It has been pointed out to you many times that mental distress is an acceptable reason to choose to have an abortion, and that no woman can ever be denied for that reason. It's impossible to argue that forcing a woman to have a baby that she does not want will not cause her mental distress.
We are not supposed to have abortion on demand.
If that was the case, the law would say so and it would not need to go into any detail
If you are ignoring this that only goes to prove that your argument has followed the route of the Costa Concordia.
I'd agree that treating abortion as some kind of contraceptive method is hardly a responsible or indeed good thing. You're right that there are more ideal ways to go about things. But I strongly disagree to the proposal of sterilisation after 2 abortions. Also, a fetus or embryo is not a child... they're very different things. Why should a woman be robbed of her ability to have children simply because she had a couple of abortions which have no negative effects on society at large
Agreed. I dont see enforced sterilisation as an option. And, there is a difference between an embryo and a fetus. What do you suggest? Because someone who has had two abortions is surely on the way to becoming irrespossible? If a woman doesnt want a child then be responsible and dont get pregnant. There does need to be more education regarding this subject. There are some very sad cases where special needs girls/women are becoming pregnant and cannot cope with the pregnancy and/or having a child. We always seem to look at one rule for all when in fact different situations require different approaches. Some women need support for example rather than a termination.
So leaving aside rape victims for the moment, are you seriously saying women are entitled to be utterly careless about protecting themselves from unwanted pregnancy by all the various methods available, not to mention stds, they also are entitled not to bother with the morning after pill for 5 days? However they can then demand an abortion on the grounds which meet the criteria laid down by the GMC. Many not once or twice some but three or more time. Accidents happen, situations become untenable but 200,000 abortions a year, this is a shocking indigtment of womens failure to take personal responsibilty. IMO
Actually I could be wrong, I am assuming you are against infanticide even if both parents agree that's what they want. Am I wrong?
The only difference is that after we are born we become legal humans and are given our human rights as citizens. I'm not saying that a foetus should become a citizen as soon as it is created - but that it's parents are given some rights on it's behalf. This would apply in many areas other than abortion. i.e. if someone assaults a pregnant woman resulting in a miscarriage, they could be charged with murder and or sued by the parents on behalf of the foetus. At the moment, that can't happen.
So basically, the rights of the foetus go out of the window when the man agrees to the abortion?
But if the man says no to an abortion, it's the foetus rights that are most important?
By agreeing to the abortion, the man would be exercising the rights of the foetus on it's behalf. I.E. If both parents agreed then it's right to life could be waived.
We are not supposed to have abortion on demand.
If that was the case, the law would say so and it would not need to go into any detail
We don't have abortion on demand, we have abortion within the law. There are different laws depending on how pregnant the woman is.
The law says that women are allowed to have an abortion prior to 24 weeks if a termination is less risk than carrying the pregnancy to full term. By it's very definition most if not all pregnancies fall into this category. You can't argue with the facts SULLA. Sorry.
The only difference is that after we are born we become legal humans and are given our human rights as citizens. I'm not saying that a foetus should become a citizen as soon as it is created - but that it's parents are given some rights on it's behalf. This would apply in many areas other than abortion. i.e. if someone assaults a pregnant woman resulting in a miscarriage, they could be charged with murder and or sued by the parents on behalf of the foetus. At the moment, that can't happen.
My point is you don't view an unborn child in the same way as one who has been born.
You don't give them the same rights, you don't think they have the same right to life. You are quite the hypocrite. Why do the abortion numbers need lowering?
We are not supposed to have abortion on demand.
If that was the case, the law would say so
It DOES say so. It has already been quoted. If the doctor believes that the woman will be mentally better off after having an abortion then it is legal. That is WRITTEN INTO THE LAW.
I remember when I was young reading about the abortion rate in East Germany and thinking it would never happen here. But it has and there is no sense of shame. The collapse of human dignity continues unabated.
I am am saddened that the argument on here is "Its a womans choice"to abort their child. Women have fought tooth and naiil for women to have the same sexual freedom as men, fought for the freedom of contraception in order that our generation did not ever have to have an unwanted child removed from her body in bloody bits. Abortion is abortion, back street or not, your baby , feotus or whatever term suits has its life ended because its inconvenient to the mother. It is a grave reflection on all of us that we have not utelised the enormous liberation others fought for.
So leaving aside rape victims for the moment, are you seriously saying women are entitled to be utterly careless about protecting themselves from unwanted pregnancy by all the various methods available, not to mention stds, they also are entitled not to bother with the morning after pill for 5 days? However they can then demand an abortion on the grounds which meet the criteria laid down by the GMC. Many not once or twice some but three or more time. Accidents happen, situations become untenable but 200,000 abortions a year, this is a shocking indigtment of womens failure to take personal responsibilty. IMO
Funnily enough, women do not get pregnant without a guy's free and easy uncondomed (and sometimes condom covered) jiz. 200,000 eh? That's alot of irresponsible men too.
We don't have abortion on demand, we have abortion within the law.
The law is not being operated as it was intended.
The law says that women are allowed to have an abortion prior to 24 weeks if a termination is less risk than carrying the pregnancy to full term. By it's very definition most if not all pregnancies fall into this category. You can't argue with the facts SULLA. Sorry.
I agree that's the way that it is being operated. However the definition is being mis-used. Doctors can drive a cart and horses through it.
If the grounds for abortion are mental health, it would surely be responsible for at least one of the doctors to be specialised in this area.
My point is you don't view an unborn child in the same way as one who has been born.
You don't give them the same rights, you don't think they have the same right to life. You are quite the hypocrite. Why do the abortion numbers need lowering?
Because legally it would be impossible - no name, living inside another person. It wouldn't be possible to give it the same rights as it wouldn't have any way of enforcing them on it's own.
190,000 abortions per year in the UK. Think about that number, the potential lives ended, the trauma that the mostly young women have had to go through. Lives created irresponsibly, and destroyed without a second thought.
It DOES say so. It has already been quoted. If the doctor believes that the woman will be mentally better off after having an abortion then it is legal. That is WRITTEN INTO THE LAW.
If it was merely abortion on demand, the law would not need to spell out the reasons why an abortion can be allowed.
Let's be honest. You actually think that a woman should not even need to have a viable reason. You are more interested in womens rights.
By agreeing to the abortion, the man would be exercising the rights of the foetus on it's behalf. I.E. If both parents agreed then it's right to life could be waived.
You seem to be saying that the man has a veto over the woman and that the man alone speaks for the foetus? If the woman wants an abortion she can't have one, but if the man agrees she can? Interesting view.
190,000 abortions per year in the UK. Think about that number, the potential lives ended, the trauma that the mostly young women have had to go through. Lives created irresponsibly, and destroyed without a second thought.
Oh give me a break, you want to force women to have children on the whim of a man you don't give a toss about young women.
You don't view them as real human beings so why do you care how many are aborted each year? :rolleyes:
You are confusing "as it was intended" for "How I want it to be".
The law is very clear and it's being enforced correctly. You can't argue with the facts so you are now just being obstinate.
When the law was changed in 1967, it was intended that doctors be responsible and not hand out abortions like sweets. It was intended that each case be given very careful consideration.
When the law was changed in 1967, it was intended that doctors be responsible and not hand out abortions like sweets. It was intended that each case be given very careful consideration.
The law was intended to be enforced.
Do you agree that, in general, going through a pregnancy you don't want is more mentally and physically straining than a straight forward termination?
If it was merely abortion on demand, the law would not need to spell out the reasons why an abortion can be allowed.
Let's be honest. You actually think that a woman should not even need to have a viable reason. You are more interested in womens rights.
Why do you talk about womens rights with such disdain? What would be wrong with that?
As it stands, I am posting a fact. Factually, ALL WOMEN are allowed to have an abortion "if the abortion itself is likely to be less harmful than the pregnancy, birth and subsequent life."
Can you think of any pregnancies that are less physically harmful than abortion?
Let me use my example.
Abortion. Two minutes of discomfort. Some vomiting. Mild to moderate stomach pains for two days.
Pregnancy. Nine months of mild to moderate discomfort. Some vomiting. Hours or days of screaming agony. Chance of death through blood-loss. Several weeks of recovery.
Going purely physically, ignoring any emotional aspects, EVERY PREGNANCY is eligible for abortion by law.
Let's consider mental aspects, then. This is a muddier area. The doctor has to decide whether a woman will suffer more from having the baby or from having the abortion. Some women are turned away because it's obvious that mentally they can't handle the abortion. Most doctors will have undergone some training in basic psychiatry before choosing to specialise, so your comment about needing to have a psychiatrist involved is not relevant.
When I had my abortion, if it was illegal I would've done anything, absolutely ANYTHING to myself to get rid of it. Any level of risk would be worth it. You cannot comprehend how distressing it is to be pregnant and really, truly not want it. I would liken it to rape in the sense that there is something foreign in my body, I don't want it there, I can remove it but NOBODY WILL LET ME! It's eating me alive from the inside and no matter how hard or how fast I run, I can't get rid of it. Imagine nine months of that. Traumatised is an understatement.
Totally agree as these were my feelings when I was pregnant at 15 and had an abortion at 16 (at 13 weeks). I refused to accept it mentally and the doctor said the faetus was tiny for its age. Strangely, I knew I was pregnant from the moment of conception - which occurred several hours after 'the act' - it was very weird.
I am pro choice. It annoys be to hear about women that have had double figure numbers of abortions, but I'd still much rather that than they be bringing unwanted children into the world.
Why do you talk about womens rights with such disdain? What would be wrong with that?
As it stands, I am posting a fact. Factually, ALL WOMEN are allowed to have an abortion "if the abortion itself is likely to be less harmful than the pregnancy, birth and subsequent life."
Can you think of any pregnancies that are less physically harmful than abortion?
Let me use my example.
Abortion. Two minutes of discomfort. Some vomiting. Mild to moderate stomach pains for two days.
Pregnancy. Nine months of mild to moderate discomfort. Some vomiting. Hours or days of screaming agony. Chance of death through blood-loss. Several weeks of recovery.
Going purely physically, ignoring any emotional aspects, EVERY PREGNANCY is eligible for abortion by law.
Let's consider mental aspects, then. This is a muddier area. The doctor has to decide whether a woman will suffer more from having the baby or from having the abortion. Some women are turned away because it's obvious that mentally they can't handle the abortion. Most doctors will have undergone some training in basic psychiatry before choosing to specialise, so your comment about needing to have a psychiatrist involved is not relevant.
the BIB is a horrendously ignorant statement to make.
Comments
If that was the case, the law would say so and it would not need to go into any detail the what
Agreed. I dont see enforced sterilisation as an option. And, there is a difference between an embryo and a fetus. What do you suggest? Because someone who has had two abortions is surely on the way to becoming irrespossible? If a woman doesnt want a child then be responsible and dont get pregnant. There does need to be more education regarding this subject. There are some very sad cases where special needs girls/women are becoming pregnant and cannot cope with the pregnancy and/or having a child. We always seem to look at one rule for all when in fact different situations require different approaches. Some women need support for example rather than a termination.
Have you written to your MP about this blatant (in your opinion) flouting of the law?
I agree with this post.
He's Labour:(
The only difference is that after we are born we become legal humans and are given our human rights as citizens. I'm not saying that a foetus should become a citizen as soon as it is created - but that it's parents are given some rights on it's behalf. This would apply in many areas other than abortion. i.e. if someone assaults a pregnant woman resulting in a miscarriage, they could be charged with murder and or sued by the parents on behalf of the foetus. At the moment, that can't happen.
By agreeing to the abortion, the man would be exercising the rights of the foetus on it's behalf. I.E. If both parents agreed then it's right to life could be waived.
We don't have abortion on demand, we have abortion within the law. There are different laws depending on how pregnant the woman is.
The law says that women are allowed to have an abortion prior to 24 weeks if a termination is less risk than carrying the pregnancy to full term. By it's very definition most if not all pregnancies fall into this category. You can't argue with the facts SULLA. Sorry.
My point is you don't view an unborn child in the same way as one who has been born.
You don't give them the same rights, you don't think they have the same right to life. You are quite the hypocrite. Why do the abortion numbers need lowering?
It DOES say so. It has already been quoted. If the doctor believes that the woman will be mentally better off after having an abortion then it is legal. That is WRITTEN INTO THE LAW.
I am am saddened that the argument on here is "Its a womans choice"to abort their child. Women have fought tooth and naiil for women to have the same sexual freedom as men, fought for the freedom of contraception in order that our generation did not ever have to have an unwanted child removed from her body in bloody bits. Abortion is abortion, back street or not, your baby , feotus or whatever term suits has its life ended because its inconvenient to the mother. It is a grave reflection on all of us that we have not utelised the enormous liberation others fought for.
Funnily enough, women do not get pregnant without a guy's free and easy uncondomed (and sometimes condom covered) jiz. 200,000 eh? That's alot of irresponsible men too.
I agree that's the way that it is being operated. However the definition is being mis-used. Doctors can drive a cart and horses through it.
If the grounds for abortion are mental health, it would surely be responsible for at least one of the doctors to be specialised in this area.
Because legally it would be impossible - no name, living inside another person. It wouldn't be possible to give it the same rights as it wouldn't have any way of enforcing them on it's own.
190,000 abortions per year in the UK. Think about that number, the potential lives ended, the trauma that the mostly young women have had to go through. Lives created irresponsibly, and destroyed without a second thought.
If it was merely abortion on demand, the law would not need to spell out the reasons why an abortion can be allowed.
Let's be honest. You actually think that a woman should not even need to have a viable reason. You are more interested in womens rights.
You seem to be saying that the man has a veto over the woman and that the man alone speaks for the foetus? If the woman wants an abortion she can't have one, but if the man agrees she can? Interesting view.
Oh give me a break, you want to force women to have children on the whim of a man you don't give a toss about young women.
You don't view them as real human beings so why do you care how many are aborted each year? :rolleyes:
Yes it is.
You are confusing "as it was intended" for "How I want it to be".
The law is very clear and it's being enforced correctly. You can't argue with the facts so you are now just being obstinant. It's kinda cute.;)
It wasn't intened to be:o
The law was intended to be enforced.
Do you agree that, in general, going through a pregnancy you don't want is more mentally and physically straining than a straight forward termination?
Yes or no?
Why do you talk about womens rights with such disdain? What would be wrong with that?
As it stands, I am posting a fact. Factually, ALL WOMEN are allowed to have an abortion "if the abortion itself is likely to be less harmful than the pregnancy, birth and subsequent life."
Can you think of any pregnancies that are less physically harmful than abortion?
Let me use my example.
Abortion. Two minutes of discomfort. Some vomiting. Mild to moderate stomach pains for two days.
Pregnancy. Nine months of mild to moderate discomfort. Some vomiting. Hours or days of screaming agony. Chance of death through blood-loss. Several weeks of recovery.
Going purely physically, ignoring any emotional aspects, EVERY PREGNANCY is eligible for abortion by law.
Let's consider mental aspects, then. This is a muddier area. The doctor has to decide whether a woman will suffer more from having the baby or from having the abortion. Some women are turned away because it's obvious that mentally they can't handle the abortion. Most doctors will have undergone some training in basic psychiatry before choosing to specialise, so your comment about needing to have a psychiatrist involved is not relevant.
Totally agree as these were my feelings when I was pregnant at 15 and had an abortion at 16 (at 13 weeks). I refused to accept it mentally and the doctor said the faetus was tiny for its age. Strangely, I knew I was pregnant from the moment of conception - which occurred several hours after 'the act' - it was very weird.
I've never regretted my decision, aged 45.
I can't answer that. Each case would have to be carefully assessed and decided on it's merits.
That's all I want. Each case to be give full and proper consideration.
If the fact that the child was going to be unwanted was a good reason, surely the law would say so,
It does say so, it's covered in mental health.
When you posted the law earlier did you notice the difference between (a) and (b)? Why would they bother to differentiate?
the BIB is a horrendously ignorant statement to make.