I don't buy this crap about "It's her body, she can do what she wants with it". If we can do what we want with our bodies, than why are we stigmatising fat people or anorexic people. It's their body right? Suicide? Their body. Drugs? alcahol? Their body. Once they are dead? Whose body is it? Government property? Belongs to their family?
See what a 3 minute programme on 4thought can do... Abortion has become a fad almost Some women have an abortionist on speed dial If you are to become a parent under any circumstances, you should grow up and deal with it. Only if the mother is at risk would I consider it acceptable However, for me, there is no question about it....abortionists are baby killers....and after watching 4thought last night....soulless baby killers Ofcourse its a woman's choice, but if they do it o think they are wrong....I won't go waving placards or chasing them into prison over it... I'll just think....you killed your baby
If there's any chance the child may become a Leeds United supporter abortion should be compulsory ...
technically, they are. if us girls didnt release hormones to prevent it, our immune systems would attack the baby.
Technically maybe, but not in the traditional sense. What do you think anyway Jen? Is it murder or are you on the "it's her body" side? And if you pro-choice, what should be the time limit?
The key word in that sentence is sex...I'm not making love to the girl, I'm not staring into her eyes whispering sweet nothings into her ear...Sex can sometimes just be sex. Would you suggest it was morally reprehensible to kiss someone you didn't particularly like when you were drunk? Or foreplay? At what point does your moral compass point toward it being wrong?
When I look at today's student population I can't help but think that we should have just had enforced terminations since around 1990.
Hello again, Jersey. Sorry, this will be probably be one of those long and rambling answers, so I’ll get my apologies in early. You say this in such a declarative and certain manner that I was momentarily tricked into believing that you must speak on my behalf or find yourself privy to a truth that eludes me. There appears to be plenty of doubt as to whether abortion is murder, Jersey, as even the most cursory glance at these pages will show. If you simply mean to say that abortion is murder in your very personal, very subjective opinion – and in the opinions of those people who may think similarly to you – then fair enough. (Although what a horribly pejorative and unforgiving term “murder” is when aimed at women faced with such a choice; when used in such a sensitive and difficult moral area.) By suggesting that there is no doubt about it, however, you appear to believe that you have all the answers and speak for all of humankind. No need for any more thinking, people, the answer is mine to declare. But I have plenty of doubts, Jersey – I don’t aim to speak for anyone else – and this alone is sufficient to prove the fallacy of such a wildly anti-intellectual observation, okay? Can you at least accept that some people may have some doubts and that therefore, contrary to what you just said, some doubts may in fact exist as to whether abortion might be classed as murder, whether you share these doubts or not? Sorry for being picky, but I always sort of feel that absolutist pronouncements around such sensitive issues rarely help anyone at all. Well, I would hope that nobody felt compelled to come to such a decision, obviously – I’m (reluctantly) pro-choice, as distinctly opposed to being pro-abortion – and again, the emotive use of language in describing a foetus as a “kid” is not really something I’m likely to find myself doing. I disregard this anti-scientific and emotive categorisation out of hand – I don’t view it as being credible or serious – in the same way that you’ll disregard my refusal to acknowledge its validity. So we can just agree to disagree on that, as I doubt it will lead anywhere terribly productive. You won’t punish the developing foetus (how about the embryo?) and yet you’ll punish the woman who carries it by forcing her to see the pregnancy through? How is this (consistently) moral or humane? And how is it that you feel (morally) equipped to tell rape victims how they must act after the event, no matter the brutality they have suffered and no matter the psychological scarring? Who gave you these powers and why must we take you seriously if you sit in such a high moral judgement over women? I suppose this just feels rather pitiless to me, a one-size fits all pronouncement that sets a greater store in the imagined life of an embryo (that may in any event be aborted by nature or God – you’ll not class miscarriages as being immoral, I trust) over the already established lives of women. I’m not saying that you hate women, okay? I’m just saying that it sounds like it. (Big difference.) But this may be irrelevant, in any event, as you appear to be arguing about the potential of these embryos, which seems to be a different argument altogether: This sounds like the favourite argument of those religious fundamentalists so readily found online (and elsewhere). I’ll concentrate on them, as I’m not sure of your precise argument here and it will save this from becoming personal. I think they normally use Beethoven as their example, don’t they? Immaterial, anyway, as the surreal idiocy of their argument should be immediately apparent to all those people not infected by a (supernaturally) religious dogma. It’s not just that we are as likely to “kill” a potentially great artist or thinker as we are to kill a potential Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot or child-killing *****, but logically, taken to it’s mentally illiterate extreme, we can see that every time any fertile individual refuses to copulate they may be said to be depriving a potential child of the right to life. In these warped imaginings, the diseased logic of the needlessly inhumane determines that resisting rape may also be classed as depriving a potential child of the right to life. And there’s no use in these people trying to apply brakes to the logic of their own witheringly unsympathetic pronouncements towards women, because they simply have no (observably superior) qualifications to do so. If they want to start drawing lines in the sand and telling us how we must all behave and think, other people can just as easily draw the line further back in order to highlight the scale of their seeming madness and the very obvious dangers of this particular way of thinking. Back to you for a minute: I simply don’t know what this means, sorry. What are your views on IVF?
Too many people on the planet anyway, we should be encouraging abortion in Africa, China, India to reduce the population. Sluts who use abortion as a form of contraception deserve to be ridiculed but it is their body and I have absolutely no right to say what they do with it. Funny how we are happy to chuck our muck up any old bint that will have it but get all holier than thou if it results in a pregnancy that is not wanted. I'm sure if you trailed through previous threads there will be some of the same anti-abortionists who have slated chavs or immigrants for breeding too many offspring. Open up and say "aaaaaaaggggggghhhhhh"
It's all about education. Educate wimmin to prefer giving blowjobs to penetrative sex. Problem solved. Move along.
My problem with 'Pro-Choice' is their justification that "it's the woman's body so she should be free to do what she wants with it". But then they usually say that there should be a cut-off point eg 24 weeks as it is now. But if it's the woman's body, and that's the only thing that matters, surely abortion should be allowed up until birth?
