Abortion: Right or Wrong?

[Bear]

In the eyes of the law, a person is a being that has had the umbilical cord cut and "it has an existence independent of the mother." [Source], and homicide as whole is the unlawful killing of a person. A foetus fits neither description so, therefore, isn't a person and isn't "murdered".

They're not people at the time, until they are born. They have no conscious thought process, they can't decide if they want to be born or not.

However, the parents can decide. If they can't afford a child, they shouldn't have the baby and put it through years of hardship and poverty. To me, that's worse than aborting a foetus in the first place.

But isn't that a sad state of affairs when we let finance come into that sort of decision? And I'm not sure it does in that many cases.

It does more than you think. I'd certainly not elect to bring a child into a dire financial situation because I simply couldn't take care of it in the way that it deserves.

 

[BigT]

Not really. Finance is a vital aspect in the decision to have a baby. I grew up with hardly any money and it's not nice.

If you can't afford to maintain a car, you don't get the car to begin with.
If you can't afford to maintain a child, you don't have a child until you can.

I didn't disagree, but I don't think that should be a valid reason for a termination.

It should certainly be discussed before actually trying for a baby that's for sure though.

 

[Tom]

If you can't afford to maintain a child, you don't have a child until you can.

Surely it's preferable to say take precautions if you can't afford the baby, as opposed to have it aborted if you do fall pregnant.

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

In the eyes of the law, a person is a being that has had the umbilical cord cut and "it has an existence independent of the mother." [Source], and homicide as whole is the unlawful killing of a person. A foetus fits neither description so, therefore, isn't a person and isn't "murdered".

They're not people at the time, until they are born. They have no conscious thought process, they can't decide if they want to be born or not.

However, the parents can decide. If they can't afford a child, they shouldn't have the baby and put it through years of hardship and poverty. To me, that's worse than aborting a foetus in the first place.

But isn't that a sad state of affairs when we let finance come into that sort of decision? And I'm not sure it does in that many cases.

Financial reasons is quite an important factor into whether someone may have an abortion. There are people who barely get by as it is, and could face financial hardship even with government handouts should they have a child.

I think not being in a good financial position is a legitimate reason to have an abortion. Particularly in this day and age.

A woman should not be able to request an abortion and provide no justification whatsoever. If it's literally just undesirable, then it should be tough luck, that's life.

But that would also be unfair on the potential child. Growing up unloved and unwanted would be a horrible existence.

Also, why should she have to justify it? I'm sick of saying it, but it's her body. It's her choice. If she doesn't want a baby, then she doesn't have to provide a reason.

 

[BigT]

There are other options if the child is not wanted, I'm sure there are a lot of homosexual couples that would jump at the chance to bring a baby up!

I just don't like how easy it is to take that option.

 

[Dar]

In that mindset, it's also her choice to have sex in the first place.

 

[Kelpie]

Considering how anti-women my views so clearly are, isn't it interesting that the difference in opinion between genders is actually rather slim. Surely, if this were a matter of sexism and not morality, this would be reflected in such figures?

Figures from a 2011 American study

Further statistics

Just re-iterating the point that this is an American study. I would not use it as evidence to discuss UK viewpoints and laws where we know they are vastly different. Just as I also wouldn't use a Republic of Ireland study to decide UK laws where only now is a law allowing abortion in the even of the mothers life being at risk being considered there.

Which I think shouldn't even be questionned. If the mothers life is at risk by continuing a pregnancy, the end result could easily therefore be a dead potential life and a dead actual life, ie that of both the foetus and the mother. How can the unborn baby be put first in such a situation? The mother should always be considered first and foremost.

I am having problems with Kelpie comment about condom being uncomfortable. This many be use to the fact that I got one that fitted me.

I had to guess that might be one reason guys don't like them. Another I've heard is reduced sensitivity. I couldn't say for each individual, beyond still finding it unfathomable why any man would refuse to use one when there is more than just unwanted pregnancies to consider. It's a no-brainer to me.
The only exception I can think of is in the case of a latex allergy!

If it's the woman's choice to keep or get rid of the baby, then the father should be able to opt out of having to pay and support that child.
A woman should not be able to request an abortion and provide no justification whatsoever. If it's literally just undesirable, then it should be tough luck, that's life.

Your first point I could only agree with if the father completely opposes and the woman is happy with that arrangement. The simple solution is to ensure your name is not on the birth certificate to absolve all responsibility.

No justification being... what counts as acceptable justification?
This falls back to my point that 'judgement' has to be taken out of a medical situation. Undesirable can be justified, depending what you're saying exactly is 'undesirable' about it. We can't give doctors a government approved list of 'reasons' that they will only accept to offer a termination. In which case you'd find women would lie if needs be, rendering it a pointless exercise.

Also there are plenty of people who are terrible parents, or really don't want to be. Let's not kid ourselves. Not everyone is paternal or maternal for that matter. Stating tough luck on the parent could be really tough luck on the child.

 

[Tom]

Also, why should she have to justify it? I'm sick of saying it, but it's her body. It's her choice. If she doesn't want a baby, then she doesn't have to provide a reason.

Well fortunately even this country isn't soft enough to simply say "OK onto the table in room 3" and women WILL be asked about why they feel they cannot bring up a child first. I think abortion IS too easily available in Britain, but at least it is first discussed by GPs. The concept that it should be available to all at the snap of a finger is absolutely repulsive and is akin to them being offered in rooms at the back of Tesco.

 

[Sam]

Also, why should she have to justify it? I'm sick of saying it, but it's her body. It's her choice. If she doesn't want a baby, then she doesn't have to provide a reason.

Bang on. Women shouldn't have to submit grovelling apologies for doing what they like with their bodies. Abortion is legal, and has been since 1967. Nobody should have to provide an excuse or reason why they are doing something that is perfectly legal.

I'm glad that in the vast majority of British society today, women who have abortions aren't stigmatised, shamed and interrogated as has been suggested in this thread. I'm glad that women don't have to get on their knees and beg some sort of Victorianesque morals & decency committee to allow them to choose whether they have a child or not.

Fortunately, in the UK at least, barbaric and bizarrely ascientific opinions that would lead to poor women being forced to sacrifice their own choices in life to raise a child in poverty are now in the minority. And that's rapidly changing throughout the world as well, as more and more rational minded people reject the misogynistic ideas that have been outlined above and women campaign to liberate their own bodies from male control.

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

There are other options if the child is not wanted, I'm sure there are a lot of homosexual couples that would jump at the chance to bring a baby up!

I just don't like how easy it is to take that option.

Except its not an easy option. I have friends, including my best friend, that have had abortions. Not one of them found it to be an easy option. They knew exactly what the situation was, and they judged that an abortion was the right thing to do.

It's really not the easy way out. Not at all.

I think abortion IS too easily available in Britain, but at least it is first discussed by GPs

The reason it is discussed with a GP is simply to make sure that the woman is ok. They won't turn around and say that their reason isn't good enough, so they should be stuck with the baby.

 

[Tom]

The decision to have a baby or not - which is basically what everyone seems to be arguing for - can be taken before pregnancy, it's as simple as that. And you can mention what if what if all you like, but the majority of abortions could be avoided by precaution at an earlier stage.

 

[Tom]

The reason it is discussed with a GP is simply to make sure that the woman is ok. They won't turn around and say that their reason isn't good enough, so they should be stuck with the baby.

I never said that (although doctors do occasionally refuse and the requester needs to be referred to someone else), but most GPs will actually ask if you've considered how you would feel following the abortion etc. It's not an interrogator that needs to be satisfied, but it also isn't someone that hands you a ticket with a queue place number on.

A doctor is agreeing for a procedure to end a life and I assure you this will take a little longer than 30 seconds.

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

The reason it is discussed with a GP is simply to make sure that the woman is ok. They won't turn around and say that their reason isn't good enough, so they should be stuck with the baby.

I never said that (although doctors do occasionally refuse and the requester needs to be referred to someone else), but most GPs will actually ask if you've considered how you would feel following the abortion etc. It's not an interrogator that needs to be satisfied, but it also isn't someone that hands you a ticket with a queue place number on.

A doctor is agreeing for a procedure to end a life and I assure you this will take a little longer than 30 seconds.

Firstly, I never said that it would be a simple, quick appointment. That's not how it works.

Also, remember when I said that "The reason it is discussed with a GP is simply to make sure that the woman is ok"? This means that they make sure that the patient is in the right frame of mind to go through with the procedure, including the aftermath.

I've mentioned a few times in this thread that an abortion is not an easy option or a pleasant experience. I'm not sure whether you haven't noticed it, or are just ignoring it.

 

[BigT]

There are other options if the child is not wanted, I'm sure there are a lot of homosexual couples that would jump at the chance to bring a baby up!

I just don't like how easy it is to take that option.

Except its not an easy option. I have friends, including my best friend, that have had abortions. Not one of them found it to be an easy option. They knew exactly what the situation was, and they judged that an abortion was the right thing to do.

It's really not the easy way out. Not at all.

I think abortion IS too easily available in Britain, but at least it is first discussed by GPs

The reason it is discussed with a GP is simply to make sure that the woman is ok. They won't turn around and say that their reason isn't good enough, so they should be stuck with the baby.

I know it's not the easy way out and also know what it involves, that's not what I meant but couldn't think of the right word.
I just think other options are never considered.

 

[Tom]

The reason it is discussed with a GP is simply to make sure that the woman is ok. They won't turn around and say that their reason isn't good enough, so they should be stuck with the baby.

I never said that (although doctors do occasionally refuse and the requester needs to be referred to someone else), but most GPs will actually ask if you've considered how you would feel following the abortion etc. It's not an interrogator that needs to be satisfied, but it also isn't someone that hands you a ticket with a queue place number on.

A doctor is agreeing for a procedure to end a life and I assure you this will take a little longer than 30 seconds.

Firstly, I never said that it would be a simple, quick appointment. That's not how it works.

Also, remember when I said that "The reason it is discussed with a GP is simply to make sure that the woman is ok"? This means that they make sure that the patient is in the right frame of mind to go through with the procedure, including the aftermath.

I've mentioned a few times in this thread that an abortion is not an easy option or a pleasant experience. I'm not sure whether you haven't noticed it, or are just ignoring it.

I apologise for inferring you were saying it was quick.

I didn't notice your comment actually, but I've never said it is pleasant for anyone. I've been pretty clear and consistent in what I have issue with. I really have a problem with the people just getting rid of babies because they are an inconvenience and nothing more. I life in a semi-deprived area where this is rife and I know my local GP is dismayed by it because it's a cultural thing that has emerged within the last generation or two.

I respect people's arguments and passion for the option of abortion, but there should be acknowledgement that it is abused in this country and we have to work to get the rate of teenage pregnancies down. I know this needs to be tackled earlier than a stage of refusing abortions, but the ease of getting one is not doing us any favours.

I salute you for your fair and polite exchanges, also.

 

[John]

I've been reading this topic most of this evening and getting rather stressed out by it, so I'm going to lay out my position as clearly as I can.

I am fully in support of the continued availability of abortions on the NHS. There are a whole range of possible reasons why a woman may end up with an unwanted pregnancy and anyone finding themselves in that position should be given as much support as needed, including the option of termination.

My only concerns are:
1) when an abortion is carried out right at the legal limit, at which point a baby born prematurely has a greater than 50% chance of surviving. This is where my rational and emotional sides start to get mixed up.
2) the implication made in this thread that the unborn child's father has virtually no rights whatsoever if his partner has second thoughts.

 

[delta79]

I think abortion IS too easily available in Britain, but at least it is first discussed by GPs

The reason it is discussed with a GP is simply to make sure that the woman is ok. They won't turn around and say that their reason isn't good enough, so they should be stuck with the baby.

There is a flip side to this too. it to make sure. the woman is not being forced into aborting a child they want but the father does not. I know a doctor that put seeing them alone into the policy of the surgery, so they can talk freely. and the doctor has said they have has been told by 2 women that they wanted the baby but is being forced into the abortion.

So it can protect the woman right to what happens to her body.

(weird what get talked about on St John duties with a GP)

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

I think abortion IS too easily available in Britain, but at least it is first discussed by GPs

The reason it is discussed with a GP is simply to make sure that the woman is ok. They won't turn around and say that their reason isn't good enough, so they should be stuck with the baby.

There is a flip side to this too. it to make sure. the woman is not being forced into aborting a child they want but the father does not. I know a doctor that put seeing them alone into the policy of the surgery, so they can talk freely. and the doctor has said they have has been told by 2 women that they wanted the baby but is being forced into the abortion.

So it can protect the woman right to what happens to her body.

(weird what get talked about on St John duties with a GP)

True. Being forced to have an abortion is just as bad as being forced to keep the baby.

 

[Fredward]

Does a strand of hair have a heartbeat? No don't be so silly MP. If you can think of a better word for deliberately killing a human then I'll happily use it, until then it's murder.

I take it you are a vegetarian then?

We choose to breed, we don't have to. But naturally we enjoy sex, it's natural things go wrong and mistakes are made, are we not able to rectify them? We are only denying a child life just as much as not reproducing in the first place.

I know you have your morals at one point, but why are you not respecting other peoples choice? For the record of destroying the 'mothers' life, I didn't mean they can die in child birth, I mean that childbirth is not exactly an enjoyable experience, it does affect the body. I would never want to put a future girlfriend or wife through that pain for a mistake or a mishap that has happened in the past.

And a baby can possibly destroy their happy lives, especially if they cannot afford to look after to it, call them selfish but if you aren't ready for a child, you may live to resent the child and not give them the happy life they deserve.

I would much rather have a couple of abortions in a relationship then a child when we are good and ready, and give that child a happy future. Then instantly have a kid which we can't afford to maintain a happy child.



But what do I know, I'm an immoral heathen.

 

[Wilsy]

Once again, can people learn how to debate properly.

And in case this isn't clear enough, debating doesn't mean making personal comments about others...