses, but you have a GREAT memory to be able to confirm that!

In saying when the foetus is "alive," for the argument's sake lets say that a foetus is not a human, but at some point it develops all human traits, is it then an unborn baby or still a foetus that can still be aborted?

Abortion is a good thing. It gives women freedom and helps further equality between the genders.
Imagine a world without abortions? And how it would negatively impact womens carrier chances in the world today.

Since a woman's body belongs to the woman in question, she and SHE alone, decides what happens to it. Imagine how it would be, if MEN where the ones being pregnant? And how that would effect various types of contraception AND abortion.

This stuff about "ending a life before it begins" is saying some unborns life is more important than the woman in question. A child should be welcomed and wanted. The potential cure-cancer scenario is also rubbish. What if the woman in question was forced to have the child, and therefore couldn't go to medical shool, where SHE then found the cure for cancer?

And - as has been pointed out: You cannot make it illegal. Only dangerous and moved to unhealthy back-alley clinics.

Lil Bitchiness> Okay, so we're STILL in agreement.

Jeff_Atello> Well, what if the STUPID man and woman did use contraception? And what gives YOU the right to say what a woman can and cannot do with her own body - seeing as you're never going to be in a situation of unwanted pregnancy?

This nonsense about responsibility doesn't work. So, should young boys not have sex before they're ready to be fathers? Sex is not only meant to procreate the species. Its fun and a damn pleasurable way of spending some time together.

Is it murder? An unborn child cannot survive without the mother or some funky technical devices. As long as the unborn child is DEPENDENT on the mother for life, the woman has the final word as to whether she want it or not. Take the child out of the womb and it will, left without medical aid, die. This to show why I do NOT consider abortion to be murder. I consider it to be... abortion.

Thousands of children die each day in underdeveloped countries, of starvation, disease, and thirst and mines - because our governments refuse to helpt them. Is that murder?

Hang on, but why does it cease to be murder just because it cannot live without medical aid?

There are babies born prematurely that we save with medicine that, at the same time period, we also abort. Is it so inaccurate to call it murder if that child had the chance of life outside the womb? After all, there are plenty of babies born NOT prematurely that need medical treatment to live- it would still be murder to kill them.

Well, I certainly consider the possibility of it being murder, in which case it does not matter a damn whose body it is, no-one has the right to kill it. I also totally and utterly reject your disturbing idea that it is not murder if something is dependant on you for life. Just because a human is dependant on another human's body to live, does not change it being murder to kill the dependant human! That much is obvious.

It is not murder in only one case, and no other- if it is not a proper, sentient human. If it is, then all other considerations should be completely ignored, because murder it is. The question is again, I repeat- WHEN is it considered murder and when is it not? No-one knows at what point it stops being a vague collection of cells and starts being a proper living being- all we know is that it starts BEFORE birth, but we do not know when.

Mook, it is not even vaguely stupid; it is basically what it comes down to, if it can be considered truly alive (and I think we all know what is meant by alive in this case, Syren.) The law is, after all, different in just about every country- it is a guess, and a vague guess at that.

"Thousands of children die each day in underdeveloped countries, of starvation, disease, and thirst and mines - because our governments refuse to helpt them. Is that murder?"

No, at worst negligence, and also totally irrelevant to any argument I am advancing.

I also could not care less if it was the man or woman who got pregnant; the principle is identical.

There is most certainly murder being committed in the name of aboriton in this world. That is a fact- like I say, the Chinese partial birth babies that could actually live independantly once born and suck their brains out, and call it abortion. Anyone will agree that is murder, so logically you have to trace a point backwards to where it is NOT murder- and as I keep saying., no-one knows for sure where that point is.

Abortion is acceptable to me. But, in normal circumstances, I' d never want an abortion. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he or she needs is time to develop and mature. So to me, it' s human from the beginning.
I know there are extreme situations and I don' t know what I would decide when I ended up in such a situation.

If the abortion is only a couple of days after conception, then I dont see anything wrong with it.

Also, if the pregnant person is not ready to be a parent, or is not willing to have another child, then it would be wrong (both for the parent and the would be child) for the pregnancy to be taken through to full term of pregnancy.

The Pill itself is 99% effective! The condom is 85% effective...combine that, and it's 184% effective! Those are pretty damn good odds...

Abortion IS Murder! The baby has a heartbeat and a mindstate, thus making it alive. It is unborn, but it is alive. Anyway, if it wasn't wanted, then the parents should have thought about using protection. If it can't be cared for, then they should put it up for adoption. Abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control.

Err... it doesn't quite work like that...

Sure it does. That gives you a pretty damn good chance of not getting pregnant.

Omega> If they ahd used contraception, and still gotten pregnant, then I think the baby should be put up for adoption. Nobody told them they had to have sex, they made that choice, they deal with the consequences. Abortion should be used in the most dire of circumstances, and that's it.

No it doesn't. You don't add the percentages together! The condom actually makes very little extra difference to the pill, because 99% of what it stops, the pill would stop anyway.

That's true. I'm just saying that it doesn't hurt to use both, just in case. There is the 1/100 chance that you will get pregnant while on the pill, and if you use a condom, that chance decreases.

Dude its still half hers.. can you deny that?
Perhaps it will die or be deformed ... but its still life. The monster that caused this anguish should truly be the emphasis of this story. How many sickos in the world was seriously do that? Perhaps we should not be looking at the end result of the problem but rather the ideals that caused it.

ok, here's something for all you pro-lifers to think about: Every day, you kill literally millions of protists every day--whenever you take a drink of water, or eat a meal, or wash your hands. Killing them is not murder. Now, as I have said before, at the stage where an abortion can be successfully attempted, the fetus is NOT A CONSCIOUS BEING. It is essentially a cluster of cells with a little wad of brain matter that controls vital functions. The protists I mentioned earlier are more conscious than the fetus at this stage. So, if you object to the removal of an underdeveloped fetus, you should theoretically stop killing anything. Also, in many cases, the child won't live more than a few hours after being born, so what is the point of putting the mother through such a difficult experience for a stillborn or terminally ill baby? It does more harm than good.
Also, a lot of pro-lifers are in favor of the death penalty, but abortion is "murder" to them? That's just messed up.

in Norway the limit is 12 weeks

There's not a damn thing you can do to stop rapists, until they are caught, and by then, it's too late. The baby is half hers, technically, but it was forced. She didn't want it, she wasn't trying to have one, she was forced to have sex and the rapist got her pregnant. How can you sit back and say that it's still half hers, as if that makes it better. Sure, the sick individual who caused it should be the topic of discussion, but we're talking about the baby that is forming as a result of the rape.

I think that if I ever would chose for abortion, the memory of it would hunt me. I' d rather remember that I gave my baby life. And that because I loved him, I gave him into the arms of a, hopefully, loving couple then to remember that I selfishly ended my baby's life.
Though, knowing that my child would be raised by an other family would be extremely hard for me.

OK, someone ((I think it was Omega)) said that it should only be the woman's decision. I agree with this to a certain extent, but I do think the father should be allowed part of the decision too. ((any brits see Casualty on Saturday? You'll know what I'm talking about))

If I ever got pregnant and decided, for whatever reason, to abort it ((I wouldn't, but this is HYPOTHETICAL)), could I really not allow the father a chance to decide whether or not I killed our child? I certainly wouldn't lie to him, I couldn't not tell him I was pregnant then kill the baby and never tell him. What if he truly would love the child, should I just rip that away from him without even consulting him?

i dont think anyone uses it as birth control - only as a last resort when things go wrong.
i cant belive any woman would ever want to go through that unless it was absolutely necessary.

I am undecided, rather than a pro-lifer. As I keep pointing out, Revan, the point at which abortion can be 'successfully attempted' is open to question. Do I have to mention my Chinense example? These are fully formed babies they 'abort'. That is obviously too far, so I can only ask again- how can we define the point where it starts to become murder?

Whilst I absolutely agree that it is a decision that the father should be consulted about...

... if abortion is NOT murder, then the foetus is an extension of the woman's body and, harsh as it may be, it is absolutely her final say on things.

oh, definitely the womans final say, but the father should be allowed some input! It does take two to make babies

Ok, safely attempted. I know it's possible to "abort" a fully formed baby, but it's very dangerous. And in most countries it is, thankfully, illegal to do so.

But why do you say it should be hers alone? The father should have a say in his childs life. Any baby I have wil not just be my baby but its dad's too

Very true.

I agree with the comments made by TheOmega and BackFire. It is a womans body and she is entitled to make the decision. I dont see it as murder because it can be preventable. It would be consider illegal and possibly murder ( which i dont see that way ) once the fetus has develop properly. As for the so called "fathers" they are only sperm donors!!!!! A man should not be calling himself a father just because he provided the sperm! A father is someone who takes resposiblities for his actions during the pregnacy. Many man act like men only during sex! Once the woman gets pregnant they run away like COWARDS! So how can it be a decision by a man? Man have no business in the decision! The decision is for the female who has to live with the pregnancy! I dont see why man have a word in this matter!

Well what if the said man wants to take care of the child and is willing to, shouldn't he have a say if the woman carrying the baby has an abortion or not?

To in any way call me opinion chauvinistic when it has NOTHING to do with me being a man would simply be pure tiresome gibberish on your part which I can only assume is due to a problem you have being objective with this subject. Feel free to call it that if you want- I will treat such comments with the utter contempt they would deserve and treat that as a reflection on you- someone disagrees with you on a subject like this, so you simply label me chauvinist to discredit my argument. Should be beneath you. I assure you, I would feel the same way regardless of my gender. There are many, many women who share my exact view, in fact I got most of this view from a female friend; is she also chauvinist and sexist? I think you need to put more thought into what you say sometimes and come to terms with the idea that not everyone who disagrees with your views on abortion is doing it because he is a man trying to beat down on your rights- I am raising concerns because I am very worried that much abortion is very. VERY wrong- and if it is that wrong, like I say, I don't give a stuff if it is the man or woman who gets pregnant. If it IS murder... then murder is murder.

Whereas you directly said that if someone is dependant on someone else for life, it is not murder to kill them- that, by common sense, is disturbing. Who you are dependant on for life makes no difference as to whether you have the right to live or not.

I said there are babies born on time, that still need medical treatment to life. It is still murder to kill them, so why isn't it murder to kill them if they were born prematurely and needed such treatment? Why is it murder to kill them if they are OUT the womb receiving the aid needed to live, but is NOT murder to kill them IN the womb being given the same treatment? What magically happened when they left the womb to make them now properly human? The answer is nothing- passing through a vagina does bugger all to decide if you are a sentient being with the rights of a human or not. You say such babies receviing treatment are not independant beings. Kill one and you would end up in prison, I assure you.

There are also babies born prematurely that do NOT need medical aid to live that in some places are legal to abort. But at the point they were in the womb they depended on the Mother for food and oxygen. I cannot see any logical reason why that makes it not murder to kill them, if it would be murder to kill them after being born. Again, what is the point at simply moving from one place to another that made it now no longer legal to kill?

Simply put, whether it is murder has NOTHING to do with whether the baby has actually been born- it is down to whether the baby has actually grown into a human being or not, in OR out the womb.

Like I say, the fact is this- some abortion is murder, and no-one can dispute this with any reason or sense or logic. It is happening in some parts of the world all the time. Now, if someone can actually identify to me the point at which it goes from not being murder to murder- and I really do not care what laws you quote because they differ by country- then I will be impressed.

People say it is when the foetus has developed 'properly'. In theory I agree. So does society, which considers it murder to abort a foetus too late which is why it is illegal. At some point in the process it changes from being a bundle of cells into a human baby, and that point is before birth. But medically, does anyone know when to pin that down? I know sure as heck medical science isn't sure.

No more dangerous than giving birth- though of course, giving birth is never a safe business.

Her unborn child has a future too. What if that child was going to find the cure for cancer?

Err, that was the point Omega was refuting, Storm, so that is just circular.

Oops, I misunderstood.

Ush---> I don't think Omega actually saw your opinion as male chauvinistic, she was just trying to come up with an analogy for you calling hers "disturbing". She was just saying that she could call yours that, which would be similar (in her opinion) to what you called hers.

Well, we shall see, shall we? I remain serious when I say I think her view- in the way it appeared to be expressed- was disturbing and I don't accept the analogy to calling me chauvinistic.

Phoenix> Okay, can you give me ONE example of the woman having a say over a mans body?

Ush> Do me the favour of reading through my post, and THEN answer it.

Storm> So? What is your reply?

I read your post just fine, Omega.

now where is the popcorn? this is gonna be a good one

I personally don't see abortion as murder, Murder (last time I checked a dictionary) means the killing of a human being, and (in the first 2 months of pregnancy) the "child" isn't even a fetus yet... therefore not classed as a human being... so I wouldn't go as far as to call it murder...


that's my opinion anyway.

And I simply told you my opinion if you went ahead and did that. I stand by what I said- are you going to go ahead and say what you said you would? In which case, my opinion is already made clear.

I understand your opinion absolutely. My point is, how are you sure about the two months thing? Like I say, that definition changes from country to country. No-one actually knows for sure. The Chinese do it at seven months.

I know, I've thought about that too... Like the Oklahoma City bombings, for example, the guy who did that was killing the very thing he was trying to save...

That's their country, do you live there?

My point is, in the country we live in it's 2 months.

If you can't concentrate on the problems at home, why bother trying to change the world?

Simply because there can only be one correct answer, and the law as it is is not based on any firm scientific evidence, and that worries me. Until we know for SURE when the foetus becomes properly sentient, no-one can hide behind the law and be CERTAIN it is not murder.

We can be pretty sure the Chinese are wrong; how sure can we be that we are right?

There is never one correct answer, Ush.

That's your opinion.

life isn't just correct and incorrect answers and/or solutions.

I think the sooner you get that the better.

That is absolutely ridiculous, Candy. That is the silliest thing I have heard all argument.

Logicially speaking, there is a point at which it stops being a collection of cells and starts being a human being. There cannot be TWO points at which that happens, or three or four or five. Just one. People's opinion of when that point is differs. Only a maximum of one option can be correct. 2 and 2 is four, no matter how many people think it is 6, 10 or 19.

So until science can establish what proper sentience is and when it starts in a developing baby, we do not know when it really should become illegal to abort or not- we can only guess.

They do have scientific evidence of when it "does", clearly, I very much doubt they'd make a law like that on a whim, do you?


I understand your point, as with all laws, people and cells etc. don't change overnight... but the fact of the matter is if someone else wants to abort they should have the right to.

Before Abortion was legal women were using coat hangers, I really don't want to go back to that just because of people like you and your scientific theories and fears.

Actually, no, they don't have any helpful scientific evidence. No-one really knows what to look for. The law is an educated guess, and very often much to do with potential harm to the Mother as well- a very proper concern of course.

But when on Earth did I talk about going back to doing it with coat hangers? It so happens I support pro-choice. I cannot prove it is wrong to anyone, any more than they can prove it right. I just WORRY we have it all wrong. That is why I would not do it if I were a woman- even if it ruined my life, I just could not take that risk. But if it were my girlfriend that were pregnant, whilst I would counsel against it, I would accept the choice is hers.

So, enlighten me, you're "worrying" that we have it all wrong, and?

What will happen then? if we have got it all wrong that is.

Well, if we have it wrong, then there are a large amount of murders being performed on demand.

lol... I love how you freely use the term "Murder"

I think you should go look it up in a dictionary, and come back and hopefully choose to rephrase that...

'cause for the last time, It isn't Murder.

In your opinion. But you cannot PROVE that.

If it is a sentient human that is being destroyed, it is murder. We have been through this already, and making a childish reference to the meaning of murder does not advance this any further.

yup, opinion... my opinion comes from the meaning of the word "murder" according to the dictionary.

I thought that'd mean it to be fact, no?

That is just insulting your own intelligence. It is your interpretation that is at fault. Because at some point in the womb, the foetus becomes a human being, and we do not know when that is.

Once it is a human being, it fits any definition of murder.

Actually, Before they perform any Abortion now, They check how far developed the Fetus is, with a consultation between 3 doctors or something, and only with those three signature of consent can the abortion go through.

So you really have no reason to worry.

Yet I do- because we still cannot be certain at what the correct point it. The Doctors still have to make educated guesses on the best info they have, which I am sure they are very good at, but it is not an area which is in any way precise.

Besides which, many Doctors in this country happily sign off for abortions at 21 weeks- there was a debate about this on Newsnight two months back, with one Doctor saying that now it was safe for the mother to do that, due to technological advances, she would happily sign off on it.

21 weeks- they look human by then. You cannot tell me I can be certain that that was not a proper human life. Not for SURE.

(24 weeks is the cutoff point for physical/mental health reasons, btw)

I totally relate to what you're saying, believe me.

I'm not saying that Abortion is always the right thing to do, but I just couldn't deny any women from having the choice.

That's why I would never want to be in that position.

Well, nor would I deny any wom,an the choice. And to any Pro-Lifer who thinks a woman should be compelled to not do it, I would simply turn my argument around and tell te Pro-Lifer the same thing- can you PROVE to her it is truly human? If not, the risk, and therefore the choice, is hers to take and not yours.

I would not take that risk, but if anyone else wants to, that is their choice and I would support that.

Always use double protection people!

(sorry, had to add that)

Ah, well, I have a small problen in that department...

lol? really? explain, please

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... that's kinda embarassing...

then PM me, you said you would yesterday but you never diddddd

no, its the opinion of whoever wrote the dictionary

this is what someone i've talked to said about abortion, it offers a different view on it.

"I'm adopted, the result of an "affair." The Law in 1963 protected my right to exist, thank God. My birth mother considered an illegal abortion to cover up her affair but was afraid, thank God!

Had I been conceived in 1983 instead of 1963 I would never have been born! I would have been murdered to cover up the affair.

Pro Abortion people basicly deny my right to life. They wish my birth mother had the right to murder me just as women have the right to murder their babies today.

How dare you deny me my right to life! The law protected my right to life then but that law is gone now.

If you support abortion, you deny the right of life to those who were saved from abortion by the law that is now gone.

You'd rather see me dead, unborn, so that my mother could have had the right to choose to murder me, and hide her affair. You may see abortion as some tissue and cells but for those of us who escaped being murdered in the womb, we become PEOPLE! I'm only here because the law in 63 protected me from murder.

Look me in the eye and tell me my mother should have had the right to murder me, and then DUCK!"

someone on here said that a baby is not half the mothers if she was raped and didn't want the baby. umm, yes it is, check the DNA.

That's like someone quoting the Bible and you replying the same way.

No one in particular wrote the Bible.... so.. uhh... yeah

I agree that it is not right to have an abortion just because it doesn't suit your needs. Under certain circumstances, like the life of a mother vs the life of the child or maybe rape. But I think even rape can be debated. If a woman gets pregnant from such a situation maybe there is a plan for the child...and yes adoption is a much better option.

This topic is too controversial. Closing...