Do you think a referendum on abortion would be passed?(not how you'd vote)

lazygal wrote: »

Why? What would women who can't afford to pay do?

Get their fella to wrap it up and be aware of the risk of pregnancy.

It's like buying a car and hoping it doesn't break down. You need to be aware of the maintenance cost if you get a flat tyre or something.

ProfessorPlum

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

You really are talking nonsense now. I have very clearly stated I am against abortion because killing an unborn child is wrong, being wrong is the reason.

If I said killing a toddler is wrong you would be perfectly happy with that reason but because it doesn't suit your agenda the pro-abortion crew have somehow managed to compartmentalise their brain into thinking a living baby growing inside its mother is not actually a life and not entitled to life and that the abhorrent and disgusting act of abortion is ok.

People have explained to you in great detail why killing a toddler is wrong, so no, it's not just accepted as so without reasoning. I suggest you read the poster you quoted again.

Even my (born) children are able to make a better argument for their opinions than 'it's wrong just because I say so'

roadrunner16

RayM wrote: »

I have no respect for the argument that abortion should be legal in the case of rape or incest. You either believe a woman should have autonomy over her own body or you don't. If a person thinks abortion is acceptable in the case of rape or incest, then it logically follows that they think abortion is actually acceptable. Those people are massive hypocrites and their biggest problem is with women, not with abortion.

probably going to be lambasted on this one, but my views are exactly what you described, I don't think that abortion should be legal and unrestricted, I do believe that abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest, ( also in cases where the pregnancy would case a risk to the mother be it mental or physical. ) but I don't believe it should be unrestricted, if two people made a conscious decision to have sex then they both should be made to live with the consequences. If a man decided after sex that he didn't want to care for a child he had conceived, he can be held responsible for payments by the courts, until the child is 18 he must care and provide for it, I understand that 9 months of pregnancy are not the same as 18 years of financial support but I believe that if two people make a decision to have sex then they should both be held to that decision........*backs away slowly....

beach_walker

lazygal wrote: »

How far should the state go to ensure all pregnancies in Ireland continue without interruption by the abhorrent and disgusting act of abortion?

I imagine it should work like we do with suicide. Not a legal act in Ireland, but obviously not punished by prison or the legal system. Rather we recognise that the person in that situation is in need of help/counselling/is generally in a rough spot, and moreso the state should be doing its upmost to provide the resources/education/supports to avoid the situation.

volchitsa

Martypants1 wrote: »

Get their fella to wrap it up and be aware of the risk of pregnancy.

That wouldn't be much use if the person is already pregnant, which was the scenario being discussed.

Martypants1 wrote: »

It's like buying a car and hoping it doesn't break down. You need to be aware of the maintenance cost if you get a flat tyre or something.

Or like smoking and getting lung cancer, eh? The doc will tell you you should have been aware of the risks and you can just stump up the costs or go home and put up with it. Right? Eh, wrong.

"You made your bed" doesn't make a great healthcare system. Obese people being refused treatment for their type 2 diabetes - you'd be ok with that too are you? Or is it only pregnant women who have to suck it up in your world?

Rather than "lambast" you I think I will simply ask you two questions......

roadrunner16 wrote: »

probably going to be lambasted on this one, but my views are exactly what you described, I don't think that abortion should be legal and unrestricted, I do believe that abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest

I wonder what the arguments against abortion you have are then that are actually invalidated by rape and things like that.

Because ALL the arguments I hear people TRY and make against abortion are predicated on the fetus having a "Right to Life". And if YOUR arguments are thus based (I will not assume they are until you lay them out) then I would be interested to hear why that right to life is invalidated by a crime perpetrated NOT by the fetus on something who also is NOT the fetus.

I am struggling to think of other examples where the rights of X are invalidated by a crime perpetrated by Y on Z, let alone the right to life of X.

This is why as a pro-choice campaigner I never turn to arguments related to rape or abuse or incest. I feel the fetus either has a right to life.... or it does not. It can not be both.

roadrunner16 wrote: »

if two people made a conscious decision to have sex then they both should be made to live with the consequences.

I am also struggling to think of other examples of that in the real world that are even remotely analogous. There are not many other areas where we restrict, let alone remove, peoples rights to medical intervention because they "brought it on themselves" kind of thinking.

For example have you ever heard anyone say "They have no right to stitches for their cuts or treatment of their broken bones because they made the conscious decision to play football and they should live with the consequences"?

The closest example, but not really analogous at all, that I can think of is where we restrict, or at least do not prioritize, people for medical transplants who require such transplants due to, say, long term abuse of substances like alcohol or other drugs.

But examples of "They got themselves into it, therefore they should live with the consequences" are quite thin on the ground so why should abortion be one of them?

Martypants1 wrote: »

I am sure though the rights of the woman trumps all the mens rights because she is carrying the baby despite needing the man to make the baby in the first place.

I would wonder why being required as part of a process gives you automatic rights in that process though. I think to argue men's rights on the issue, you would have to do so on more than just their part IN the process.

Plus how far do those rights go. Usually when men's rights are brought up in the discussion it is generally in the area of whether they should be allowed veto the woman's right to choose an abortion. But if you are going to give them rights in the decision why not the other way too? Why can the woman say NO to an abortion if the man is demanding she have one?

It would be interesting to see how one might argue for one right but not the other. Thankfully not my problem as I do not argue for either

jeamimus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would be happy with it because I already KNOW the arguments for why we think killing a toddler is wrong. The problem is I do NOT KNOW the argument for why the destruction of a 16 week old fetus is wrong. That has nothing to do with "agendas". See the difference now?

You cannot put use logic against religious or irrational beliefs. This is why such discussions are always futile.

jeamimus wrote: »

You cannot put use logic against religious or irrational beliefs. This is why such discussions are always futile.

I am a little more optimistic than that. Perhaps it is futile in terms of the discussion with the person in question. But I think that discussion is useful in a wider context.

Take the SSM referendum for example. One of the best things we did was discuss it with people who's minds could not be changed. Why? Because simply keeping those people talking was more damaging to the "no" campaign than anything the "yes" campaign actually promoted.

I suspect it will be the same with an abortion referendum. Keep the anti side talking, highlight how they are simply asserting their position and positively and demonstrably floundering when asked for the basis behind it, and let them hang themselves.

Take this for example:

Alora Breezy Newspaperman wrote: »

I've stated my position numerous times I'm not doing it again.

No one has actually asked him to state his position again. They are asking him repeatedly to state his BASIS for that position. And demonstrably all he can do is either re-state the position itself.... or declare he will not be doing so.

And if an actual referendum comes to pass and his rhetoric is repeated en masse by the entire "no" side..... then much like the SSM referendum the "No" side will not just lose it.... so much as win it FOR us.

And that is not futile at all

volchitsa wrote: »

That wouldn't be much use if the person is already pregnant, which was the scenario being discussed.

Or like smoking and getting lung cancer, eh? The doc will tell you you should have been aware of the risks and you can just stump up the costs or go home and put up with it. Right? Eh, wrong.

"You made your bed" doesn't make a great healthcare system. Obese people being refused treatment for their type 2 diabetes - you'd be ok with that too are you? Or is it only pregnant women who have to suck it up in your world?

You don't just get diabetes through bad health choices.

Type 2 diabetes develops when the body becomes resistant to insulin or when the pancreas stops producing enough insulin. Exactly why this happens is unknown, although genetics and environmental factors, such as excess weight and inactivity, seem to be contributing factors.

So it seems to me that it's not just fat people that get it. Hardly fair to penalise people for having their body let them down, rather than any decision they've taken.

And it was my understanding that Cancer patients get funding from ICS, which is a charity.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would wonder why being required as part of a process gives you automatic rights in that process though. I think to argue men's rights on the issue, you would have to do so on more than just their part IN the process.

Plus how far do those rights go. Usually when men's rights are brought up in the discussion it is generally in the area of whether they should be allowed veto the woman's right to choose an abortion. But if you are going to give them rights in the decision why not the other way too? Why can the woman say NO to an abortion if the man is demanding she have one?

It would be interesting to see how one might argue for one right but not the other. Thankfully not my problem as I do not argue for either

Well that's it exactly. So many unanswered questions need to have an answer before it goes to a referendum.

Why does carrying the baby give someone the right over someone elses future child? The babies DNA is 50% the fathers.

If you just wipe the consitution clean then you'll get cases like men wanting the abortion, the woman doesn't or the woman goes and gets an abortion after 6 months without the man knowing or giving consent.

If it's just a womans rights we're looking at and their feelings then men shouldn't be allowed to vote in the referendum.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am also struggling to think of other examples of that in the real world that are even remotely analogous. There are not many other areas where we restrict, let alone remove, peoples rights to medical intervention because they "brought it on themselves" kind of thinking.

For example have you ever heard anyone say "They have no right to stitches for their cuts or treatment of their broken bones because they made the conscious decision to play football and they should live with the consequences"?

The closest example, but not really analogous at all, that I can think of is where we restrict, or at least do not prioritize, people for medical transplants who require such transplants due to, say, long term abuse of substances like alcohol or other drugs.

But examples of "They got themselves into it, therefore they should live with the consequences" are quite thin on the ground so why should abortion be one of them?

Why does it need an analogy? There doesn't need to be something to compare with or to have an analogy with. You are ending a life when you have an abortion, it's comical to see you try compare it to someone being told to deal with a cut. Also I might add people are often told to deal with certain medical conditions without much help, then again pregnancy is not a medical condition so it's pointless comparing it with one.

If people have sex they need to understand that there is always a risk of pregnancy and if it happenens they have to be willing to have the child, if they aren't then they should either get sterilised or don't have sex. Abortion is not a solution.

Martypants1 wrote: »

I find it annoying that only women are being considered here.

So if a man and a woman decide to have a baby and the woman gets pregnant. She then decides she doesn't want one, so she gets to take the mans chance of fatherhood away from him after partaking in the act of baby making? Baby making needs a man and a woman so the rights of the man should need to be considered. I am sure though the rights of the woman trumps all the mens rights because she is carrying the baby despite needing the man to make the baby in the first place.

Women take the risk, they get the choice.

A man risks what? His feelings?

Let's play out your scenario. A man gets to choose that a woman cannot abort his child, despite her misgivings. She's compelled by law to bring it to term. She dies in childbirth.

Doesn't this mean the man is legally responsible for her death and the death of the foetus?

Are you happy to agree that this man should get to make the choice , but must then take responsibility for it and face manslaughter charges? After all, a woman risks her life, the man should at least risk his freedom.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Women take the risk, they get the choice.

A man risks what? His feelings?

Let's play out your scenario. A man gets to choose that a woman cannot abort his child, despite her misgivings. She's compelled by law to bring it to term. She dies in childbirth.

Doesn't this mean the man is legally responsible for her death and the death of the foetus?

Are you happy to agree that this man should get to make the choice , but must then take responsibility for it and face manslaughter charges? After all, a woman risks her life, the man should at least risk his freedom.

If you look at the first post in this thread you'll see people want full decision making for the woman in all cases.

I'm all for abortion in cases like rape, fatal foetul, womans health is at risk.

And I am all for abortion if a woman and a man have a baby and decide they want to abort.

If a man wants to abort and the woman wants to keep it, should the man be forced to pay child support? If so, why?

Martypants1 wrote: »

Well that's it exactly. So many unanswered questions need to have an answer before it goes to a referendum.

Alas many such questions do not get asked, let alone answered, until an actual refendum is set into the calendar.

Martypants1 wrote: »

Why does carrying the baby give someone the right over someone elses future child? The babies DNA is 50% the fathers.

I guess my position would be that it is not a child yet, and "future child" is a hypothetical entity, and I would mediate rights and morality based on what is, not what may be, where possible or sensible. I am not really seeing anything, aside from maybe emotional reasons, to think mere DNA gives a man a right to either force someone to incubate it for him, or force them not to.

But as I said, not my argument or debate, so not my problem. Thankfully. I do try to avoid like a plague all Men V Women issues.

Martypants1 wrote: »

If it's just a womans rights we're looking at and their feelings then men shouldn't be allowed to vote in the referendum.

I would not say that at all. Straight people were allowed vote on gay marriage. I am allowed donate to, and work for, childrens and womens and homelss charities. I am neither a child or a woman or homeless.

Suffice to say the list of things I am allowed vote on in society, despite having no standing or horse in the race, is massive. I see no reason why this issue should suddenly be an exception.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Why does it need an analogy? There doesn't need to be something to compare with or to have an analogy with.

I do not recall saying there NEEDS to be an analogy so I somewhat suspect you have contrived to dodge my posts TO you, by responding to something I never actually said in a post that was NOT directed at you.

Analogy and precedent are useful however. That is NOT to say one is required or demanded. But it would be a useful precedent to explore, especially in the light of the question "If we do not do X anywhere else then why should abortion be the one exemption from that trend?"

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

You are ending a life when you have an abortion, it's comical to see you try compare it to someone being told to deal with a cut.

You missed the point of the analogy then because that is not actually a comparison I am making, and once again you have dodged posts and questions directed at you by attacking a position I have not actually espoused in any way.

The point of the analogy is that we do not generally restrict medical intervention for people who brought their condition on themselves by consciously pursuing something that caused it. So once again if we want to make abortion the exception here, the onus is on people like yourself to explain why. Because I am genuinely not seeing it.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

If people have sex they need to understand that there is always a risk of pregnancy and if it happenens they have to be willing to have the child

Once again I am merely forced to ask you "why" because once again you have merely restated the exact same position, albeit with slightly different wording, while not actually explaining in even the smallest fashion what the basis for that position actually is.

Short of exploring just how many different ways you can make the same assertion using different sentence structures, it is not clear you actually have a point to make here. And last time I checked this was a discussion forum not a soap box and I merely wonder if a blog, rather than a forum, would be a more conducive format to your views and your approach to espousing them.

Martypants1 wrote: »

If you look at the first post in this thread you'll see people want full decision making for the woman in all cases.

I'm all for abortion in cases like rape, fatal foetul, womans health is at risk.

And I am all for abortion if a woman and a man have a baby and decide they want to abort.

That doesn't really answer my question. Women can and do die in childbirth even when a determination of a clear risk has not been made, and they also suffer injuries and side effects as a result of perfectly health childbrith. If, when rape, fetal abnormality and an obvious risk are not identified, a woman has been legally compelled to give birth by the decision of her partner, is he legally responsible for the consequences or not?

If not, then what is the disincentive for him to downplay the risk to his partner, given that she has already expressed her wish to terminate and he has disregarded it?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No one has actually asked nox to state his position again. They are asking him repeatedly to state his BASIS for that position. And demonstrably all he can do is either re-state the position itself.... or declare he will not be doing so.

And if an actual referendum comes to pass and the rhetoric of Alora Breezy Newspaperman is repeated en masse by the entire "no" side..... then much like the SSM referendum the "No" side will not just lose it.... so much as win it FOR us.

And that is not futile at all

I have stated the basis for my position numerous times you are basically trolling me with your constant asking for "BASIS". I see killing an unborn baby as being the same as a born one can you not get that into your head. Saying its wrong and you disagree with the killing of an unborn child is a vaild reason in itself I have no idea why you keep talking absolute gutter about it not being a valid opinion.

Also while I acknowledge any referendum would be very close you are being very foolish in thinking it will be anything like the pantomime that was the SSM referendum. People talk about that like it was a massive majority it was only passed 60/40, that's 40% of people in the country who voted were against it. Abostion will be a much more contentious issue and you will have more people voting against it than the SSM. You will also have less of the bandwagoners coming back to Ireland voting and more people here turning up who couldn't give a damn about the SSM (I didn't vote, wasn't worth the petrol money to drive back home, but you can be damn sure I'll vote in any referendum on abortion).

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

I have stated the basis for my position numerous times you are basically trolling me with your constant asking for "BASIS".

Except you have done no such thing. You have restated the position numerous times. Mere assertion. You have not once offered a basis for it. Observe you do it here again straight away............

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

I see killing an unborn baby as being the same as a born one can you not get that into your head.

............ that is simply the same position asserted again. I still do not know WHY you think that way. You do because you just do. It simply does not answer even a little bit the question of why destroying a 16 week old fetus is equivalent to murdering the child in your arms.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

I have no idea why you keep talking absolute gutter about it not being a valid opinion.

Maybe because I never once said that? I can understand why you would be confused by trying to understand me saying something I never actually said.

I am aware what your opinion is. I never once said it was an invalid one. I am simply saying I see no basis for it and, despite my asking for it, you appear entirely intent on not offering one. Choosing instead to throw out words like "nonsense" and "trolling" and "gutter" to hide behind.

If you do not want to answer the question that is fine, no one is here to force or cajole you into doing so. Just say that. But I do not intend to have you not answer the question by pretending you actually have. That is neither helpful, or honest, and you will not fool anyone except possibly yourself in doing so.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Also while I acknowledge any referendum would be very close you are being very foolish in thinking it will be anything like the pantomime that was the SSM referendum.

All I said is that IF... the "if" being important here..... those against abortion act like you are here..... shrilly declaring themselves against it but not actually coherently explaining why...... then they RISK not just losing it but winning it FOR the other side.

Any other comparisons between it and the SSM referendum I am simply not making. Just that one. And it is a sound one.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except you have done no such thing. You have restated the position numerous times. Mere assertion. You have not once offered a basis for it. Observe you do it here again straight away............

............ that is simply the same position asserted again. I still do not know WHY you think that way. You do because you just do. It simply does not answer even a little bit the question of why destroying a 16 week old fetus is equivalent to murdering the child in your arms.
.

I have no idea what answers you want because as far as I'm concerned I have answered your question the reasons I've given are my reasons I don't have any other answer to give. The WHY is because you are ending a life by having an abortion at 16 weeks, why is that not a reason, why does it need any more backing up?

You are being totally unreasonable imo in not accepting the reasons I gave as being the actual reasons and it is in fact your constant digging and not accepting answers given that will help the no side not my answers helping the yes side.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That doesn't really answer my question. Women can and do die in childbirth even when a determination of a clear risk has not been made, and they also suffer injuries and side effects as a result of perfectly health childbrith. If, when rape, fetal abnormality and an obvious risk are not identified, a woman has been legally compelled to give birth by the decision of her partner, is he legally responsible for the consequences or not?

If not, then what is the disincentive for him to downplay the risk to his partner, given that she has already expressed her wish to terminate and he has disregarded it?

The threat of the womans health due to childbirth would be called by a doctor, not the woman herself.

Martypants1 wrote: »

The threat of the womans health due to childbirth would be called by a doctor, not the woman herself.

You're evading.

A threat to life or health always exists, regardless of whether a doctor "calls it". A doctor will only "call" something additional to that normal risk. Healthy births usually result in vaginal tears, for example. Nobody is going to "call" that, because it's a well known and very common risk.

Is the man legally responsible for that injury if he has legally compelled a woman to give birth? Yes or no?

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

I have no idea what answers you want because as far as I'm concerned I have answered your question the reasons I've given are my reasons I don't have any other answer to give.

Unfortunately the reason for your position that you have given IS your position. That is my main issue. You think abortion is wrong, I ask you why, and you essentially tell me that you think so because abortion is wrong.

The is circular and tells me nothing. And my fear for your side is that if you are representative of the kinds of argument that we will hear in a referendum, then you will not just lose the referendum, you will do half the yes side work for them.

I think it is an important issue to vote on. So if I am going to vote pro choice I want to be sure I am doing the right thing. So I want.... nay I NEED.... to hear the arguments against my vote.

And "I think abortion is wrong because I think abortion is wrong".... which is essentially what you have offered here..... is not going to assist me in this.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

The WHY is because you are ending a life by having an abortion at 16 weeks, why is that not a reason, why does it need any more backing up?

Mainly because in and of itself it is not that coherent. It needs more than that. Not least because we are "ending a life" all the time. I am ending lives when I pick my nose. I am ending lives when I take an anti-biotic. I am ending lives when I eat flora or fauna (or at least partaking in the process of ending lives). I am ending lives when I spray pesticide or kill the wasp in my house.

So merely "ending a life" is not enough for me, or for you, to structure an argument. It begs the question and just ends up as circular as everything else you have offered. There needs to be some basis for elevating THIS life over any others we end.

And at 16 weeks the sole basis I suspect you even have to simply BEGIN to make that attempt is by pointing out that this life happens to contain Human DNA. There is nothing else to differentiate ending that life from ending bovine life for example. In fact the arguments against ending Bovine life are probably STRONGER than what you could offer.

And so I hit a brick wall and merely have to ask you for more. And each time I do you, seemingly, close down and get haughty or uppity. Which leaves me sitting on the wall with my yes vote not knowing what to do next.

You seem to be passionately against abortion and passion can be a good thing but I would think if *I* were as passionate about it as you are then I would take great pains to explain the basis and foundations of my position to anyone who would listen. If I even turned one yes vote to a no vote I would feel vindicated.

Yet you seem to be not in the slightest bit motivated to engage, only to soap box your disgust at the practice.... and I merely suggest to you to consider if you are not only failing to support your position.... but are actively HARMING It.... by acting in that fashion. Or put simpler.... if you intend to say nothing, would it not be better to literally say nothing?

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

You are being totally unreasonable imo in not accepting the reasons I gave as being the actual reasons and it is in fact your constant digging and not accepting answers given that will help the no side not my answers helping the yes side.

You are being totally unreasonable imo in not accepting that merely offering your position as a basis FOR that position, is not actually answering my genuine questions and it is your constant dodging of answering those questions that would harm your side not the other way around.

I repeat I genuinely want to ask why you think abortion is wrong and literally all I am getting from you as the answer is your assertion that abortion is wrong. "X is wrong because X is wrong" is not useful, coherent, or honest.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

I have no idea what answers you want because as far as I'm concerned I have answered your question the reasons I've given are my reasons I don't have any other answer to give. The WHY is because you are ending a life by having an abortion at 16 weeks, why is that not a reason, why does it need any more backing up?

You are being totally unreasonable imo in not accepting the reasons I gave as being the actual reasons and it is in fact your constant digging and not accepting answers given that will help the no side not my answers helping the yes side.

Nozz wants to know why you consider an unborn child to be equal to a born one? Given that they are measurably different kinds of human?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You're evading.

A threat to life or health always exists, regardless of whether a doctor "calls it". A doctor will only "call" something additional to that normal risk. Healthy births usually result in vaginal tears, for example. Nobody is going to "call" that, because it's a well known and very common risk.

Is the man legally responsible for that injury if he has legally compelled a woman to give birth? Yes or no?

Yeah there's a standard risk with childbirth. That's a given. Additional risk to the mothers health then.

If a womans health was at risk, I'm talking additional to normal childbirth risks, and if the doctor didn't say there was a risk to the womans life above normal childbirth conditions then the doctor should be held accountable for being incompetent.

Martypants1 wrote: »

Yeah there's a standard risk with childbirth. That's a given. Additional risk to the mothers health then.

If a womans health was at risk, I'm talking additional to normal childbirth risks, and if the doctor didn't say there was a risk to the womans life above normal childbirth conditions then the doctor should be held accountable for being incompetent.

You are still not answering my question.

You have claimed that a father should have equal choice in whether a mother can have an abortion, so long as there is no doctor-defined risk to her health, no fetal abnormality and no rape.

However, there is always a risk to life and to health in childbirth- what we're now calling the "standard risk".

Therefore, if a father may legally compel a mother to give birth against her consent, then she is being forced to take those risks to life and health.

If she is injured or dies, in what was expected to be an otherwise healthy pregnancy, is the man who made that decision to compel her to give birth legally responsible for her injuries or death?

You can add a condition that there is no finding of responsibility against the doctor or midwives.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You are still not answering my question.

You have claimed that a father should have equal choice in whether a mother can have an abortion, so long as there is no doctor-defined risk to her health, no fetal abnormality and no rape.

However, there is always a risk to life and to health in childbirth- what we're now calling the "standard risk".

Therefore, if a father may legally compel a mother to give birth against her consent, then she is being forced to take those risks to life and health.

If she is injured or dies, in what was expected to be an otherwise healthy pregnancy, is the man who made that decision to compel her to give birth legally responsible for her injuries or death?

You can add a condition that there is no finding of responsibility against the doctor or midwives.

Yup, she accepts these standard child birth risks once she lets a man up on her.

lazygal

Martypants1 wrote: »

Yup, she accepts these standard child birth risks once she lets a man up on her.

You can say have sex you know.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Mainly because in and of itself it is not that coherent. It needs more than that. Not least because we are "ending a life" all the time.

Really are you really writing a big paragraph about "ending life" when its so blatantly obvious what I mean, I actually have work for doing rather than answering questions with the most obvious answers possible.

I obviously mean ending the life of a human baby by preventing it from being born. In fact if you really want it narrowed down I mean ending the life of an innocent baby before its born. I couldn't care less if some criminal is shot dead for instance but how someone could knowingly end the life of a child without even giving it a chance at life I just can't get my head around.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Nozz wants to know why you consider an unborn child to be equal to a born one? Given that they are measurably different kinds of human?

Because its just wrong to me, its not something that can be explained when I think of it it disgusts me and I can't understand why its allowed to happen anywhere and want it kept from our country if possible. Why aren't they equal , why is denying an unborn child the right to be born any different from ending the life of a one year old? At the end of the day neither will see their 2 birthday or their 5th birthday. Neither will go on on to become a teenager or an adult. Neither will have the opportunity to possibly influence the world in some way or other.

lazygal wrote: »

You can say have sex you know.

Or you can say "up on her" or "the ride" or "she stood for him " etc if you feel like it.

lazygal

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Really are you really writing a big paragraph about "ending life" when its so blatantly obvious what I mean, I actually have work for doing rather than answering questions with the most obvious answers possible.

I obviously mean ending the life of a human baby by preventing it from being born. In fact if you really want it narrowed down I mean ending the life of an innocent baby before its born. I couldn't care less if some criminal is shot dead for instance but how someone could knowingly end the life of a child without even giving it a chance at life I just can't get my head around.

Because its just wrong to me, its not something that can be explained when I think of it it disgusts me and I can't understand why its allowed to happen anywhere and want it kept from our country if possible. Why aren't they equal , why is denying an unborn child the right to be born any different from ending the life of a one year old? At the end of the day neither will see their 2 birthday or their 5th birthday. Neither will go on on to become a teenager or an adult. Neither will have the opportunity to possibly influence the world in some way or other.

So how far should the state go in preventing children being killed?