Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

Foxhound38

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/05/03/where-is-your-decency/

So it seems the pro-life campaign wheeled out Berry Keily (their so-called medical advisor) to lecture a woman who lost her baby to anencephaly (a foetal abnormality, no chance of survival outside the womb) about how she was wrong to take the boat to end it humanely rather than carry it to term knowing it had no chance and would be in extreme pain. So far, so predictable from the religious extremists. But then she said something that absolutely floored me:

Well can I ask you? No but what about then the people in a situation like this who would argue for post-birth abortion, that if the baby is born alive and does live for a while but the mother finds this very difficult to deal with. Should that mother have the right to have her baby killed even though it’s still living?

What? Did she really bring the debate this low? The interview stopped very soon after she said this, and thankfully so because I doubt it's possible to have a meaningfull conversation about this topic with someone who would talk such nonsense.

Why can't we have a rational conversation about this in this country?

jaffacakesyum

Because people are idiotic judgemental pr1cks who can't mind their own business and want to dictate to others how they should live their life, what they can and can't do to their own body, what deity they should believe in, who they should be allowed to marry and always be told by the men in government whats what.

I fúcking hate people sometimes.

marienbad

Because one side have the answer and work back from that.

wolfpawnat

Because many of the more extreme on both sides are not willing to even consider listening to the other. Even if they disagree with it, listening to the other side and attempting to have a rational argument about it with them seems beyond some people.

FamousSeamus

This debate can never be rational, my mother is a strong anti-abortionist and whenever the debate comes up speaking science or medical facts doesn't mean anything its always "murder murder murder"!!

Also anti abortionists also yell louder and refuse to listen to the other side and always resort to the same arguments (my mother has often used the one you quoted above). Sadly the only way is to keep educating and removing religion from politics and education, only then can this topic be discussed rationally.

An Coilean

Why cant we have a rational debate? Apparently because the other side refuses to agree with your position and as such they are irrational, unreasonable 'idiotic judgemental pr1cks' etc etc..

:rolleyes:

Because people are idiotic judgemental pr1cks who can't mind their own business and want to dictate to others how they should live their life, what they can and can't do to their own body.

Some people are of the opinion that it is not just a question of what someone wants to do with their own body. That the unborn child has a right to life that supersedes the mothers right to choice. Does that really make them 'idiotic judgemental pr1cks who can't mind their own business'?

Shenshen

An Coilean wrote: »

Some people are of the opinion that it is not just a question of what someone wants to do with their own body. That the unborn child has a right to life that supersedes the mothers right to choice. Does that really make them 'idiotic judgemental pr1cks who can't mind their own business'?

Well, considering that there is no person alive and breathing today whose right to live supersedes another person's right to determine what happens to their own bodies, where would unborn children get this right from?

Valetta

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, considering that there is no person alive and breathing today whose right to live supersedes another person's right to determine what happens to their own bodies, where would unborn children get this right from?

Some of us choose to give them that right.

FatherLen

because the 'pro-life' side think the 'pro-choice' side are baby murdering monsters and the 'pro-choice' side think the 'pro-life' side are bible bashing red necks.

these are not the right ingredients to a rational debate

Gulliver

An Coilean wrote: »

Why cant we have a rational debate? Apparently because the other side refuses to agree with your position and as such they are irrational, unreasonable 'idiotic judgemental pr1cks' etc etc..

:rolleyes:



Some people are of the opinion that it is not just a question of what someone wants to do with their own body. That the unborn child has a right to life that supersedes the mothers right to choice. Does that really make them 'idiotic judgemental pr1cks who can't mind their own business'?

Ok, say we run with the thought that right to life supersedes the right to choose. However, what if the mother's life was in danger due to the pregnancy? If both lives are equal, then it comes back to choice. Mother or child? A person you've spent x amount of time with or a person you haven't met yet. A choice I hope none of us ever have to make.

(I'm neither pro or anti abortion, I'm of the opinion that the act of abortion should not be taken lightly - it should only be used in dire circumstances - such as anencephaly, sepsis, rape etc. It should not be a tool for people too lazy/stupid/insert other quantifier here to use protection)

Timmyctc

because religion /thread

An Coilean

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, considering that there is no person alive and breathing today whose right to live supersedes another person's right to determine what happens to their own bodies, where would unborn children get this right from?

Not really sure how that would be relevant, if you consider an unborn child to be a human being that has the right to life, then the mother can no more choose to end that life than they can after the child is born. Some people don't consider an unborn child to be a human being with the right to life, but believing that it is is hardly all that irrational is it?

Iwasfrozen

Timmyctc wrote: »

because religion /thread

Because it has nothing to do with religion, thread.

wolfpawnat

super_furry wrote: »

One side use their own judgement and conscience to guide them. One side use a 2,000 old book written by hundreds of people and interpreted by sexless men who will never father children anyway.

Timmyctc wrote: »

because religion /thread

Perhaps because many on both sides assume religion when many of the pro-lifers wouldn't have seen the inside of a church since the came to exist on this planet I can list many of my friends that are pro-life that a church would burst into flames around them and O Fortuna would resound off the walls were they to walk in. Assumptions do neither side any good!

eviltwin

Because there is no middle ground. If you believe in all women having the right to an abortion limited abortion won't be enough, if you believe all babies should have the right to life no matter what then any access will be too much.

An Coilean

Gulliver wrote: »

Ok, say we run with the thought that right to life supersedes the right to choose. However, what if the mother's life was in danger due to the pregnancy? If both lives are equal, then it comes back to choice. Mother or child? A person you've spent x amount of time with or a person you haven't met yet. A choice I hope none of us ever have to make.

(I'm neither pro or anti abortion, I'm of the opinion that the act of abortion should not be taken lightly - it should only be used in dire circumstances - such as anencephaly, sepsis, rape etc. It should not be a tool for people too lazy/stupid/insert other quantifier here to use protection)

Of course, but thats the point, its not just an issue of choice for the mother, its a balance of rights.
In cases where the mothers life is not at risk then I would consider that the balance of rights means that the childs right to life supercedes the mothers right to choose.
In a case where the mothers life is at risk then you are in much more dificult waters but again it should be seen as a balance of rights, not simply as a choice a woman makes about her body, there is more than one party involved.

An Coilean

eviltwin wrote: »

Because there is no middle ground. If you believe in all women having the right to an abortion limited abortion won't be enough, if you believe all babies should have the right to life no matter what then any access will be too much.

Well no, the unborn baby is not the only one with a right to life, the mother has too and in cases where the mothers life is at risk as a result of the pregnancy then it may be necessary to terminate the pregnancy to save the mother.
In such a case the mothers life is given precidence over the unborn childs because the probability is that if you try to save the baby there is a stronger posibility of both parties dying than if you try to save the mother.

NIMAN

Is it possible to be somewhere in the middle? Not pro or anti?

I think that there are obviously cases where abortion are necessary and justified, but I am also uncomfortable with the idea of an abortion simply because someone was stupid and had a one-night stand and doesn't want to be pregnant.

eviltwin

An Coilean wrote: »

Well no, the unborn baby is not the only one with a right to life, the mother has too and in cases where the mothers life is at risk as a result of the pregnancy then it may be necessary to terminate the pregnancy to save the mother.
In such a case the mothers life is given precidence over the unborn childs because the probability is that if you try to save the baby there is a stronger posibility of both parties dying than if you try to save the mother.

The pro life side say they are okay with abortion when a mothers life is at risk, its when you get into a woman wanting an abortion through choice they object even if that choice is because she was raped, her child might have a fatal condition, her health might suffer, she might not have the emotional, financial or practical support to have a child etc.

An Coilean

NIMAN wrote: »

Is it possible to be somewhere in the middle? Not pro or anti?

I think that there are obviously cases where abortion are necessary and justified, but I am also uncomfortable with the idea of an abortion simply because someone was stupid and had a one-night stand and doesn't want to be pregnant.

Yes it is possible to believe that in certain circumstances abortion is justified without believeing that it is acceptable in all cases.

Nodin

Foxhound38 wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/05/03/where-is-your-decency/

So it seems the pro-life campaign wheeled out Berry Keily (their so-called medical advisor) to lecture a woman who lost her baby to anencephaly (a foetal abnormality, no chance of survival outside the womb) about how she was wrong to take the boat to end it humanely rather than carry it to term knowing it had no chance and would be in extreme pain. So far, so predictable from the religious extremists. But then she said something that absolutely floored me:


What? Did she really bring the debate this low? The interview stopped very soon after she said this, and thankfully so because I doubt it's possible to have a meaningfull conversation about this topic with someone who would talk such nonsense.

Why can't we have a rational conversation about this in this country?

....jaysus knows. For a long time I never thought that terminating an unviable preganancy was considered abortion, because it was unviable......

OCorcrainn

One thing that I have noticed is that it is mostly single, 'educated', middle and upper class young women and students with no children that vehemently support abortion. Why is that?

strobe

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Why can't we have a rational conversation about this in this country?

Because very unhelpful people keep holding up the opinions of the crazies on 'the other side' and saying 'see, see! The other side are crazies!! '

I'd say that's right up there as a reason

"The anti-choicers want to chain women to radiators and force them to carry the babies of their rapist uncles!

"The baby killers want to slit babies throats as they are being born! "

Fukk off.

Gulliver

NIMAN wrote: »

Is it possible to be somewhere in the middle? Not pro or anti?

I think that there are obviously cases where abortion are necessary and justified, but I am also uncomfortable with the idea of an abortion simply because someone was stupid and had a one-night stand and doesn't want to be pregnant.

I feel I fall into the middle. There are times when it may be necessary for whatever reason. However, I've never been faced with such a momentous decision regarding another being's life and I hope I never will. Who can accurately judge how they will act if faced with that choice?

eviltwin

OCorcrainn wrote: »

One thing that I have noticed is that it mostly single, 'educated', middle and upper class women with no children that vehemently support abortion. Why is that?

Maybe they are just more vocal about it. I'm a working class mother and I would be very much pro choice in all circumstances. Most of my peers who are working class parents would feel the same.

Shenshen

An Coilean wrote: »

Not really sure how that would be relevant, if you consider an unborn child to be a human being that has the right to life, then the mother can no more choose to end that life than they can after the child is born. Some people don't consider an unborn child to be a human being with the right to life, but believing that it is is hardly all that irrational is it?

How it would be relevant? If you regard the right to life of one person as higher than the right to bodily autonomy of another, that would in consequence mean that everybody everywhere needs to provide their body or parts thereof if they are required to safe someone's life.
People would no longer be able to decide if they want to give blood or not, or if they want to become an organ donor or not, it would need to be mandatory.

Personally, I would value the individual's right to their own body higher than that.

OCorcrainn

eviltwin wrote: »

Maybe they are just more vocal about it. I'm a working class mother and I would be very much pro choice in all circumstances. Most of my peers who are working class parents would feel the same.

I'm not denying there are people of a working class background and parents who support it but they seem to be in the minority.

Shenshen

OCorcrainn wrote: »

One thing that I have noticed is that it is mostly single, 'educated', middle and upper class young women and students with no children that vehemently support abortion. Why is that?

I wouldn't know... I'm a middle aged and married woman.

eviltwin

OCorcrainn wrote: »

I'm not denying there are people of a working class background and parents who support it but they seem to be in the minority.

How do you know their personal details? Are you talking about the people who represent the various groups? Its hard to be involved in groups of any kind when you have kids at home, parents often don't have time to be involved in anything outside their local community that doesn't take place during school hours.

Nodin

OCorcrainn wrote: »

One thing that I have noticed is that it is mostly single, 'educated', middle and upper class young women and students with no children that vehemently support abortion. Why is that?

.....I support choice and I'm a 43 year old working class man.

OCorcrainn

eviltwin wrote: »

How do you know their personal details? Are you talking about the people who represent the various groups? Its hard to be involved in groups of any kind when you have kids at home, parents often don't have time to be involved in anything outside their local community that doesn't take place during school hours.

I am very active and involved with my community and in politics where I am from but I am also a third level student. It just something that I can't help but noticing from my interactions.

jaffacakesyum

An Coilean wrote: »

Why cant we have a rational debate? Apparently because the other side refuses to agree with your position and as such they are irrational, unreasonable 'idiotic judgemental pr1cks' etc etc..

:rolleyes:



Some people are of the opinion that it is not just a question of what someone wants to do with their own body. That the unborn child has a right to life that supersedes the mothers right to choice. Does that really make them 'idiotic judgemental pr1cks who can't mind their own business'?

Yup, it does. Nobody has any right to tell me what to do with my body. I'm done being 'reasonable' with these backward pr1cks - and I know the way I'm talking is going to anger people and say it does nothing for the debate. But the truth is we've been debating and talking and being reasonable and polite with anti-choicers for too long now. It's time to say enough is enough. I want my human rights. And yes I believe it to be a human right.

And for the record, I actually personally probably wouldn't have an abortion but that doesn't matter. I'm pro-choice. Nobody has the right to force a woman to carry a foetus to term for months because of somebodys personal or religious opinion.

wonderfulname

OCorcrainn wrote: »

One thing that I have noticed is that it is mostly single, 'educated', middle and upper class young women and students with no children that vehemently support abortion. Why is that?

Any stats to back this up? My experience has been that there is a delightfully varied tapestry of people supportive of choice. It's also worth pointing out workers groups tend to be pro choice as the current situation is deemed classist, and that this debate has been raging long enough that the crazy students of yesteryear have grown up, many marrying and having children, and most maintaining the same values they always had.

thebullkf

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Because people are idiotic judgemental pr1cks who can't mind their own business and want to dictate to others how they should live their life, what they can and can't do to their own body, what deity they should believe in, who they should be allowed to marry and always be told by the men in government whats what.

I fúcking hate people sometimes.

reads like this is the source of your anger ( pardon me if i'm wrong)

Iwasfrozen

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Yup, it does. Nobody has any right to tell me what to do with my body. I'm done being 'reasonable' with these backward pr1cks - and I know the way I'm talking is going to anger people and say it does nothing for the debate. But the truth is we've been debating and talking and being reasonable and polite with anti-choicers for too long now. It's time to say enough is enough. I want my human rights. And yes I believe it to be a human right.

And for the record, I actually personally probably wouldn't have an abortion but that doesn't matter. I'm pro-choice. Nobody has the right to force a woman to carry a foetus to term for months because of somebodys personal or religious opinion.

I always find it amazing why people immediately talk about rights. Rights are subjective and depend on the willingness of the people in power to grant you those rights. Anyway. The right of the child to life supersedes your right to have an abortion.

An Coilean

eviltwin wrote: »

The pro life side say they are okay with abortion when a mothers life is at risk, its when you get into a woman wanting an abortion through choice they object even if that choice is because she was raped, her child might have a fatal condition, her health might suffer, she might not have the emotional, financial or practical support to have a child etc.

Those are very valid points and highly charged ones which makes open discussion more dificult.
However I will try to clearly outline my position without getting heated.

The following arguments have to be taken in the context that the unborn child is a human being that has the right to life.

In the case of rape, though it is a traumatic experiance and perfectally understandable why the mother would not want to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, the crime of the father does not nullify the rights of the unborn child.
While it is a terrible situation, the trauma suffered by the mother to me is not sufficient to supercede the right of the child to life. Support and counceling should be provided to help the mother to deal with the trauma suffered but I cannot see abortion as an acceptable solution in this situation.

With regard to the child having a fatal condition, this is an extreamly tough situation, however the argument here is that by permitting abortion in these cases society is making a judgement on the value of life. Even if the child will only survive for a few days after birth, society should not judge that life to be less valid than any other.
You will have to make your own call on if the life of the child, short though it may be has suficient validity to out way the parents understandable desire to not continue with the pregnancy. Personally I can see the merit in both perspectives and am still torn on the issue.

With regard to potential non-fatal risks to the mothers health, again I would look at it as a balance of rights, does the mothers health outweigh the childs right to life? Personally I would say that the right to life takes precidence, but its a judgement call that has to be made. I should note that when it comes to judgement calls on rights, it is a call that society should make, not individuals.

As for the last pont on the means to support a child, again, I don't think that negates the childs right to life and ultimatly if the parents cannot support the child then it falls to the state to do so.


You may think me heartless for my opinions on these issues, and without a doubt the implications of my stance could potentially create heartbreaking individual situations, though in the same way that the state has the responcibility to vindicate life, it also have to responcibility to support families living with the implications of that stance.
Ultimatly my stance stems from life being something I am not willing to compromise on.

Jaxxy

thebullkf wrote: »

reads like this is the source of your anger ( pardon me if i'm wrong)

Oh here we go. Not even a couple of pages in and someone is intimating that a pro-choice individual hates all men. Well done.

thebullkf

Jaxxy wrote: »

Oh here we go. Not even a couple of pages in and someone is intimating that a pro-choice individual hates all men. Well done.

here we go indeed,

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

In the case of rape, though it is a traumatic experiance and perfectally understandable why the mother would not want to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, the crime of the father does not nullify the rights of the unborn child.
While it is a terrible situation, the trauma suffered by the mother to me is not sufficient to supercede the right of the child to life. Support and counceling should be provided to help the mother to deal with the trauma suffered but I cannot see abortion as an acceptable solution in this situation.

As much as I agree with your stance on abortion in general I just cannot agree with your stance on pregnancy caused by rape. If that happened to someone I love I'd probably end up killing the guy. No woman should be expected to carry her rapists baby to full term.

thebullkf

An Coilean wrote: »

Those are very valid points and highly charged ones which makes open discussion more dificult.
However I will try to clearly outline my position without getting heated.

The following arguments have to be taken in the context that the unborn child is a human being that has the right to life.

In the case of rape, though it is a traumatic experiance and perfectally understandable why the mother would not want to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, the crime of the father does not nullify the rights of the unborn child.
While it is a terrible situation, the trauma suffered by the mother to me is not sufficient to supercede the right of the child to life. Support and counceling should be provided to help the mother to deal with the trauma suffered but I cannot see abortion as an acceptable solution in this situation.

With regard to the child having a fatal condition, this is an extreamly tough situation, however the argument here is that by permitting abortion in these cases society is making a judgement on the value of life. Even if the child will only survive for a few days after birth, society should not judge that life to be less valid than any other.
You will have to make your own call on if the life of the child, short though it may be has suficient validity to out way the parents understandable desire to not continue with the pregnancy. Personally I can see the merit in both perspectives and am still torn on the issue.

With regard to potential non-fatal risks to the mothers health, again I would look at it as a balance of rights, does the mothers health outweigh the childs right to life? Personally I would say that the right to life takes precidence, but its a judgement call that has to be made. I should note that when it comes to judgement calls on rights, it is a call that society should make, not individuals.

As for the last pont on the means to support a child, again, I don't think that negates the childs right to life and ultimatly if the parents cannot support the child then it falls to the state to do so.


You may think me heartless for my opinions on these issues, and without a doubt the implications of my stance could potentially create heartbreaking individual situations, though in the same way that the state has the responcibility to vindicate life, it also have to responcibility to support families living with the implications of that stance.
Ultimatly my stance stems from life being something I am not willing to compromise on.

In the bold bit above it definitely should be up to the mother to decide if she wants to abort imo. Imagine the horror of having to carry a physical and biological reminder of such a heinous crime, and for someone to tell you , that you must- no way josé.

I do not agree with abortion as a means of contraception/lifestyle choice though.

PlainP

An Coilean wrote: »

Of course, but thats the point, its not just an issue of choice for the mother, its a balance of rights.
In cases where the mothers life is not at risk then I would consider that the balance of rights means that the childs right to life supercedes the mothers right to choose.
In a case where the mothers life is at risk then you are in much more dificult waters but again it should be seen as a balance of rights, not simply as a choice a woman makes about her body, there is more than one party involved.

I disagree, the fetus would not survive without the mother therefore it is her right and choice to decide what she wants for the pregnancy.

Phill Ewinn

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Yup, it does. Nobody has any right to tell me what to do with my body. I'm done being 'reasonable' with these backward pr1cks - and I know the way I'm talking is going to anger people and say it does nothing for the debate. But the truth is we've been debating and talking and being reasonable and polite with anti-choicers for too long now. It's time to say enough is enough. I want my human rights. And yes I believe it to be a human right.

And for the record, I actually personally probably wouldn't have an abortion but that doesn't matter. I'm pro-choice. Nobody has the right to force a woman to carry a foetus to term for months because of somebodys personal or religious opinion.

Attitudes like this may have been fine 1,000 years ago. Thankfully society has moved along from this kind of thinking.

An Coilean

Shenshen wrote: »

How it would be relevant? If you regard the right to life of one person as higher than the right to bodily autonomy of another, that would in consequence mean that everybody everywhere needs to provide their body or parts thereof if they are required to safe someone's life.
People would no longer be able to decide if they want to give blood or not, or if they want to become an organ donor or not, it would need to be mandatory.

Personally, I would value the individual's right to their own body higher than that.

An individuals right to their own bodily autonomy is important, and thats why many of the points you noted are not happening.

But where the individuals right to their own body as you put it, comes into direct conflict with anothers right to life, as is the case in the abortation debate, then in my opinion the right to life takes precidence.


As a side note, in many countries people don't have the right to deside if they want to become organ doners or not, when you die the state will take and use your organs to help others if it needs to, but that is a topic for another thread.

Foxhound38

OCorcrainn wrote: »

One thing that I have noticed is that it is mostly single, 'educated', middle and upper class young women and students with no children that vehemently support abortion. Why is that?

No idea - I often wonder why most people at the Youth Defence stalls tend to be middle-aged men

thebullkf

Rationalaity is difficult due to the nature of the act itself. On one hand i support the mothers choice, on the other i wuestion myself - why should a serial aborter decide to abort just because she doesn't want a baby... that imo is just wrong- if you don't want kids take the necessary steps to prevent such a situation, i understand a 'one time thing' whereby a one nuight stand etc may result in unplanned pregnancy but stupidity and laziness (in such a case not all cases!) should not over ride the right to life of a baby.

What would the folks on here think about a limit on the amount of abortions one can have as a part solution?

listermint

thebullkf wrote: »

Rationalaity is difficult due to the nature of the act itself. On one hand i support the mothers choice, on the other i wuestion myself - why should a serial aborter decide to abort just because she doesn't want a baby... that imo is just wrong- if you don't want kids take the necessary steps to prevent such a situation, i understand a 'one time thing' whereby a one nuight stand etc may result in unplanned pregnancy but stupidity and laziness (in such a case not all cases!) should not over ride the right to life of a baby.

What would the folks on here think about a limit on the amount of abortions one can have as a part solution?

Serial abortioners.....



Is your post for real ?

jaffacakesyum

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As much as I agree with your stance on abortion in general I just cannot agree with your stance on pregnancy caused by rape. If that happened to someone I love I'd probably end up killing the guy. No woman should be expected to carry her rapists baby to full term.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I always find it amazing why people immediately talk about rights. Rights are subjective and depend on the willingness of the people in power to grant you those rights. Anyway. The right of the child to life supersedes your right to have an abortion.

LOL - what happened to the rights of the child?

"It's murder!!" um...but murders ok in certain circumstance like rape yknow :rolleyes:

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As much as I agree with your stance on abortion in general I just cannot agree with your stance on pregnancy caused by rape. If that happened to someone I love I'd probably end up killing the guy. No woman should be expected to carry her rapists baby to full term.

I can understand that and I was of the same opinion too, it took me an awful long time to change my mind on that one, but believing as I do that the unborn child has a right to life then I had to accept that as unsetteling and tragic as it might be, the crime of the father does not negate that right.

I fully accept that people have differing opinions on this and understand prefectly why, and I can't say that if faced with this situation for real that I would not change my opinion, then again that partially the reason that society as a whole rather than individuals should make the judgement.

Nodin

thebullkf wrote: »

Rationalaity is difficult due to the nature of the act itself. On one hand i support the mothers choice, on the other i wuestion myself - why should a serial aborter decide to abort just because she doesn't want a baby... that imo is just wrong- if you don't want kids take the necessary steps to prevent such a situation, i understand a 'one time thing' whereby a one nuight stand etc may result in unplanned pregnancy but stupidity and laziness (in such a case not all cases!) should not over ride the right to life of a baby.

Which is essentially saying that because a minority might abuse something, it should be denied to all. Not the best approach to take.

Staff Infection

Ya see both sides of the debate keep saying "the majority of people agree with our stance" etc etc so I'd love to see a multiple choice referendum to actually find out once and for all what people want. It could be on a scale such as say

1. No Abortions ever
2. Abortions if the mothers life is at risk
3. Abortions in cases where the foetus will die at birth (fatal foetal abnormalities)
4. Abortions in cases of incest
5. Abortions in cases of rape
6. Combinations of the above so maybe options 2 and 3 together
7. Likewise other combinations of the above options
8. Abortion on demand

This way at least we'd have whatever the majority decides rather than both groups claiming to represent the majority. I'd also like to do the same around a right to death referendum for terminally ill people with regressive painful diseases but that's for another day.

thebullkf

listermint wrote: »

Serial abortioners.....



Is your post for real ?

no its imaginary. got anything constructive to add?