up for anything wrote: » Better compromises? Why should women be forced to compromise over control of their own bodies?
Ambient Occlusion wrote: » Surely though it's not an insurmountable journey to the North to get it done if one wants to? It's better than not having it all because the other side will never concede to allowing it. I'm anti-abortion myself (Dunno why that is TBH) however I have no problem with people getting it done over the border if they choose to do so. Simply if no mention of the legality is made of getting it done elsewhere then no one need worry. That's a close to a friendly compromise as I can see and if the Holy See has a problem with it, tough. In short the anti-abortionists get their nice pristine constitution that obeys himself in the sky and the pro-abortionists get what they want. But of course I'm ignoring a whole load of other complexities and variables aren't I?
Chucken wrote: » Here.Watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g46hlT_2804
Piste wrote: » Well that's all great and lovely and nothing to do with abortion.
Chucken wrote: » No, I'm not stirring ****. No one will give a ****, not here anyway, I was born at 24 weeks. I'm a person. Oh, By the way that was 48 years ago.
Wompa1 wrote: » I think the issue is more about the body that's inside them...I could be wrong though...I don't really care much about it because men don't have much of a say. The population of the planet is apparently spiraling out of control so there's a sliver lining. Morally though...
Abdul Abulbul Amir wrote: » Just to nitpick more for a moment, if you look at the population growth statistics, you'll see that the population explosion of the 20th century was mostly confined to Asia and that forecast growth is due in Africa, with the developed world flat or declining for the same period. Nothing to do with abortion, but it's always what comes to mind for me when someone suggests something like 'think global, act local' with regard to population growth. Unless you're a peasant farmer who's going to have 9 kids as an insurance policy for old age, you're not part of the problem.
Wompa1 wrote: » I did say apparently.
Chucken wrote: » You cant do Paragraphs?
Actor wrote: » Presumably Ivana Bacik be megaphoner in-chief?
up for anything wrote: » Morally speaking from your point of view.
Rigol wrote: » I think I'll go, the women there are supporters of abortion and by logic want the freedom of choice of abortion due to the fact that they have multiple brief intimate relationships with lots of different men If I go there I will have an increased chance of being chosen for such a brief exchange of bodily fluids which will give me the nice endorphin's. The gamble is whether the cost of the bus journey will be a poor investment. Ill schedule it in, although I may have to abort this plan.
philologos wrote: » Why post this in After Hours? Why assume that people who post here are automatically pro-choice-to-abort?
dr strangelove wrote: » Hey - i've got a crazy idea - why don't you legalise abortion, but....... and pay attention now...... if you don't want an abortion, don't have one! Or did i miss something?
kingtubby wrote: » Lets do that with cocaine as well
Demonique wrote: » There will be a March for Choice on September 29th at the Spire taking place at 2pm Is anyone going?
dr strangelove wrote: » And popcorn?
ruthloss wrote: » I am always amazed at the amount of men who are against Abortion. Let's face it, they will never have to make that agonizing dicision.
kraggy wrote: » But men should have the right to partake in the decision making. Just because the woman is carrying the baby, doesn't mean that she should have sole right to determine its future. If someone decided to abort my child without consulting me, I'd be afraid of what I'd do. The baby would be my flesh and blood too.
Abdul Abulbul Amir wrote: » That is a paragraph. It's three sentences long.Do you need it broken down into individual sentences?Like this?
