Abortion

To be honest, I'm quite torn with this issue, as I guess many people are. I can see flaws in both arguments. I dislike the pro-lifers' cries of "murder", but I also vehemently disagree with some pro-choice peoples' utter dismissal (and often mockery) of their opponents' arguments.

I think pro-lifers are sometimes catagorised as simply idiotic, backward-thinking people with archaic views. Perhaps also religiously repressed/influenced and unable to think for themselves. Often they are deemed ignorant, or unwilling to listen to the 'obvious' truth.

While I'm not swayed by the emotive, persuavsve pro-life propaganda they put out there, I can't help but to consider a foetus no less than a potential human life. That's just my opinion. The fact is, by aborting a kid, you're stopping it's potential for life. If you hadn't aborted it, it would (most likely) be born and live it's life. I figure there's a form of detachment associated with abortion that makes it (generally) more socially acceptable for a lot of people. After all, you don't know this kid. It's easier to dismiss and forget about someone you never got to know, even if they were supposed to be. It's easier to justify getting rid of it, because it never really was.

I don't think the "flaws" of pro-lifer movement even need mentioning, we know them already, but here goes; emotive, distressing propaganda, violent images, attempts to guilt women by spreading utter lies and hysteria of what the baby can/cannot feel, and at what stage. Cries of "murder" and accusation of "baby-killing". The inability to see the grey areas of abortion (lets face it, the ENTIRE issue is a grey area!). Should we allow contraception? Should we allow anyone to have sex for purely recreational purposes? These are all questions the pro-lifers should ask themselves before they point the finger. Where is the line THEY draw on the issue of delaying/preventing/stopping human life, and why is it that their argument is more valid than anyone else's.

What we need is tolerance. At no point is everyone going to agree on this issue. Hence why I am personally pro-choice. I consider abortion a "necessary evil" (this is opinion). Although I don't agree with it, I can totally understand the (MANY) reasons for abortion. If I was to get pregnant in fact, I think would even consider abortion myself (if I'm honest), even though I do deem it wrong. In the end, women should be supported in their choice, and more importantly, given that choice in the first place. Maybe some will think my stance is fcuked (i.e. I see it as wrong, but I would still support it's implementation), but I don't see why my opinion should be taken as gospel. After all, being pro-choice isn't prohibitory and I would never want to inflict my views on others. The key is issue here is that there is NO right answer to whether abortion is OK. Therefore, pro-choice should be the only way. It's the only way to incorporate everyones views (all equally valid). No one wants to have an abortion.

Rocket19 wrote: »

To be honest, I'm quite torn with this issue, as I guess many people are. I can see flaws in both arguments. I dislike the pro-lifers' cries of "murder", but I also vehemently disagree with some pro-choice peoples' utter dismissal (and often mockery) of their opponents' arguments.

I think pro-lifers are sometimes catagorised as simply idiotic, backward-thinking people with archaic views. Perhaps also religiously repressed/influenced and unable to think for themselves. Often they are deemed ignorant, or unwilling to listen to the 'obvious' truth.

While I'm not swayed by the emotive, persuavsve pro-life propaganda they put out there, I can't help but to consider a foetus no less than a potential human life. That's just my opinion. The fact is, by aborting a kid, you're stopping it's potential for life. If you hadn't aborted it, it would (most likely) be born and live it's life. I figure there's a form of detachment associated with abortion that makes it (generally) more socially acceptable for a lot of people. After all, you don't know this kid. It's easier to dismiss and forget about someone you never got to know, even if they were supposed to be. It's easier to justify getting rid of it, because it never really was.


I don't think the "flaws" of pro-lifer movement even need mentioning, we know them already, but here goes; emotive, distressing propaganda, violent images, attempts to guilt women by spreading utter lies and hysteria of what the baby can/cannot feel, and at what stage. Cries of "murder" and accusation of "baby-killing". The inability to see the grey areas of abortion (lets face it, the ENTIRE issue is a grey area!). Should we allow contraception? Should we allow anyone to have sex for purely recreational purposes? These are all questions the pro-lifers should ask themselves before they point the finger. Where is the line THEY draw on the issue of delaying/preventing/stopping human life, and why is it that their argument is more valid than anyone else's.

What we need is tolerance. At no point is everyone going to agree on this issue. Hence why I am personally pro-choice. I consider abortion a "necessary evil" (this is opinion). Although I don't agree with it, I can totally understand the (MANY) reasons for abortion. If I was to get pregnant in fact, I think would even consider abortion myself (if I'm honest), even though I do deem it wrong. In the end, women should be supported in their choice, and more importantly, given that choice in the first place. Maybe some will think my stance is fcuked (i.e. I see it as wrong, but I would still support it's implementation), but I don't see why my opinion should be taken as gospel. After all, being pro-choice isn't prohibitory and I would never want to inflict my views on others. The key is issue here is that there is NO right answer to whether abortion is OK. Therefore, pro-choice should be the only way. It's the only way to incorporate everyones views (all equally valid). No one wants to have an abortion.

A prime example of the kind of navel-gazing that this issue seems to promote. Thanks for your blow by blow account of your internal emotional struggle, but what has it added to the debate?

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Someone can be against abortion on certain grounds but still accept it is upf to each individual as to whether an abortion is the right step....

How can you (I don't mean you personally just in general) argue that it is up to the individual on one hand, and then say certain reasons should be illegal on the other? Either it's the individual's choice (for any reason whatsoever) or it isn't.

What I'm getting at is some people repeating the 'it's up to the individual, how dare society not allow it, how dare you take away that choice, how dare you impose your morals on someone else' on one hand, and then saying society should outlaw abortions on certain grounds on the other (especially when those grounds seem to be influenced by morality themselves).

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

amended they have a majority in the dail combined in coalition

Which the people didn't vote for.

Anyway, Labour campaigned that they would legislate for the X case, it's one of the reasons I voted for them.

jackal wrote: »

A prime example of the kind of navel-gazing that this issue seems to promote. Thanks for your blow by blow account of your internal emotional struggle, but what has it added to the debate?

Thank for being so smart, but my "navel-gazing" is no more than my own opinion, and the only opinion I can give.

Very interesting responses here tbh, some i agree with entirely, others not so much but anyways live and let live.

I would be voting yes to bringing abortion over here if/when there is a referendum, its quite simple imho, a foetus is not a baby/human life up to 24weeks therefore if a woman wants an abortion up to that time then she should be able to regardless of the circumstance of the conception as long as it is not after the 24 week mark.

this is just my honest opinion, if you dont want an abortion yourself then fine, no-ones forcing or should ever force you to have one, but dont stop anyone who really wants to do that, its their choice and their life.

Plus, this whole thing that has been mentioned of "they/she did the responsable thing and had their/her baby" is ridiculous imho :rolleyes:
So the responsable thing is to fcuk up your life and maybe even your childs life, if you have it, no matter how much you dont want a child or arent ready for it, but its ok because your being "responsable"?! :pac:

you can be in a serious committed relationship and love your partner, yet if you got pregnant you may not want it, whether your in a relationship or not it shouldnt really matter whether or not youd want/get an abortion if you wanted to or not.

smash wrote: »

No I don't agree they should have a choice for gender based abortion...

But I thought you were pro-choice Choices for some, not for others.

smash wrote: »

Prinz, as a matter of interest which side of the fence are you actually on?

I'm pro-life up to the point where the health of mother is at serious risk.. then I'd view it as a lesser of two evils.

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

But if abortion was legal here, how can we guarantee couples wont lie and have gender based abortions?

You can't but that is not sufficient reason to vote against choice based abortions.

The simple fact is that most things that are legal can, and often are, abused for immoral purposes. That some people will do so would not be a valid argument for banning it for everyone.

I could make any 1 of an innumerable list of examples of this, so randomly I will throw one out. Imagine the argument "Fast food should be illegal because how can you guarantee people will not eat loads of it so they get fat enough to live off disability allowance so they do not have to work?".

A tongue in cheek example based on a Simpsons episode where Homer did just that, but though the example is comical the point is serious.... you would be a long time banning everything that you can not guarantee people will not abuse in some way.

So while we may frown and shake our heads at people who use something legal for immoral reasons or motivations... we must differentiate between that and arguments against having that something as legal.

Otherwise you would have to ban just about everything... because you can not ensure someone somewhere will not engage in that something for immoral ends.

So the general question in such debates is not whether some people will abuse X if it was legal. Someone somewhere quite likely will. The question is whether there is any justifiable reasons for it being illegal or unavailable in the first place and thus far in 40+ pages of this thread... of which I have read every post... I have not heard one yet.

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

But if abortion was legal here, how can we guarantee couples wont lie and have gender based abortions? it does happen.

The reason why there are laws against gender based abortions is because there is a bias against one gender over another, and if we allow that bias it may lead to gender imbalance in society and all the issues that would bring. If it were just the case that some couples wanted a boy and some a girl, but they roughly balanced out, then I don't think anybody would really make an issue out of it.

The point of the ban against gender based abortions, isn't to guarantee it will never happen, it's to mitigate any problems that would result from it happening too frequently.

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

the youngest premature baby to survive is 21 weeks. most babies at 22 weeks can survive outside the womb. But ur ok with 24 weeks?

well sometimes yeah there will be changes like that occuring with some foetuses, imho yes i would be fine with that up to the 24week mark, but tbh if someone truly wants an abortion they will/should do it as soon as possable, 24weeks is just the deadline imho