One eyed Jack wrote: » My argument is solely focused on the human rights of the woman who is pregnant, and solely focused on her human right to bodily autonomy. That right supersedes any perceived rights you would like to assign to an unborn life based upon time limits that you're comfortable with which suit your personal morality.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Then despite you saying that it is not "mere movement of spatial positioning" the fact is.... that it is very much exactly that. In fact straight away your position is a nonsense given how many births do not happen through the birth canal. Heard of C-Section have you not?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Anything can happen to it within the womb? So what? Anything can happen to me _right now_ and I still have rights. Anything can happen to the baby _just after_ birth but according to you it has rights. So no, declaring a baby has no rights right up to the moment just before birth, but then suddenly magically has them.... is as much nonsense as it is internally inconsistent.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » It appears to be born of absolutely nothing coherent except a very human desire to have a clear, intellectually easy, line in the sand to cling on to. And sheer comedy therefore comes from you presuming to describe the positions of others as "arbitrary". That is a very old pot calling a brand new stainless steel kettle black.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » No, you are pretending it is less complicated than it actually is by ignoring all that stuff in favor of simply having positions on the issue that you could fit into a fortune cookie. It is head in the sand stuff from you and little more.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Yes because, as I said, I am looking at the moral concerns of all parties concerned rather than simply sticking my head in the sand on one, in order to maintain a simplistic one size fits all solution for another.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » You are under a very erroneous illusion that "pro choice" means being pro any choice, anyone wants to make, in any case, any time. All choices have limitations. It is not one extreme or another.... full choice or no choice at all. That is a fantasy world you would be living in to espouse that. Your nonsense would be like me saying "I think you have the right to put your fist where you want... but of course not at speed into the face of another" and you replying saying "Ah you do not think they have the rights to do what they want with their fist _at all_ then because look at you with your terms and conditions".
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Choices have limitations, that does not mean one is against choice. I am 100% pro abortion choice when the fetus is at a stage where it simply does not have any moral concerns for us. It has no human rights.
Under European law, fetus is generally regarded as an in utero part of the mother and thus its rights are held by the mother. The European Court of Human Rights opined that the right to life does not extend to fetuses under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), although it does not confer on the European Court of Human Rights the authority to impose relevant laws on European Union member states. In H. v. Norway, the European Commission did not exclude that "in certain circumstances" the fetus may enjoy "a certain protection under Article 2, first sentence". Three European Union member states (Ireland, Hungary and Slovakia) grant fetus the constitutional right to life. The Constitution of Norway grants the unborn royal children the right of succession to the throne. In English common law, fetus is granted inheritance rights under the born alive rule.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » When it TOO has human rights however, then I am going to incorporate that into my discourse. Our choices as humans are always mediated by their impact on other moral beings other than ourselves.
Paramite Pie wrote: » Well the 'elephant in the womb' so to speak is that at some point we do have another developed human inside the woman so the idea that right to bodily autonomy is hers and hers alone falls apart in the advanced stage.
Paramite Pie wrote: » A late term abortion can be extremely invasive and has complications/risks comparable with that of a c-section. The 'arbitrary' 20wk or so line marks a period where the foetus can continue to develop outside a womb with a high chance of survival with medical intervention. Abortion is unnecessary at this point in time so if a pregnancy really is undesired at this point, then extraction of a living premature foetus is the only viable option that I could see.
The protocol, made up after extensive consultation between physicians, lawyers, parents and the Prosecution Office, offers procedures and guidelines to achieve the correct decision and performance. The final decision about "active ending of life on infants" is not in the hands of the physicians but with the parents, with physicians and social workers agreeing to it. Criteria are amongst others "unbearable suffering" and "expected quality of life". Only the parents can start the procedure. The procedure is reported to be working well. For the Dutch public prosecutor, the termination of a child's life (under age 12) is acceptable if 4 requirements were properly fulfilled: The presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering The consent of the parents to termination of life Medical consultation having taken place Careful execution of the termination Doctors who end the life of a baby must report the death to the local medical examiner, who in turn reports it to both the district attorney and to a review committee. The procedure differs in this respect from the black letter law governing voluntary euthanasia. There, the medical examiner sends the report only to the regional review committee, which alerts the district attorney only if it judges that the physician acted improperly.
Paramite Pie wrote: » Women clearly have a biological short straw imposed on them regarding pregnancy but there is no one to blame for that. It's an unfortunate fact of life -- and I don't think any right minded person would advocate a 35 or 39 week abortion of a healthy foetus just because the woman no longer desires the pregnancy.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Of course we should strive to make the procedure as painless as possible for all involved, but the rights of the woman carrying the unborn, must IMO, take precedence over that which is not yet born.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I can see another viable option, and that is that the foetus is euthanised in utero, similar to a concept in The Netherlands called the Groningen Protocol -
One eyed Jack wrote: » The argument over who is or isn't "right minded" is clouded in fuzzy logic, because that allows some people to claim that no "right minded" person should want to have an abortion in the first place. Again the question simply comes down to the choices an individual has a right to make for themselves with regard to their human right to self-determination and bodily integrity, over the perceived right to life of the foetus. The unborn IMO should have no right to life, because conferring that right on the unborn, immediately places an imposition on the choice of a person who actually has the right to determine the welfare of the unborn, and if that right is taken from them by the imposition of a set time period, I don't see that ending well for any of the parties concerned tbh.
A woman has spoken for the first time about the “five weeks of torture” she went through while waiting for her unborn baby to die because of Ireland’s abortion laws. Claire Cullen-Delsol, 31, a mother of two from Waterford city, had to wait over a month for her daughter’s heartbeat to stop naturally before she could end a pregnancy that had no medical chance of succeeding. Ms Cullen-Delsol and her husband, Wayne, have an eight-year-old daughter and a 20-month-old son. In August, twenty weeks into her pregnancy, she was told that Alex, her second daughter, would not survive because of a chromosome disorder. Abortion is illegal in Ireland except in extremely limited circumstances, which do not include fatal foetal abnormalities. “After they gave us the diagnoses, the doctors all said the best thing to do was end the pregnancy as soon as possible because there was no way she was going to survive,” Ms Cullen-Delsol said. “They said that if it wasn’t against the law, they would have done it for me in the morning.” Many women in the same situation travel to Liverpool Women’s Hospital for a termination. The hospital helps women transfer their medical files to Britain — something Irish doctors are legally forbidden from doing. Women who travel must arrange to bring coffins back on ferries, and sometimes the baby’s body is posted home. Ms Cullen-Delsol said that travelling for an abortion seemed too traumatic, so her only choice was to wait until the baby died. “During those five weeks I could still feel her moving inside me, and every week the movement would get less and less — she was dying inside me,” she said. “Sometimes when I couldn’t feel her moving I would drink something cold and then something hot, and then I might try loud music, and then I might jump around to see if she’d move, just to be sure. “I would wake up every day and say, ‘Is it going to be today? Is today going to be the day she dies?’ ” Had Alex been able to survive the pregnancy, she would have been born this Christmas. “After we found out, I went to the butcher’s the next day and there was a sign up saying ‘17 weeks until Christmas’. That was the last day I was able to be normal. I stayed indoors and avoided everyone while I was waiting for this nightmare to end,” she said. “There were times when I’d have to leave the house to go shopping, because the kids needed to eat, and I might see a mother with a baby and just have to abandon the trolley and go home. It was absolute torture. There were days when I would have to call people for help. My daughter started begging her dad not to go to work, because she could hear me crying after he left. She added: “One night I woke up, and there was a complete stillness unlike anything I could describe. There was no movement. I knew she was gone. “I left it for as long as possible before I told my daughter, I wanted her to just have a little bit more of a normal life. She was running around and playing with her little brother, and actually I took a picture of her because I wanted to remember how happy she was before she found out about what happened her sister.” Ms Cullen-Delsol was induced at a hospital in Waterford in September and had to deliver Alex as a stillbirth. “During the delivery, I got really hysterical. I just kept saying, ‘I can’t do this, how am I supposed to do this?’ “When she was born, everything was so still. There was no crying, or cheering, or people saying well done. She was my daughter and she was perfect, but you could see she never stood a chance. I just kept staring at her, wishing she’d start crying.” Alex was cremated on September 30. “We have her ashes in an urn tucked inside a special teddy bear called a memory bear. So I can still sort of hold her and cuddle her when my arms feel really empty,” Ms Cullen-Delsol said.
Paramite Pie wrote: » Why should it take precedence? Unless her life is at risk (or the unborn), I see no reason for the termination of a viable late term pregancy. With many things in life there is a point of no return -- and a developed human offspring shouldn't be subjected to the whims of it's bearer.
Carrying a later term pregancy for the remaining term is a temporary infraction compared to a permanent extermination of a human. A euthanised foetus will still need to be removed, being too large for traditional abortion style extraction. A forced c-section/still birth would be the unfortunate outcome. Any woman who's foetus dies (or is brain-dead) in utero have to undergo a c-section or induced birth.
The foetus won't decay in utero. Killing it doesn't make it easier to extract, it's not just the head that's too large at this stage, all of it is. So the requirement of a birth whether alive or dead negates your claim of bodily autonomy in the first place. May as well remove it alive.
The Protocol clearly mentions the need for 'hopeless and unbearable suffering' -- I believed us to be discussing a 'change of mind' regarding a viable healthy foetus. It also draws an arbitrary line at the age of 12 for the Protocol, something all laws regarding minors must do at some point. In what manner would there be 'hopeless and unbearable' suffering in said scenario?? The woman birthing a euthanised full term baby is surely 'unbearable' -- she's been spared nothing physiologically by taking that route.
This is bigger than us though so arguing our respective opinions is ultimately futile. Unborn is such a broad term and eventually the only difference between full term born/unborn is where it's at. There's no biological difference in 'awareness' that could form a legal argument for the simplistic idea that a full term foetus is somehow different in utero. You say they have a right for the welfare of the unborn, I say they have a responsibility for the unborn.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » We have seen on this very thread at least one user who has no "problem" with that. Well he expressed a discomfort with it, but does not let that get in the way of his ideal to allow just that.
Being a responsible parent means putting the welfare of your offspring first -- it's our biological impulse/nature.
Should a woman be allowed to change her mind mid-pregnancy? An hour before her c-section? Before the head is out?? Where do you personally draw the line in an eleventh hour abortion then? I'm genuinely curious.
Also simply being alive and growing up would be considered as 'ending well' for the child, surely??
Dick phelan wrote: » I really wouldn't know what way to vote on an abortion ref, on the one hand in certain cases i find it hard to justify not allowing a women get an abortion, on the other hand i'm uneasy about late term abortions, i mean at 20 + weeks to me it's very hard to argue that it's just a group of cells. TBH i'd probably vote for abortion under specific circumstances but wouldn't want to see abortion on demand.
S.O wrote: » One woman,s story.http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/irishnews/article4624048.ece?shareToken=a12cc4ea8d10e8c5dc6492d460acf6b0 Would anyone seriously argue against abortion being legal and allowed in hard cases such as Claire,s ?
I was walking around with my baby growing inside me knowing she could die at any moment’ Arlette Lyons writes about her experience of having to travel to Liverpool to have a termination when she found out her baby had no chance of survival.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Because the continued development of the unborn is contingent upon the woman carrying the unborn, in her body. That's why the woman's welfare should take precedence over the welfare of the unborn. Granted, you personally may see no reason for the termination of a viable late term pregnancy, but I've already given the reason, many times now - the woman in question does not want to continue her pregnancy, does not want to give birth, and seeks an abortion with the result that terminating her pregnancy will inevitably result in the death of the unborn. A developing human life (not yet an offspring as it is still attached and insulated by the woman's body) is subject to the whims of the woman whether you agree with it or not, and that's an inescapable biological fact. If a woman chooses to take her own life, then by extension, the developing unborn life within her also dies. The continued existence and development of the unborn, is predicated upon the continued existence of the woman in question carrying the unborn within her uterus.
One eyed Jack wrote: » A born human being as a result of ignoring the woman's will, is quite a bit more than a temporary infraction, considering the average life span of a human being once it's born is about 70 years. The outcome you describe above, whether it's fortunate or unfortunate, depends entirely upon whom you ask, and if a person is seeking a late term abortion, the chances are that the outcome you describe above for them, would be a more fortunate outcome than the alternative, which is giving birth to a human being they never wanted and bringing that human being into the world.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Why at all may you be as well to remove it alive, when the woman does not want it to be removed alive? She does not want it, and if you force her to give birth to a child she does not want, that will have a detrimental effect upon her mental health which will make her recovery that much more difficult. This isn't the kind of stuff we can flip a coin over, we must also ackowledge the emotional and mental health of the woman in question, and provide sufficient supports and aftercare which supports her in her decisions, not the decisions we make for her.
One eyed Jack wrote: » She's been spared nothing physiologically, but have you given any thought to her emotional and mental well being? Of course giving birth to a full term baby may be unbearable, but one of the reasons for what may make it unbearable is that the woman was forced to give birth to a human being against her will, and is now forced to live with the consequences of a decision that was made for her by someone else. What you have done certainly ties in with your argument that the right to life of the unborn, takes precedence over the human rights of the woman who has now become a mother against her will. That's quite likely to cause her hopeless and unbearable suffering which offers her no respect nor dignity, and now you've brought a child into the world who has been rejected by their own mother. They're off to a great start in life already.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I don't think at all this discussion is ultimately futile, it's one that needs to be had, because discussion of the issue is one of the ways in which the social stigma surrounding abortion in society becomes more socially acceptable to talk about, which is a good thing IMO, as it makes it easier for women to open up and discuss their experiences, and it makes it easier for women who find themselves in a situation where they are experiencing a crisis pregnancy to seek out support and early intervention at the earliest point, rather than delaying because they cannot come to terms with the idea of an abortion. The cognitive dissonance presented by their morality, in my experience at least, is the greatest barrier to women seeking an abortion. Nozz was right earlier when he said -
One eyed Jack wrote: » Of course I have a problem with abortion, as an abstract concept. I wish it wasn't necessary. I wish there were advances made in medical science that would eliminate the need for women to undergo abortions and for the unborn life to be terminated in the process. But, it's the best we have at the moment, and I do hope that in the future that will change. Of course the idea of abortion makes me uncomfortable, but I am even more uncomfortable with the idea of forcing a woman to give birth against her will and bring an unwanted child into the world. Of course it's easy for me to leave my personal morality aside in comparison to the woman who cannot afford to leave her personal morality aside when faced with the decision to terminate her pregnancy by procuring an abortion. I would consider it immoral and unethical to make that decision any more difficult for her.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I agree with that, generally speaking (I'm not going to get philosophical about it whether it is indeed a biological impulse or in our nature, I know what you mean), which is why if a woman does not want to become a responsible parent who puts her offspring first, she should not be forced to do so, by anyone.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I don't draw the line, because the only person who can truly answer that question with any certainty, is the woman who is faced with that decision. What I mean by that is that the question isn't whether a woman should or shouldn't be allowed do anything, when the fact is that she already can, at least while the unborn is still inside her uterus and she has full autonomy and control over whether she chooses to give birth or not.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Not necessarily, but that would be a question you would have to inquire of the individual themselves, and it would be based upon an almost infinite number of factors. The fact that they may be aware they were unwanted by their own biological parent could be quite influential on their mental and emotional well being. It's one of those questions that's impossible to know with any degree of certainty, but what of their mother? Have you given any thought to her long term emotional and mental well being?
Paramite Pie wrote: » If a woman takes her own life, the unborn could be saved hypothetically. A newborn will also die with no-one to feed it, that's not exclusive to pregnancy (only the cause of death would be suffocation not starvation in the former).
Paramite Pie wrote: » I find your reason of 'just because she wants to terminate at full-term' unsatisfying (although by now you've surely figured that out yourself). A woman can give birth without becoming a mother, although a societal stigma certainly exists.
Paramite Pie wrote: » A woman should never be forced to keep a child and the child could be put up for adoption. It may be difficult to know that you have a child out there somewhere in the world but saying that inducing a euthanised stillbirth is a better outcome is --- i actually don't have the words.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I doubt it. If you were campaigning for abortion in Ireland you would have to be clear exactly what you are campaigning for. And one of the first questions that is always asked when you want to campaign or debate for full choice abortion is about where the cut offs would lie. And I have my answers to that question ready. If you do not, then that's you not me.
Paramite Pie wrote: » Personally I believe that if the foetus has a chance of survival outside of the womb then that should be the benchmark for establishing a boundary on abortion. Your first paragraph uses the argument that it cannot survive without the mother, we both know our technology is changing that.
Paramite Pie wrote: » If an independent organism can survive without biological support from the 'mother', her desire for it to be alive or dead post removal is irrelevant, why kill something that can survive outside her body simply because she no longer wants it inside her body?
Mr Justice Horner commented that the European Court of Human Rights has shied away from determining when human life begins and has concluded that it is a matter for each Member State to determine within that State’s margin of appreciation. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland has interpreted the right to life as commencing at the moment of conception whereas in England and Wales the common law position is that a foetus is not a legal person until it is born and has a separate existence from its mother. Mr Justice Horner held that there are no grounds for concluding that the common law in Northern Ireland is any different to that in England and Wales: “While the foetus does not have a right to life under Article 2 of the Convention in Northern Ireland, pre-natal life here is given protection under certain statutes” (a reference to the Coroners Act (NI) 1959 which requires a coroner to hold an inquest into a foetus which was “capable of being born alive”).
Paramite Pie wrote: » It's like saying someone on life-support should be euthanised because their family no longer wishes to keep them on life support even though they may survive if unplugged.
Paramite Pie wrote: » The right to merely live would certainly trump someone else's mental health in this case (although mental health could go either way -- many women have complained that they could see the aborted foetus which traumatised them), knowing a removed foetus may live/die in an incubator -which is completely out of their hands - is surely less likely to cause trauma anyways??
Paramite Pie wrote: » Mental Health (or damage done to it) is absolutely impossible to quantify -- and i'm aware you know that -- and i'm sure we can agree that a full term abortion is likely to be a rare request. However I think right to life itself does take precedence to someone else's mental health (in this scenario). The termination of a life has an easily quantifiable damage even if the terminated is oblivious.
Paramite Pie wrote: » The 'mother' who is upset that her developed foetus was born should realise that the foetus is an individual independently capable of survival therefore not merely 'hers' but also a separate patient that medical staff are responsible for.
Paramite Pie wrote: » Medical Staff turn off life support for adults all the time when they can't be saved but must help those who can be saved. Abortion should be no different.
Paramite Pie wrote: » My response to that is that we could also tackle the stigma of not choosing to keep your newborn -- but yes women should not feel guilty about abortion (within medically defined limits). But some humans feel guilty for swatting a fly even when society places no value on the fly. But yes, early intervention is key and delayed action can only compound the guilt.
Paramite Pie wrote: » We all must draw a line and harden our hearts sooner or later -- whether for the woman or the foetus. The decision is no longer solely about the woman when the foetus can be extracted. Additionally someone out there may want that child. (and don't worry, we all know that no-one really wants abortion but we acknowledge it's required existence)
Paramite Pie wrote: » See above re: adoption. Is it a satisfactory answer? No, it's not. I honestly do sympathise with any woman in this position -- we don't know the multitude of reason why she may opt for an abortion at full-term but if you ask me -- in that case the psychological damage is likely done if she carried it thus far out of guilt or other trauma (perhaps denial etc..).
Paramite Pie wrote: » I addressed this above regarding the medical team being responsible for two -- not just one. Pregnancy is also somewhat of an involuntary process much like our heartbeat or digestion -- our bodies do it without our input. She really doesn't have full control and requires external medical attention to assert that control.
A YOUNG woman, who was refused an abortion under the country’s new laws, had the baby delivered by Caesarean section after going on hunger strike. The woman was in the second trimester of the pregnancy when she discovered she was pregnant and requested the abortion, which was refused. In what is believed to be one of the first cases under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013, the woman sought an abortion as she claimed to be suicidal. Her case was assessed by a panel of three experts, as set out under the legislation passed last summer. The psychiatrists on the panel determined her life was at risk as she had suicidal thoughts. But the consultant obstetrician said the baby could be delivered as it was far enough into the pregnancy. The panel decided the baby should be delivered. The child was born at 25 weeks and is understood to be doing well.
Paramite Pie wrote: » Yes, I have. It wasn't clear from my other posts I admit. Speaking of certainty -- we can't say whether euthanising and still birthing a developed foetus would cause less distress than live birthing it -- but I'd confidently wager it's the other way around. At a late stage, an abortion is not only cruel to an oblivious and largely developed foetus, it's probably more likely to trigger guilt.
Paramite Pie wrote: » I can't believe that as a pro-choicer that I'm about to use the 'M-word' in an abortion debate -- but if a late-term foetus can survive outside the womb then aborting it is murder.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Long abortions on demand post
thee glitz wrote: » Why stop there though... Why not completely unravel all social structures and do whatever the feck we want? An If I can justify my actions to myself, I dont need to explain them to anyone country. No accountability for me tyvm. We need laws to protect us from the selfish and stupid.
seamus wrote: » It worked for the marriage equality amendment - the text itself was beyond ambiguity, there was no wiggle room in it for the fearmongerers to claim it would lead to anything except marriage equality. The straight repeal won't work. It will have to be replaced with an amendment that addresses the big issues, without leaving gaps for people to spin nonsense "what-if" scenarios where women use abortion as contraception. Most likely any proposed amendment will be written in such a way that it won't be possible to abort after 18 or 20 weeks unless the child has a fatal foetal abnormality, and even then to require sign off from more than one doctor to confirm that the child's chance of survival outside of the womb is non-existent. How you frame that in a constitution is something else entirely. If this were a rational debate, you would remove it from the constitution and put it entirely in law, but it's not a rational debate.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » So no I am not "offended" by your claims and statistics at all. They support strongly what I am saying. And as I said I think the moral arguments of abortion can be pushed up to 24 weeks and even more, but unnecessarily so seeing as 12-14 weeks would be enough.
RDM_83 again wrote: » So tell me why, as a person that will likely vote for a repeal but is concerned about a legal based solution being subject to abuse and change in application why its so irrational when I can point to the above for a country that has a very similar legal system.
inocybe wrote: » A referendum - but you have to have ovaries to get a vote.
zeffabelli wrote: » I don't get the term limit argument. Amnio can't be done until the 18th week if the pregnancy. This is really important for women over 35. By the time you get the results, make a decision, travel arrangements, and assume uncomplicated .... though this is far riskier for older women who are also at higher risk for carrying Down's syndrome... Are people seriously suggesting forcing older women, like 45 who may have several birthd or sections behind them, to give birth and put a Down syndrome child up for adoption? Are couples lining up to adopt Down syndrome children? I don't think so. Abortion laws are cruel in Ireland. I'd be terrified to be pregnant here because of how it influences medical and maternity protocols.
PucaMama wrote: » Maybe we could stop considering Down syndrome a reason to kill off these children?
Sleepy wrote: » I wonder will Iona have convinced enough moderates that they're an unbelievably backward, moronic institution during the marriage equality campaign that they'll actually harm the anti-abortion campaign in any referendum?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Because I'm not arguing for anything else in the current discussion which is solely concerned with abortion laws? We're not saving any lives with the current situation regarding abortion in Ireland, we're just turning our backs on the issue and pretending it doesn't exist.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Have you seen the lack of support structures in place in this country for people with intellectual disabilities? The support structures for parents of children with intellectual disabilities are practically non-existent, and the State isn't offering anything in the way of relief either while constantly making cutbacks to what little supports they do provide! It's the State are placing people in an impossible situation where they have to choose between bringing a child with intellectual disabilities info the world where there is little or no support available for them, or travel abroad for a late term abortion because the support structures for abortion don't exist in this country either!
PucaMama wrote: » Down syndrome isn't going to kill the child straight after birth. And it's not a danger to the mothers health. An intellectual disability is in no way a good reason for abortion. Far far too many babies with disabilities targeted for abortion. And no one sees any wrong in it?
thee glitz wrote: » Is that not hyprocritical... do you not think allowing pregnant women to kill their unborn children, as it takes their fancy, is high-level liberal?
Free for all abortion access wont save lives either. In fact, many would probably be lost.
If someone skirts our abortion laws and heads over to England, that's their own business. I couldn't care less how they got on.
The real problem is the lack of education and morals leading people to seek abortions in the first place. And these pinko-lefty times we live in.
