Abortion: Right or Wrong?

[Dar]

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. A planned pregnancy is entirely different from one that happens as a result of a one night stand, in my opinion, from the perspective of the father's rights in this case.

If he's just done a runner then he forfeits any input, but if he has been part of the planning of the pregnancy from the start then I wholeheartedly agree with John.

 

[Dave]

Ahh the abortion question.

I'm pro-choice but I have a few issues with some apparent over-simplification of the issues here and the idea that its okay as it's only "a few cells" and its comparable to the loss during masturbation.

Basically if a woman discovers she is pregnant early on, the foetus is a bundle of cells, no neuro-development. At this point if anyone thinks this is morally wrong then in my mind your a bit behind the scientific times.

But what about a 24 week pregnancy, these babies could survive outside thevwomb, they have emotions and developed neurology. Is that as easy as the bundle of cells from the early term abortion?

As I said I'm pro-choice, its a woman's body, her womb and her own choice to make and I won't presume to dictate to any woman what they should do. But seeing as I regularly do see neonates in my job its a hard reality to face that something that developed could be terminated.

Medicine and biology are not all that black and white.... At what stage does the bundle of cells get human rights, because the difference between a baby and a foetus is a few contractions of the uterus...


Please note (for the third time ) I'm pro choice.

 

[Andrew]

Abortion is quite a tricky one really.

Whilst I can see some girls just have it because they had sex and it ended up with a baby they didn't want, it should be allowed if the carrier or the child itself was at physical or mental harm from the pregnancy.

I do not agree with it if the woman had a one night stand without protection, as it was her fault in the first place for not using protection. If they didn't take caution, I don't see why they should be allowed to have the baby aborted, unless it's on medical conditions of course.

It's tricky to decide, but I'm for abortion in most cases, such as rape or illness (See the case in Ireland), but not if a girl wants sex but doesn't want a baby.

At the end of the day, it's the mother's decision.

 

[Simon]

Re: Re: Abortion: Right or Wrong?

I do not agree with it if the woman had a one night stand without protection, as it was her fault in the first place for not using protection. If they didn't take caution, I don't see why they should be allowed to have the baby aborted, unless it's on medical conditions of course.

Again, though, notice the inference of what you are saying:

1. Using protection is 100% down to the woman. Men have no responsibilities.

2. It is right that mistakes or mishaps involving a fairly everyday, pleasurable activity that most humans have an urge to take part in should leave you with no choice but to bring a child into the world and all that it entails....but only if you're FEMALE. Again, the responsibility is absolutely not with men.

This is, I'm sure unintentionally, a misogynistic and indefensible position.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dave]

I don't think a man has the right to have a say in a woman's choice on abortion, he won't be carrying the child and taking the risks involved.

What are people opinions on late-term abortions for non-medical reasons?

 

[Rowe]

It honestly frustrates me seeing a number of opinions basing women as being irresponsible when it comes to protection and 'not getting themselves pregnant', a big proportion of men refuse to carry or even have protection! This is typically because using a condom can be very uncomfortable (note that this is regardless of the many different sized condoms available) and therefore either leave it up to the woman to be rife with contraceptive or convince the woman otherwise to have sex without it. Keep in mind that we get saddled with 7 different types of contraceptive whilst men only get the 1, condoms, which is completely simple! That is nothing to complain about at all because we are the party depended on, our bodies are ultimately given the baby.

Both men and women should carry protection, there is no 'gender norm' that goes along with it.

Like early term abortions, I believe late term abortions should be sympathised because of the many reasons that may have prevented the woman from having the abortion beforehand. Some women don't even know they're pregnant, they weren't able to get an abortion or somebody pressured them into keeping the baby, they were afraid to tell their parents or partner.

 

[Kelpie]

It takes two to make a baby - female genetic material and male genetic material. How is this then only the womans 'fault' (as some have said) if contraception fails or isn't used?

I frankly don't understand why so many men have a problem with condoms. Apart from preventing a baby you might not want they are the only form to stop STI's which you definitely don't want. A small bit of discomfort for all that benefit! The Pill won't stop the latter one either, which while it's not part of this exact debate (though some can affect fertility so maybe it is!) is just as important as to why guys should be equally responsible when it comes to sex and are equally at fault when something accidental happens.

(The Pill - because having our hormones thrown out of whack, having to get Dr's appointments for continual repeat prescriptions (you can't buy it over the counter, every six months it's back to the doctor even after 10+ years, f**ked then if they don't have one in time), and being rendered useless by certain antibiotics etc, is way easier than buying a pack of condoms over the counter.)

----------

Onto the topic at hand. I have no issue with abortion. The right of the born person over the not-yet-born should always take precedence. If that woman doesn't feel, for whatever reason they could terminate a pregnancy, fair enough for them. Same for those who feel they can. Neither is right, neither is wrong, both are entitled to their opinion. But the choice need's to be there, you can easily choose NOT to have an abortion even though it's available. But you can't choose to have an abortion if it's not available.

The only change I could accept with the present law is to lower the limit slightly to 20 or 21 weeks. It's not possible, even with all the advances in science, for any baby to survive being born earlier than 22/23 weeks. They are just not developed enough to survive on their own outside the womb, they're not a viable human being at that stage.

It would stop all these 'you can have one woman give birth at 24 weeks while a few corridors down another is having a termination' arguments and keep things clear cut. It can't live if it's born at 20 weeks regardless, it isn't really 'murder' (to use the emotive term) of a life as at that point. We don't have 'conception' certificates, it's at birth we're counted by.

 

[Natalie]

I am for abortions but it should be mainly the woman's choice and if a man is still involved with said woman they should support her because what she will go though won't be a walk in a park and if counseling is offered she should take it. It should always be what's best for the mother and child, but it shouldn't be a quick decision unless it's life threatening it needs to well thought out but I do think that maybe the abortion limit should be lowered as babies can now survive at 24 weeks.If I was pregnant now I would think about what is best for the child rather than be selfish, I want to make sure when I'm ready and that I'm able to give my child the best life possible.

 

[Tom]

All this talk of a women having the right to choose should also apply to having sex unprotected.

Abortion shouldn't be available on request just because people have 'accidents'. There should be a number of exceptional circumstances where abortion is permitted, but to clean up undesirable outcomes from 'accidents' - no.

 

[Dave]

The time-limit of abortions is the only thing i do wonder, but it takes greater minds than mine to make a decision and should ideally be made by science and groups who work for the benefit of women and not political or religious groups.

Any man who thinks its the woman's responsibility to organise protection is an idiot and as Kelpie has said when you realise you have caught an STI (many of which will stop you ever having to worry about fathering a child) you may take the mans responsibilities more seriously.

And Tom i know someone who was on the pill and using condoms and got pregnant, should they get be allowed an abortion, and if so how can we be sure they are telling the truth? Strap all women to a lie-detector?

 

[Tom]

And Tom i know someone who was on the pill and using condoms and got pregnant, should they get be allowed an abortion, and if so how can we be sure they are telling the truth? Strap all women to a lie-detector?

That's the risk you take by having sex. I agree the option should be there, but while I'm not going to literally state case by cas eof when I think it should be allowed, there are too many people using it after lustful and drunken fumbles.

 

[Martin]

Yeah, let's just ban sex unless it's for procreation, that'll stop accidents!

Erm...

 

[Kelpie]

That's the risk you take by having sex. I agree the option should be there, but while I'm not going to literally state case by cas eof when I think it should be allowed, there are too many people using it after lustful and drunken fumbles.

Lustful, drunken fumbles on only the womans part?
By default that's what's being implied, as the only one who can actually have the abortion is the woman.

That doesn't necessarily make the decision any easier. It's just as much a woman having to deal with the aftermath of an irresponsible guy and the enormity of that. You can't just point fingers and go 'her fault!'
If she picks to have the baby and puts the fathers name on the birth certificate, that now immediately places legal parental responsibility on the man. Together or not, married or not and whether he likes it or not. So just as much 'his fault' and 'his responsibility' and equally so to prevent if he doesn't want that.

Incidentally I suspect that 'view' of why most people are having abortions has no actual basis in any actual fact. I don't think the question of 'so was it just a drunken fumble?' is ever used as judgement critria when authorising an abortion, so there can't be any statistics.
Even if that was the circumstances leading to conception, I doubt for many that's the reason they choose to terminate. That will be down to personal circumstance, work, finances, age, readiness etc.

 

[Tom]

Yeah, let's just ban sex unless it's for procreation, that'll stop accidents!

Erm...

You can't infer I menat that from my statement. Don't try to perform for other people's amusement.

 

[Tom]

That's the risk you take by having sex. I agree the option should be there, but while I'm not going to literally state case by cas eof when I think it should be allowed, there are too many people using it after lustful and drunken fumbles.

Lustful, drunken fumbles on only the womans part?
By default that's what's being implied, as the only one who can actually have the abortion is the woman.

That doesn't necessarily make the decision any easier. Pointing fingers and going 'her fault!'? Really? It's just as much a woman having to deal with the aftermath of an irresponsible guy and the enormity of that.
If she picks to have the baby and puts the fathers name on the birth certificate, that now immediately places legal parental responsibility on the man. Together or not, married or not and whether he likes it or not. So just as much 'his fault' and 'his responsibility' and equally so to prevent if he doesn't want that.

Incidentally I suspect that 'view' of why most people are having abortions has no actual basis in any actual fact. I don't think the question of 'so was it just a drunken fumble?' is ever used as judgement critria when authorising an abortion, so there can't be any statistics.
Even if that was the circumstances leading to conception, I doubt for many that's the reason they choose to terminate. That will be down to personal circumstance, work, finances, age, readiness etc.

It's not to do with who's fault it is, it's learning that there are consequences for actions. If after a drunken fumble you become pregnant, you have nine months to come to terms with the fact that you're being a parent. Abortion is simply available too easily in this country, that is my sole argument.

 

[Kelpie]

It's not to do with who's fault it is, it's learning that there are consequences for actions. If after a drunken fumble you become pregnant, you have nine months to come to terms with the fact that you're being a parent. Abortion is simply available too easily in this country, that is my sole argument.

I assume this applies equally to the father.

That they will be held equally responsible for the consequences of their actions in some form and their parental responsibility upheld (and I don't just mean money) to equal the fact the woman goes through the pregnancy and generally takes parental responsibility by default, like it or not.
If we're legally restricting the availability of abortions to women based on 'circumstance'.

(Obviously this seems to all be based on one specific scenario.
I know plenty of guys are fully responsible parents, and in some cases are prevented in being as big a part of their kids lives as they'd like by the mother, but plenty also have no interest in being a dad and in some cases are better off not being in their kids lives at all.
Just talking about the 'drunken fumble' scenario.)

 

[Tom]

Yes, unfortunately men are often the irresponsible ones and are far from blameless. As a country we have no backbone in forcing fathers to be responsible for lovechildren. It's always the women's right to say no and obviously rapes do take place - for which there should always be the option of abortion.

 

[Andrew]

In regards to my previous post, I didn't mean to say it was all a woman's fault if she got pregnant. If anything, it's probably more of the man's fault in most cases.

Whilst studying abortion earlier this year in RE, it alarmed me that the number of countries who don't allow abortion, even on medical grounds, is too high. This needs to be changed.

It must be hard for both the woman and the man to abort their own child, which is already alive, but it's up to the family, especially the mother, to decide upon the best course of actions of her and her baby's lives.

 

[Kelpie]

Finding yourself in the position of needing to choose whether to have an abortion or not is a heavy consequence of itself. I don't see how that's not learning actions have consequences.

The fact is though, that authorisation for abortion cannot be judged unavailable for a section of the population because of the circumstances in which the pregnancy occurred are viewed 'irresponsible' but alright for everyone else in every other circumstance. And we shouldn't restrict access for all, on the basis of a few.

Fundamentally there is no way of proving or disproving those are the cases either, and bringing personal opinion of the doctor into the equation than a medical one.
They can't deny medical treatment on that basis for any other condition. For example if you've drunkenly jump off a roof because you thought 'it was a good idea' - you're not ever going to be denied or restricted hospital treatment and having that broken leg xrayed, pinned, cast, supplied crutches etc because you did something irresponsibly and unthought out.

Believing it's "too easy a solution" to mistaken pregnancies as a view for abortion being harder to access - that's not a justifiable reason in my opinion for making it so. Better education when younger to be a responsible sexual partner is what's required to tackle that issue, something Britain fails far more at in sex and releationship education in school and elsewhere. Not a change in abortion laws.

 

[BigT]

Every human life deserves a chance in my opinion.

What about all the times you've masturbated in your life?

You mass-murderer!

I think that statement is the most stupid thing I've ever read on here if you were serious, you can't compare sperm to a fertilised egg as it will not grow into anything and is clearly not going to develop into anything.

To see a heart beating on an screen during a scan at 8 weeks is the most magical feeling in the world, once that heart starts beating it doesn't stop for the rest of your life, that to me is the point life starts and to end it intentionally would be classed as murder once the baby is born so I don't see much of a difference before it is born.
Anyone who has had a child will know that they need a mothers support to keep them alive a lot longer than the 9 months of pregnancy.