Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

Oh, to answer your query, Boombastic - I agree with abortions before 16 weeks. From 16-23 weeks, I can understand it in cases of rape, mental health issues, physical health issues. After that, I don't agree with it unless the mother is going to risk death by continuing the pregnancy.

After 23 weeks in the womb, a child can survive outside of it, perhaps with medical intervention. That's when it changes from a foetus to a child, for me personally.

ryan101 wrote: »

Killing another human life, making it younger doesn't exonerate that.
Killing people before, or after they are born, is barbaric.

Please explain how a ball of stem cells is killing human life?

So there's no difference between a baby at 38 weeks and an early foetus at 2 weeks? Seriously, these two are parallel when it comes to possessing the characteristics which define human life, or even life in general.

jill_valentine wrote: »

People don't like the word "parasitic" because it punctures the fantasy of pregnancy as this fabulous floaty, fluffy carebear loveliness - that happens to other people - before, lo and behold, a baby appears.

Would you pull the other one, Jill. The word is used by those with an agenda and well you know it.

Referring to the unborn young of humans as "parasites" means certain people in this age-old discussion can distance themselves from the reality of what an abortion actually is: the destruction / expulsion of a developing human fetus before birth.

Same with cluster of cells rubbish. Sure we're all a cluster of fcuking cells.

The argument is: -- should the unborn young of humans have rights and if so, at what stage.

I personally fail to see how an almost six month old developing human fetus has no rights in the womb, but move them to an incubator and they have as many as your or I.

This is not a question of semantics, and this is why I get hung up on it. What I absolutely object to is posters - and by 0% of a coincidence is it almost always male posters - romanticising this process beyond recognition in this context. If you are going to cast shade on any woman's decision to have an abortion, you do not get to massage the realities of the alternative into some blissful fairytale spa treat for the sake of convenience. People die doing this. People live with permanent changes to their bodies after undertaking it.

Women with so called "pro-life" beliefs have posted on this thread and many men share your feelings. Stop trying to turn this into a gender war. That's twice you have done that now. Is there a reason for it? As I asked another user: is this what you see the abortion debate as? Women trying to stop the man bastards from telling you what to do with "your" body?

If so, how sad.

steddyeddy wrote: »

My point is there is no scientific difference in termination at different stages. The difference is in opinion.

In science they hammer it into you to lose the emotive objectives, which is great for unbiased decision making, but they also teach you to use logic and have some cop on too.

In this case you'd need to mix the latter two to come to a rational and thought out conclusion that no, there's a difference involved in the situation you referred to.

green_screen wrote: »

For people who can't take the morning after pill, what about the coil being inserted up to 5 days after unprotected sex? Are pro-life people against this too?

I agree with the morning after pill, coil, in fact go nuts with the contraception and educate yourself about their effectiveness.

none are 100% why rely on one?

There are enough methods available, abortion should not be an option because you couldn't be bothered taking responsibility for your sexual health.

I know you were looking for a pro-life view, I'm more of an anti-i'll have an abortion because I feel like one, the baby doesn't suit me

Boombastic wrote: »

I agree with the morning after pill, coil, in fact go nuts with the contraception and educate yourself about their effectiveness.

none are 100% why rely on one?

There are enough methods available, abortion should not be an option because you couldn't be bothered taking responsibility for your sexual health.

I don't rely on one. I'm militant with taking my pill, I use condoms, and he pulls out (which obviously is not effective on its own!). I also have PCOS, so have a severely limited chance of conceiving anyway. If I am sick or have diahorrea at all after taking my pill, I won't have sex for a week.

If I get pregnant, c'mon, I've done everything I can to prevent it, bar not having sex, which is not a realistic option for people in adult relationships.

Do you want to know how much I'd hate to have a child? I would kill myself. That's not some hysterical, emotive rubbish, it's the truth. The reason for that statement - I've only recently got my mental health under control, after years of struggling. I would rather die than risk post natal depression, or not being able to take antidepressants for 9 months if I were to get pregnant.

So, if by some extremely bad luck, I do get pregnant, i will abort it. I'll feel awful about it, i know I would. But not as awful as I'd feel if my mental health took a decline.

I'm noticing that pro life people never mention what's best for the mother, it's all the completely retarded concept of brining up 38+ weeks. I find it difficult to believe they don't know what happens if the doctor thinks the 2 should be separated at that point.

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

How would people feel about 'the clump of cells' (I have no idea how to describe it) being raised in some sort of scientific way?

We don't have the technology now, but I wonder what both sides would think about abortion being illegal, but the fetus being removed and grown in some kind of lab environment?

If it was never considered to be my child, never given my name, never told I was the person who conceived it, i wouldn't mind.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I'm noticing that pro life people never mention what's best for the mother..

I'm noticing how pro choice people never mention what's best for the father or the unborn.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I'm noticing how pro choice people never mention what's best for the father or the unborn.

IKR - what selfish bitches we are! That time there was a pro-life march on O'Connell Street - hundreds of people joined in and I didn't give a fcuk what was best for them either. Bite me.

Boombastic wrote: »

having sex with a woman turns her in to an incubator and causes physical and mental damage

men :rolleyes:

Nope. Forcing her to continue with a pregnancy does.

steddyeddy wrote: »

My point is there is no scientific difference in termination at different stages. The difference is in opinion.

After a few weeks you need a pair of pliars to crush the childs skull up into little pieces, before you hoover them out.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Turning a woman into an incubator causing physical and mental damage? I don't see how that is any better.

I mention the father and you post that rubbish?

Grayson wrote: »

Despite everyone in this thread arguing that it is just a technical/descriptive term, people like you keep bring it up over and over again.

As I said: it's not being used as a "technical/descriptive term".

Read my post again. I point out precisely why.

Muise... wrote: »

IKR - what selfish bitches we are!

Muise, your attitude says it all.

Here you are in a debate and all you can do when someone makes a valid point is play to the gallery and imply that the person that made it, feels that women who have abortions as "selfish bitches". Classic deflection of course and saves you having to make a worthy retort. Perhaps you can't.

That time there was a pro-life march on O'Connell Street - hundreds of people joined in and I didn't give a fcuk what was best for them either. Bite me.

"Bite me"? Really? Grow up.