Abortion- Right or Wrong

carlybabe1

Heres something interesting, if a pregnant woman is assaulted and miscarriages as a result, the perpetrator wont be done for infanticide/murder under irish law. He/she may be done for assault with intent to procure micarriage, but I dont think the sentence = murder. I'm tryin to find out if the law still stands that a foetus is not viable till birth
anyone in the know?

Publin

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Heres something interesting, if a pregnant woman is assaulted and miscarriages as a result, the perpetrator wont be done for infanticide/murder under irish law. He/she may be done for assault with intent to procure micarriage, but I dont think the sentence = murder. I'm tryin to find out if the law still stands that a foetus is not viable till birth
anyone in the know?

To the best of my knowledge, and I'm no expert in the area, but my understand is that it's not murder. My wording may be wrong here but... basically it's not seen as a baby that has been killed, as it is not yet born. For example, in the Constitution it's the "right to life" of the unborn that is protected, it doesn't not classify an unborn baby as a child. I am of course open to correction on all of this.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Of course spousal/partner notification, absolutely I believe that as long as there is a relationship with the father he should be consulted.

How do you determine if the girl is in a relationship when she turns up for an abortion? How do you know she has the consent of the father?

Nice idea in theory, not possible in practice IMO.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

As for dire circumstances, I guess i would say that that would be when single mother-to-be/couple believe that they cannot provide everything a baby would need.......a terminal disease that would result in the mother having to carry a dead feotus to full term (sorry to be blunt but can I cant imagine what that would do to a person/couple) a rape that has resulted in pregnancy, (and I would also include a woman who has been taken advntage of while inebriated)

Again, how do we prove she was drunk at the time? Would the morning after pill not be enough to cater for these circumstances you mention?

CDfm

As for dire circumstances, I guess i would say that that would be when single mother-to-be/couple believe that they cannot provide everything a baby would need.......quote from carlybabe!

Now that would be Utopia where everyone shares the same values etc.

Roe vs Wade is the USA case from 1973 which dealt with abortion.

Whats the law if a woman kills a baby?Can a woman be prosecuted for going abroad for an abortion. I dont know- does anyone?

I think what I am saying is that people have different sets of moral values informed by their values and religion might be one- unlike anthills and beehives - where everything is ordered by society

So its different to be clear cut about whats the norm.Yours seems to be its mother only - not a criticism but informed by experience - yours.

Because this thread is here just shows the level of diversity of opinion.More info and informed opinion here than Questions and Answers.

nacho libre

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Neither does a zygote.


Well every living thing is just a being. Humans are not special or sacred. Society functions better with rights and laws stemming from these rights. As a society we must come up with a philosophical model to decide which beings should have rights conferred to them and what rights should be conferred on them. Assuming there exists no God, souls or invisible pink unicorns, the model we choose must ensure for a secure and safe society while being realistic and practical about human tendencies and ensuring the most freedom possible.

I propose the philosophical model that grants human rights to human beings at birth, seeing as it is a clearly discernible point and due to the fact that it gives us more control over when new humans are introduced to society and doesn't place the unfair burden of having to carry a child she doesn't want on any woman.

A zygote has the potential to develop one. A sperm does not.
I disagree with you that humans are not worthy of distinct recognition from other living things like an amoeba for example. However, that's a separate argument.
Based on your views in this thread, granting human rights at birth is not a clearly discernible point, it's just a arbitrary position you take in order to support your position that aborting up until the child pops out is acceptable. I think it is a contradiction to propose suddenly conferring rights at birth because the baby is not a 'person', therefore like the unborn child, you justify aborting, it has no human "value", so it should be ok to cease the existence of the new born baby if it's a burden for the mother.
I believe we give protection to the unborn, by giving it the benefit of the doubt, because as your argument demonstrates no one can clearly provide a line in the sand as to when the developing child should be afforded human rights.

CDfm

a sperm is a gift from god -everyone knows that

Malari

CDfm wrote: »

a sperm is a gift from god -everyone knows that

How come he gave boys so many more gifts than girls? Assuming an ovum a gift too...:rolleyes:

CDfm

Malari wrote: »

How come he gave boys so many more gifts than girls? Assuming an ovum a gift too...:rolleyes:

because boys share and girls dont? dont you know anything - you must be a girl

carlybabe1

Yes boys can be very generous, sharin it all about :D:D

CDfm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Yes boys can be very generous, sharin it all about :D:D

dont bring sharon into this. I was young OK

carlybabe1

CDfm wrote: »

dont bring sharon into this. I was young OK

I dont even want to know I'll get booted off for bein off topic :eek: sorry mods

CDfm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I dont even want to know I'll get booted off for bein off topic :eek: sorry mods

What - ya mean they wont kick ya off for being evasive and not responding to the points you made.

Your definition about dire circumstances lacked cohesion and spousal notification lacked accuracy.You then brought in domestic violence and subsequent miscarriage. These are exceptions and not the rule.

Will you at least concede that fathers could be attached emotionally and mourn their loss of an unborn baby or if you prefer group of cells in the case of miscarriage or stillbirth or premature birth.

carlybabe1

CDfm wrote: »

What - ya mean they wont kick ya off for being evasive and not responding to the points you made.

Your definition about dire circumstances lacked cohesion and spousal notification lacked accuracy.You then brought in domestic violence and subsequent miscarriage. These are exceptions and not the rule.

Will you at least concede that fathers could be attached emotionally and mourn their loss of an unborn baby or if you prefer group of cells in the case of miscarriage or stillbirth or premature birth.

Hey hey hey hang on, If you read my last post on the topic it will answer all your questions, and I never metioned domestic violence, i mentiond assault as in a mugging or attack, its happened you know, Heres a tip cdfm REEAADD SSSLLLOOOWWWWLLLLYYYYYYYYYY

eveie

mods i would appreicate if you would tell previous posters to stay on topic as i was told to do so in a different fourm dealing with this issue.
i find it sad and disturbing that so many people will try to condone abortion on the basis of financial issues. a childs worth is not and not not come down to money. its so hard for me not to get really angry over this subject there are very few things in life that i am certain about but i know that abortion is wrong. as a previous poster stated.....who is going to draw a line in the sand and say now....at 24 weeks and 2 days this being should be considered a baby, how stupid does that sound. doctors all over the world are trying to get the abortion limit pushed back as with medical advance it has been proven that a child at 22 weeks can survive.
also the argument of "well if youve never been in that position you dont have the right to have an opinion" ive never been to war but i know its wrong, ive never been raped but i know its wrong, ive never been murdered but i know it worng. how come everyone can accept these facts but when it comes to abortion people dont want to hear it. i have had personal experience with frineds who have aborted and friends who have had their babies,ive seen as many others have what they go through.
very few pregnancys are properly planned, but a child should not be a plan a child is a gift that many women never experience. to throw away something like this is the horrific. we have all been in the state of "unborn" we have all had the chance to live our lives to experience things to make mistakes to have freedom how can we throw something away that is so innocent and vunerable to our economics and financial positions and thik its perfectly ok.
just because a child might be born into poor conditions does not mean it has less of a right to life, we cannot pick and choose.
and yes abortion IS being used as a form of contraception, ive many friends who study in england and they were shocked with the amount of women that availed of free abortions on the nhs(alot of these friends would have considered themselves pro-choice but have since dramitically changed their opinion)
you know alot of women get on their high horse and say "how dare you judge me" "its my body il do what i want to do with it"
well im NOT judging you im merely telling you its wrong, and no its not your body the baby thats inside you has a unique set of DNA which makes its a seperate enitity from you, you do not have the right nor should you have the choice to pick when a xhild is born. many women have abortions and think they've done the right thing until they've have their first born and then they realise what they considered a clump of cells is now what their calling "their baby" its funny how people can pick and choose what to call a child so easily.
i am not perfect, i would not doubt for one minute that ifi fell pregnant tomorrow i would be terrified i know abortion would cross my mind but i know i wouldnt do it, i couldnt kill a child of mine

eveie

carlybabe
i do not knw where your getting your information from but seriously are you trying to tell me that if a women miscarrys at 16 weeks she is is forced to bring the child to full gestation????? thats impossible no 1 the child is dead, no.2 doing so would more then likely kill the mother, if a women miscarrys no matter the stage of pregnancy the child is removed it is extremly dangerous for the the child not be be remove and can and most often results in the death of the mother.
abortions happen regualry over 16 weeks again i would like to see where your getting this information from becuse its not true

CDfm

I have to agree with you on everything here eevie - i cant conceptualise this cut off point either and cant see how anyone can draw a line.

when i see arguments such like at 16 weeks a foetus looks like a goldfish - but its not a fish its a human not formed yet but still human and viable. the comparison is stupid.

I often feel when I hear pro-abortion arguments there is a lot of " we re so clever and your not" about the arguments. If I dont agree i get a label - religous, misogynist or stupid.

Great post from the heart.

carlybabe1

Only an idiot would think this is a point scoring debate, its not about whos "cleverer" than who, or anythin so petty, heres an argument from the heart
1)If you want to know where I base my argument eveie, why dont you do some research for yourself as no matter what i say, you are still going to say I'm wrong.
2)theres one vital difference between us, I'm pro-choice, which to me means I dont have the right to judge anyone who makes this choice and because all circumstances are so very different,
3)I dont believe that there should be a kiosk where you explain your circumstances and maybe you will be given permission not only to do something to your own body but somethin that will hugely impact on your life, and that of others around you as one anti abortionist pointed out. I dont believe I should have the right to tell anyone what they should do with ther life and/or thier body, If that was the case there would be a LLOTT less porn.
4)You on the other hand can sit on your self righteous chair and say "No way would I ever do that and because I have a hotline to morality I get to tell you that your a baaaad person for doing that, even if it ruins your mental health to have the baby, I get to make you feel bad cause I belong to the morality police, but dont make the mistake of thinkin that if I persuade you to have said baby that you will ever hear from me for support or help :mad::mad::mad::mad: who are you to say who is morally wrong and who isnt. As far as I remember it was the moral majority who instigated that gays be shunned/were evil/against natural law....And dont ell me its not the same...for me it boils down to the same thing, ignorant (by which i mean people who have NO experience of how a stuation would affect them) people thinking that they are moralistically better than others never having even thought of trying to put themselves in anothers shoes, but all too happy to brandish the whip. Sorry for the rant, but its no longer a debate, an im pissed off listenin to holier than thous, I reckon everyone has the right to choose and no-one can be harder on a person than that person themself.

Sorry mods if this is offensive, just peed off with the way this "debate " went down the swanny

CathyMoran

Speaking as someone who was almost faced with having to have an abortion I am far more open minded about abortion now and think that it should be allowed in limited circumstances (NOT financial). My case was that a life saving medical treatment would not have been allowed had I been pregnant (thus the need for an abortion), luckily I was not, but I would have gone abroad and got it done if I had been, much as I desperatly want a child now.

My husband is adopted and I am eternally greatful to his mum for not having an abortion, having an abortion just because you can not afford to bring up the child is not on for me, adoption is always an option. In terms of if someone was raped, I do not see how compounding one trauma with another (abortion) would help, as mentioned before, there is always adoption.

Another area I am unsure about is if the child was seriously ill - my mother is badly brain damaged and much as I love her I know that she has a very hard life, I dont think that I could put a child through that.

I should state that I would never judge anyone for having an abortion but I would not go with them to have it (unless for the above limited reasons).

carlybabe1

I keep hearing about the psychological damage that abortion does, according to this statement there would be THOUSANDS & THOUSANDS of psychologically damaged women walkin around among us contemplating suicide. I know women who have had abortions and while some needed counselling NONE of them fall into that category. And I think that if anything would compound a rape, it would be having your body hijacked for nine months to accomodate your rapists baby, forming mixed emotional attachments to it and then having to give it up, and living with that guilt the rest of your life..when something is gone, its gone

CDfm

CathyMoran wrote: »

Speaking as someone who was almost faced with having to have an abortion I am far more open minded about abortion now and think that it should be allowed in limited circumstances (NOT financial). My case was that a life saving medical treatment would not have been allowed had I been pregnant (thus the need for an abortion), luckily I was not, but I would have gone abroad and got it done if I had been, much as I desperatly want a child now.

My husband is adopted and I am eternally greatful to his mum for not having an abortion, having an abortion just because you can not afford to bring up the child is not on for me, adoption is always an option. In terms of if someone was raped, I do not see how compounding one trauma with another (abortion) would help, as mentioned before, there is always adoption.

Another area I am unsure about is if the child was seriously ill - my mother is badly brain damaged and much as I love her I know that she has a very hard life, I dont think that I could put a child through that.

I should state that I would never judge anyone for having an abortion but I would not go with them to have it (unless for the above limited reasons).

cathy - keep on truckin and I wish you well with treatment- when my kids were born i couldnt have imagined putting them before their mother and in my mind the mothers health takes priority. divorced now have 2 great kids but i still think the same. I applaud you and hubby for being so brave.

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

2)theres one vital difference between us, I'm pro-choice, which to me means I dont have the right to judge anyone who makes this choice and because all circumstances are so very different,

...so the vital difference is that you abdicate responsibility?

Sorry, I'm not being smart here but, "pro-choice" is a cop out.
I'm anti-abortion. I think it's wrong. Thus, my moral conscience and civic duty, is to vote against it.

If you are "pro-choice" you are really saying you are "pro-abortion" as you are giving people the right to abort. You are saying that as far as you are concerned you are happy with abortion, and happy to allow people in society to abort.

So why bother say "pro-choice". Why not say "pro-abortion"? As far as I can see, it's an attempt to hide the fact. And if it is an attempt to hide the fact - why try to hide it, unless there is, somewhere underneath all the liberal rhetoric, shame.

CDfm

Zulu wrote: »

...so the vital difference is that you abdicate responsibility?

Sorry, I'm not being smart here but, "pro-choice" is a cop out.
I'm anti-abortion. I think it's wrong. Thus, my moral conscience and civic duty, is to vote against it.

If you are "pro-choice" you are really saying you are "pro-abortion" as you are giving people the right to abort. You are saying that as far as you are concerned you are happy with abortion, and happy to allow people in society to abort.

So why bother say "pro-choice". Why not say "pro-abortion"? As far as I can see, it's an attempt to hide the fact. And if it is an attempt to hide the fact - why try to hide it, unless there is, somewhere underneath all the liberal rhetoric, shame.

carlybabe1 - gotta agree with zulu here

when i raised roe vs wade - the most impotant US case on abortion ever and you didnt know what it was. but if you were up to speed on your reading would know and here is a wikipedia link to help you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

when I see the phrase pro- choice what I hear is pro- abortion on demand for women no matter what. So fess up is that what you are for?

What else are you for assisted suicide ? Do you have a view on the death penalty?

carlybabe1

2)theres one vital difference between us, I'm pro-choice, which to me means I dont have the right to judge anyone who makes this choice and because all circumstances are so very different,
3)I dont believe that there should be a kiosk where you explain your circumstances and maybe you will be given permission not only to do something to your own body but somethin that will hugely impact on your life, and that of others around you as one anti abortionist pointed out. I dont believe I should have the right to tell anyone what they should do with ther life and/or thier body, If that was the case there would be a LLOTT less porn.

I believe I've already explained it, this is what pro choice is to me.. And I dont need to "fess up" :rolleyes: to any thing.. I believe that people have the right to choose what to do with thier body, and no busy body hand wringer should have the right to deny them permission. oh and CDfm if you get up to date with your reading you'll find out that the reason she changed her mind was because the pregnancy was so far along and the baby was fully developed.. Toodles

Zulu

Firstly, it's bad etiquette to post in big print - it's tantamount to shouting down someone else.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I believe I've already explained it, this is what pro choice is to me..

Indeed, it's giving someone the right to choose. So you are allowing abortion. So you are pro-abortion.

I believe that people have the right to choose what to do with thier body,

...but you don't agree that this extends to class 1 narcotics I suppose? Why not?

and no busy body hand wringer should have the right to deny them permission.

It's pretty pathetic you need to resort to petty insults. I'm not a busy body. I'm not a hand wringer. I understand my civic duty, and I understand my responsibility as a citizen of this state. I have an opinion and a moral conscience. My opinion and conscience encourages me to vote against abortion. My opinion and conscience tells me it's wrong, so why would I vote to allow people to do wrong things? Just so I can consider myself liberal? So people won't label me a busy body?? or a hand wringer???

No, I'm sorry, but I have the moral fortitude to stand by what I believe is right and what is wrong. To me it's simple: killing human life is wrong.

Now, you can dress it up anyway you like. The "pro-choice" lobby can convince themselves and all around them whatever they like, but I ask you: what do pro-choice people just not come out and say they are pro-abortion? What's so terrible about it?

carlybabe1

Sigh, I put it in big print because you missed it the first time, and the second so ill put it as clearly as i can, and I would have no problem saying that I am pro abortion, but its more than that, and thats what you're refusing to see
1) I am pro choice, as in I would advocate the rghts of ANYBODY to do what THEY want with THIER body, and not be prevented from doing so because somebody else thinks its morally wrong.....IN OTHER WORDS IF YOU THINK ITS MORALLY WRONG THEN THATS OK, DONT DO IT YOURSELF,AND BRING YOUR CHILDREN UP ACCORDINGLY TOO, BUT AND HERES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROCHOICE AND PRO ABORTION, I DONT BELIEVE THAT YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE HAS THE RIGHT TO PREVENT A PERSON TAKING ACTION WITH THIER OWN BODY NOW MATTER HOW WRONG YOU THINK IT IS. Now do you see the difference.


And as far as Im concerned, anyone who thinks its ok to do that is a busy body and a hand wringer and dresses it up as doing thier moral and civic duty.....Thats my stand on it and Im not looking to change anyones mind, but I dont see why I should have defend my opinions.

CDfm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Sigh, I put it in big print because you missed it the first time, and the second so ill put it as clearly as i can, and I would have no problem saying that I am pro abortion, but its more than that, and thats what you're refusing to see
1) I am pro choice, as in I would advocate the rghts of ANYBODY to do what THEY want with THIER body, and not be prevented from doing so because somebody else thinks its morally wrong.....IN OTHER WORDS IF YOU THINK ITS MORALLY WRONG THEN THATS OK, DONT DO IT YOURSELF,AND BRING YOUR CHILDREN UP ACCORDINGLY TOO, BUT AND HERES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROCHOICE AND PRO ABORTION, I DONT BELIEVE THAT YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE HAS THE RIGHT TO PREVENT A PERSON TAKING ACTION WITH THIER OWN BODY NOW MATTER HOW WRONG YOU THINK IT IS. Now do you see the difference.


And as far as Im concerned, anyone who thinks its ok to do that is a busy body and a hand wringer and dresses it up as doing thier moral and civic duty.....Thats my stand on it and Im not looking to change anyones mind, but I dont see why I should have defend my opinions.

Almost there - you are just pro- abortion and you see nothing wrong with it and in your world it would be available without restriction.

You are quite forward thinking so I wonder in what circumstances would you make it compulsory.

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Sigh, I put it in big print because you missed it the first time

No I didn't.

1) I am pro choice, as in I would advocate the rghts of ANYBODY to do what THEY want with THIER body, and not be prevented from doing so because somebody else thinks its morally wrong

So would you extend that logic to class 1 narcotics?
If not, why not - it's their body.

.....IN OTHER WORDS IF YOU THINK ITS MORALLY WRONG THEN THATS OK, DONT DO IT YOURSELF,AND BRING YOUR CHILDREN UP ACCORDINGLY TOO,

This is where your argument falls apart. Take incest for example, say my sister and I believe it's ok, why should it be illegal? I mean, others believe it's wrong - but shouldn't they just not do it? Why do we make it illegal?

BUT AND HERES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROCHOICE AND PRO ABORTION, I DONT BELIEVE THAT YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE HAS THE RIGHT TO PREVENT A PERSON TAKING ACTION WITH THIER OWN BODY NOW MATTER HOW WRONG YOU THINK IT IS.

Again, do you extend that logic to incest? Why do we have a right to tell an incestuous couple what to do with their bodies?

Now do you see the difference.

I see your point, I just don't agree. I believe that as a citizen I have a responsibility to the society I'm a member of; a civic duty to stand up for what I believe is right and wrong.

And as far as Im concerned, anyone who thinks its ok to do that is a busy body and a hand wringer and dresses it up as doing thier moral and civic duty...

Again, why are you resorting to petty insults. Clearly you have no respect for other peoples opinions, and sadly that says more about you that anyone else.

Thats my stand on it and Im not looking to change anyone’s mind, but I dont see why I should have defend my opinions.

:rolleyes: Oh for crying out loud! This is supposed to be a debate/discussion in the humanities forum. That's exactly why you have to defend your opinions.

If you don't what to participate, don't.

CDfm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

2)theres one vital difference between us, I'm pro-choice, which to me means I dont have the right to judge anyone who makes this choice and because all circumstances are so very different,
3)I dont believe that there should be a kiosk where you explain your circumstances and maybe you will be given permission not only to do something to your own body but somethin that will hugely impact on your life, and that of others around you as one anti abortionist pointed out. I dont believe I should have the right to tell anyone what they should do with ther life and/or thier body, If that was the case there would be a LLOTT less porn.

I believe I've already explained it, this is what pro choice is to me.. And I dont need to "fess up" :rolleyes: to any thing.. I believe that people have the right to choose what to do with thier body, and no busy body hand wringer should have the right to deny them permission. oh and CDfm if you get up to date with your reading you'll find out that the reason she changed her mind was because the pregnancy was so far along and the baby was fully developed.. Toodles

Carlybabe1 you werent aware of Roe vs Wade until I posted a link. You are selective in what you use -you forgot to mention that Norma McCorvey was appalled at the application of the case(she was Roe)- she was sick of people coming up to her and thanking her for the right to have 5 or 6 abortions or whatever.

She is also on record as saying she was duped by her lawyers and says she would never have taken the case if she had known people would use abortion as a form of birth control. Not only has she distanced herself from the case she subsequently took a case McCorvey vs Hill to have it overturned.

If you are citing someones stance you should cite it in its entirety.


I havent read any of this stuff in years and Im not an authority I was just pointing you to the basic reading material on which your arguments are based to get down to the fundamentals of what you advocate and you still are not being straight about it.

BTW - thought the gay angle was a hoot - scrapping the end of the barrell a bit arent you - cant see the relevance here - why would a gay person need an abortion? lol

Bottle_of_Smoke

eveie wrote: »

as a previous poster stated.....who is going to draw a line in the sand and say now....at 24 weeks and 2 days this being should be considered a baby, how stupid does that sound. doctors all over the world are trying to get the abortion limit pushed back as with medical advance it has been proven that a child at 22 weeks can survive.

Well how about you decide at which point it's humane. Say, when the nervous system develops it becomes inhumane as the child will potentially feel pain. According to Wikipedia this is between 18-27weeks.

So to allow for unusual advancement set the limit at 15 weeks.

That's just one way of doing it & I'd see it as a perfectly reasonable line to draw. Unless you believe in a soul I don't see why you'd object. If you do believe in a soul then I'd suggest you provide proof for same before you start telling women what to do with their bodies.

Zulu

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

If you do believe in a soul then I'd suggest you provide proof for same before you start telling women what to do with their bodies.

(Although I understand this is a total straw-man...) Why should they? Religious belief is is protected my our own constitution and most others. To vote based on religious belief is completely acceptable in our society.

But then this thread is about Abortion, not religion, so perhaps another thread should be started if you wish to go down that road?

I for one amn't religious, so I'd prefer to keep this thread on topic.

CDfm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well how about you decide at which point it's humane. Say, when the nervous system develops it becomes inhumane as the child will potentially feel pain. According to Wikipedia this is between 18-27weeks.

So to allow for unusual advancement set the limit at 15 weeks.

That's just one way of doing it & I'd see it as a perfectly reasonable line to draw. Unless you believe in a soul I don't see why you'd object. If you do believe in a soul then I'd suggest you provide proof for same before you start telling women what to do with their bodies.

I dont think its possible to draw such a line - the point is you believe in life or you dont.

your definition is the central nervous system others are when consciousness or personal awareness develops or when a baby/being is capable of independent survival outside the womb

you get the same problem with comas and permanent vegetative state - you have no way of knowing with certainty about the quality of life or when a person can wake up.

That said I am not unsympathetic to the issue -its part of modern life - Im a divorced dad and was once asked by a gf who do you love more them or me. The kids won. Her needs vs their dependance. So children are life changing.

It has also affected my work choices - I could live and work abroad - would love to - but....

I could take the kids on full time no probs .....but the court system and constitution put women first and I accept that. Thems the breaks.

So by all means people can make the decision to be child free and there are loads of contraceptive devices out there to allow people to make free love as much as they like, have multiple partners and join swingers clubs. No probs there from me with any of that.

The problem for me is someone gets pregnant and says I want my old life back and suddenly decides or Iwant it all and I cant have it so its someone elses fault.They still want it all and have been too lazy or irresponsible to use any of the opportunities of contraception available including the morning after pill - which Im not against well BOO HOO.

You still have adoption but I hear the bleeding heart brigade say its emotionally traumatic or I will loose my career/promotion or my figure or whatever or we loose our relationship because the father doesnt want to be a dad.He will leave me cause he doesnt want kids ( well you picked a real Mr Wonderful there babe!). The thing is we dont kill our work colleagues if we get passed over for promotion.

So by my thinking given all the opportunities not to get pregnant you want someone like me to change my mind and give you the right to kill a child no chance. Its a matter of conscience and my conscience says no (special circumstances for the safety of the health of the mum accepted)

So Im a guy and telling you what to do with your body. No Im not - you have already decided that all by yourself. Im just a bystander.Its the baby Im talking about not you. You are a grown up but we protect children cause they need protection.

LIke the death penalty if you get it wrong there is no going back. Its against my conscience.Take a plane to England if you want just dont expect any sympathy from me or me to agree with your decision.