"You all" might.

Half the people having abortions should either stop being so lazy and use some damned protection, or just get over their damned lust and not do it, and you all ought to know it. Undergoing a procedure more invasive than rape is hardly a replacement for being responsible when the risky actions were being taken. It's like saying that if you don't want your face to be horribly disfigured, plastic surgery is the responsible thing to do after playing with fireworks.

This article is actually really good, I have to say it really did make me rethink my stance. However, I still maintain that until the support that women need during pregnancy is readily avaliable (at no exorbitant cost, easily accessed, informed) that women still need the choice. It's all very well to say that abortion is bad and that there should be another way to cope with being a mother and bearing children. I agree. However, it's not realisitically going to happen in the very near future. It's happening, yeah, but not really to the extent it's needed.

Also, the article gave off the feel that women are forced into having abortions. I know that wasn't the intended feel but surely if a woman is making the choice, and she goes through the [i]required[i] counselling before and afterwards, she knows what is coming, the dangers and what to expect. She is making her own informed opinion, no one is forcing her into the abortion to make her depressed and empty (not meant to be some crass pun). Some women may react that way, yeah. But women still need to have control over themselves.

Once again I have to say, I am pro-CHOICE and not pro-ABORTION. You can tell me it's semantics if you want, but I will only argue back that I would rather a potential life is not lost. Until society is ready to reform and make being a mother not such a burden, then there still needs to be the choice of abortion.

I don't advocate it for mistakes, drunken or otherwise. I don't like the idea of abortion as a form of contraception. But if it's illegal then women are going to do it anyway, because we, as people, not just women, tend to look out for ourselves. It's a horrible situation but I still firmly believe that a woman should be able to make her own informed decision and be able to carry out said decision in the security of a registered clinic.

Essentially the way I feel, however take away the not advocating for drunken mistakes. It happens, I've been there myself. Mind you the morning after pill is a good idea that stops it getting to that stage.

It's all about punishing women for choosing to have sex. Didn't choose sex? No problem, have as many abortions as you like!

In response to the tone of that reply: Bearing in mind that a drunken choice is ultimately one's own choice, how often does one have sex without one choosing to do so?

I do not agree with abortion. However, to be devil's advocate, what about in the case of rape?

It happens approximately 65,000 times a year in America. How did "drunken choices" come into the conversation? It's pretty clear that we were talking about rape, judging by the "tone"... or, you know, the words of our posts.

Yes, it is clear. However the phrase "have as many abortions as you like!" has all the elegance of a drunken cripple on ecstacy and sounds a lot like you have something against it.

Also, is 65,000 the number of allegations, convictions, or someone else's wild guess?

i think abortion needs to be aborted...i mean your basically a murderer by doing that..i dont beleive in it and i think it should stop...

Welcome to Society. If you want to take part in discussions here you need more then a one line comment. Your particular view has been debated ad nausea.

Give us some new arguments! Nyahh! Man, it's been one long freakin' day.

Its all about choice thought, what would you rather, people dying in back streets because of illegal abortions - you dont want to have an abortion because you don't believe in it thats fine don't have one.

Exactly, if You don't want to have an abortion, then that's great, don't have one. But you can't force your opinion on others. The option needs to be there.

YES thank you thank you thank you you just made my day - it has been.... fulll of revision and feminist theory theres only so much you can take you know.

Anyway back on topic:
You dont want one fine but you can't force your choice on everyone else

Totally can, you need only to have the right people in the right places.
For a start, most women in the UK want legislation to have abortion further restricted to some degree.

Also:
Working from home already exists. Nannies and nurses are age old. What the hell kind of reform are you expecting?

Well, for a start off, maybe it should be not so frowned upon for men to be stay-at-home daddies instead of it only being totally acceptable for women to stay at home and nurture children. I think it's cool if a man wants to be primary caregiver and stay at home while mum goes to work, but a lot of society is still embedded in ideals of masculinity/femininity and gender roles. That's something we definitely need to shake, and something that would make it easier for women and men at the same time.

Working from home exists, yeah, but is it really that viable a solution? Trying to juggle a newborn AND work? Some women could do it, I'm sure, but not ALL women, and that is essentially the reason that abortion should stick around.

You get three months paid maternity leave, but if you choose to stay at home longer than that, then it's out of your pocket. Men only get one - two weeks paid leave: that's even worse. Why should a man not get the same significant amount if he is going to be primary caregiver? Furthermore, you can only get parental leave after a year since coming back to work from initial parental leave. What happens if you get pregnant and have a child within those twelve months? A baby only takes nine, right? That's one paypacket you lose right away, when there's another mouth to feed.

Nannies and nurses are age-old, yes. But who has to pay for them?

I am expecting a sort of major upheavel of values in today's society, THAT'S the kind of reform. Until then, I firmly believe a woman must be allowed the choice. Trying to deny that a woman having a child would not effect her worklife would be like trying to tell someone the sky is falling.

Again: if you don't want one, fine, but don't force your ideals on someone else. Abortion should be legal and avaliable; just because it is, doesn't mean that every pregnant woman is going to be dragged there against her will to have her child aborted.

Being absent in knowledge of this aspect of why society is dumb: What's stopping them from doing it now?

Apparently no more viable than not having sex (guess it's not the convenient choice). Some women could do it, I'm sure, but not all women.

Men getting rights again? Not happening for a very long time, unfortunately.

You know, some people plan parenthood.

The parents. One assumes they are married. One further assumes their assets are one. If not, then that of the man, legally bound to pay child support under any circumstance.

You're expecting men to do it instead. There's a fair chance that women that want that have to deal with a man not wanting to look after a child (and likely couldn't). Then there are cases

While you expect a MAJOR UPHEAVAL from society. Heh.


This may have been mentioned before, but I'm not looking through 70 pages of repackaged repetition to find the response. If women may have this choice, why not men? Given that the premise for making this legal is identical to that of making abortion legal in the first place. None of that possession of body equals right to do stuff with it crap, however, seeing how we go around putting away people who refuse to eat/try jumping off bridges/take drugs/etc.

Sarcasm noted, but I don't expect it -- you asked what I meant, and I told you what I thought society needed to make the need for abortion choice less of an imperative.

What's stopping it from happening now is that we have all grown up surrounded by images perpetuating certain ideologies. It's no surprise that they're hard to break, trapped within dichotomies and expectations and even human language. Maybe if it were acceptable for men to stay at home (acceptable by both men AND women, that is), then it would make motherhood less of a burden as responsibility could be shared or even the male could take complete responsibility of being at home and looking after the traditionally female roles. This isn't to say that no man has or ever will do this, it's to point out that people are quick to believe a man emasculated or *shockgasp* homosexual if he doesn't want to go out and play rugby and go to work at the office and go out for a beer with the lads before he comes home to sit in front of the tele, go to bed and have sex with his wife and sleep through a baby crying.

And I know, people DO plan parenthood, but what about people who don't? That's my point. What about accidents? They do happen. Also, why should a woman, or husband and wife, have to choose to form their family over a certain time period? It should be their own choice, not dictated to by the government (which essentially, this could be read as: no paid leave for you and your second child if you have two babies in two years).

You furthermore answer my rhetoric with the conclusion I was hoping to garner -- childcare is yet another cost. Add this on top of a mortgage, possibly a student loan, then the cost of general living. A baby becomes a burden, yes?

I'm not expecting the man to take place of the woman -- I suggested that it would be a way of lightening loads if society would allow us to think that way. I wasn't proposing a whole role reversal. But I find your point that women wanting men to be primary caregivers might find men resistant to this. This highlights my initial point in regards to dominant ideologies in society and also posits a few more. Why should it naturally be assumed that a woman WANTS to be a mother? She doesn't get pregnant by herself, why should she be the one that has to be accepting of her role of stay-at-home mum? A man doesn't have to "deal with" a woman not wanting to do it because there is enough societal pressure on her to sufficiently quash a lot of resistance.

Also, right now I see a lot of valid points in that article, but I will think about it and get back to you.

Hey, I for one would not mind being a "house husband" as it is currently called and mind the child (we are only planning on one. Oh look, there is that word "planning") if my other half could easily support us and earned more then me (which she currently is as she just got a job in PayPal).

I agree with love führer, especially with regards to Making abortion illegal stops that also, as you cannot decide if an accident occurs and the morning after pill fails that you don't want a child. If that was to happen to Aoife and I now, we cannot afford to raise a family, and I would not want any child of mine dumped into the mess that is adoption in Ireland. It would be too cruel. Better the child is never born, never reaches sentience, then has that to deal with.

A lot of work goes into this accident. Any other time, a risk like this is referred to as gambling, and you would have to accept it when you lose.

Why should someone else pay for it? It's not the company's baby, it's not the government's baby, it's the parents' baby. If you're not doing anything for the company, why should they have to pay you?

The baby is a burden by default, it is in many respects a dependent.

What do you do when neither want to be the primary caregiver? Factors are competence and salary, no?

Well your last three points are my points in support of pro-choice. Why should a woman be a stay-at-home mum because she has to bear the child? Why should you be forced to bring children into the world when it is such a burden and there are enough kids without mums and dads in the first place? The baby is completely dependent.

My example of paid parental leave was in response and extension to your working from home suggestion. Some companies don't have the facilities to work from home: what if you work on a checkout at a supermarket? Minimum wage workers should be discriminated against in regards to childbirth because they can't work from home like a career family might be able to?

If neither wants to be a primary caregiver then why bring a child into the world?

If neither want a child, why not extracourse?

Perhaps both prefer intercourse. Now the way they have sex is being dictated?

(Too many arguments and counter-arguments are making my head burst!)

Pfft, as far as I see, all it is the right to have sex without consequence. If it takes a gynecologist to be practical, I don't see how it's worth it.

I think that everone shoud have the right to choose....that is the right to choose not to have unprotected sex! There are scenarios where abortions are acceptable.....these occur three % of the time when the said mother was either raped or at risk during labor. In reality the women getting them are not just gettin one, they are gettin two or three.....abortion is not birth control and i think it is time that we realized that!!

I love how people make up statistics.

Abortion could be seen as birth control i.e its controlling if a child is born or not. Of course contraception is the better option but things happen, no ones perfect, the world isnt perfect thats just how it is.

Notice that some of our friends from the US who were shouting how great the US is with it's freedoms, and then they come in here and want to curtail them all? Ironic isn't it?

You say that like abortion is indisputably a worthwhile freedom, which is the point of the discussion.

(Everything below is US statistics, lest you wonder)

Illegal abortions? The death rate from abortion mainly dropped from the use of better antibiotics (source?).
Furthermore, 39 women died of illegal abortion in 1972. There are only two possiblities. The first is that women did not have abortions. The other is that illegal abortions are no less safe than legal ones.

Valid as birth control? It costs the same as 7 and a half months worth of your most expensive birth control pill, 17 and a half of the least. This does not take into consideration that Planned Parenthood places sell the pill for even less. (Comparison of data from here with here)

Incest and Rape? They make up 1%. (source)
75 - 85% of raped women choose not to have an abortion, believing that it is immoral, that it won't erase everything the event has left behind, and/or that the birth will allow her to have conquered the event (source).

Roe vs Wade?
Why it won:

• "Right of Privacy". Also known as the Fourteenth Amendment.
• The Fourteenth Amendment was interpretted not to apply to the unborn.

Arguments against:

• Whether or not a foetus legally qualifies as a person is still debated.
• There had been state laws against abortion for over a century and a half before Roe vs Wade. The Fourteenth Amendment is newer by about forty years. If it were supposed to apply to abortion, it would have done so ninety years sooner than it finally did.

Conclusions:
Saying that women will go out and die from a dodgy person in a surgeon's outfit in a back-alley clinic is irrational.
Rape is a spurious defence for abortion.
It is doubtful Roe vs Wade should even apply on a national scale.
Pro-life sites actually can use real statistics and trending data too.

I've been away for a while but I just read down this page - all this debate over the primary caregiver for a child but forgive me - it takes two to tango and my parents bought me up together although my mother was the primary caregiver for me as in feeding me changing my nappy my dad taught me to walk and would put me to bed every night with a bed time story so surely it should go with balanced parenting wherever possible? - was bugging me.

I am pro choice all the way. It isn't my choice but who am I to say what is right for others. And before anyone says to me "but youve never been in that situation" yes I have. I find it appalling that in this thing we call "democracy" some fight to take away a freedom. Besides you can't please all of the people all of the time.

That statement makes no sense.

In the UK the Daily Telegraph claim that 58% of those asked say abortion should not be performed after 20 weeks, that those saying , and that one in three women say not after 12 weeks. How long before that slips into a majority wanting it gone?

In the US, pro-life is in the majority among women, 51%. While it appears not to be available on the internet, this claims "Progress and Perils: A New Agenda for Women" is supposed to provide the evidence.

Do not hide behind the term democracy. It is rule of the people, and at the very least most people want it made harder.

That does not mean that they are right though. I seem incapable of fighting pro abortion because I don't agree with it personally. I think it's murder thats my opinion. But I would never try to stop anyone else getting one. I think making it harder would risk the lives of young teens falling pregnant and reverting to the old coathanger and backstreet abortion, keeping it legal means keeping control.

The death count would hardly increase if abortions were done illegally, if it all. We have powerful suction devices, antibiotics, and such. Besides, with the current situation NHS, doing it illegally would be more sanitary, less chance of MRSA, dare I say it, safer.

heres my view : i personally wouldnt have a abortion, but thats just me.
but, if the basis of all life is a heartbeat, and the fetis or whatever its called doesnt have one then its okay, its really not alive yet, but if it does.. then i personally think its wrong. theres always adoption.


but thats my opinion. feel free to disagree

heres my view : i personally wouldnt have a abortion, but thats just me.
but, if the basis of all life is a heartbeat, and the fetis or whatever its called doesnt have one then its okay, its really not alive yet, but if it does.. then i personally think its wrong. theres always adoption.


but thats my opinion. feel free to disagree

A fairly balanced opinion overall, just why type it twice?

hah...its probably a double post. ive found when you try to do that, instead of double posting, it puts it in your last post

Abortion is someones choice and i dont see how anyone else should have a say in that because its not their choice.

that's your opinion on it. - my opinion though.. if you were raped and ended up getting pregnet i can see thinking about it. but then again if you were that serious about not keeping the child why not just give it up for adoption. so then if you were having sex and not being careful.. even if you were being careful.. & ended up getting pregnet you should have been more carful. abortion in my eyes is murder. why kill a living thing just because you don't want to take care of it?

Actually, not everyone's as selfish as you seem to think. Many people choose to have abortions for reasons other than themselves. For instance, with modern day genetic screening, we can accurately predict whether a child will have a seriously debilitating disease such as spina bifida, multiple sclerosis, or an even worse disease that has effects ranging from paralysis to almost complete retardation. What kind of life would such a child have? Can you honestly say that a parent would be wrong to not allow a child that would suffer so much to be born?

A fetus cannot feel, cannot think, cannot hope. In even earlier developmental stages, it doesn't have any qualities that make it a human other than basic genetic structure. Many parents would never want to bring a child into the world that would have serious difficulties living, whether those difficulties result from physical or mental handicaps, or the extreme adversity that comes from poverty, being raised without a stable family, or knowing that your father is a rapist and your mother didn't want you.

i'm not gonna lie.. your right in that look at it. i'm just saying i've known people that have gotten abortion for the fact that they were to lazy to take care of a child. i actually know a girl that's had 2 abortions then had a miscarriage & still continues to have sex. i've known plenty of people in my area to have that happen. maybe not quite as many as her but still. in that case.. i think it's rather selfish.

Would you rather her bring a child in this world that she's not going to take care of. By all means she should use protection, but I'd rather see an abortion than a baby that's not going to have a good life. It's nobody's business but yours; that's the way I see it.

You'd think you'd learn after the first time, but contracpetions do fail. Now don't start freaking, they don't fail often, but it can happen. People often decide not to have children at all because of the risk of passing on things like Huntingtons and the like. Not all situations are "OMG preggers now, don't want kids so I'm gonna kill it. Now back to unprotected sex..." as people seem to think.

I am all for it! It it not technically killing a living human being, and I believe it is up to the mother. I think it would be better for people to be having sex left and right and then taking abortion, than for people being raped and having no way out of this child on the way! But because of the debate, it should stay legal and leave the choice of whether or not to take it up to the "mother".

abortion is a really... if-y topic..
i DO believe that abortion IS murder. people always say that the embryo isn't "alive" or whatever? YEAH.. BS... because, A SINGLE CELL IS A LIVE.. an EMBYRO IS COMPOSED OF MORE THAN ONE CELL, THEREFORE, IT IS A LIFE... A cell is the BASIC UNIT OF LIFE.. keyword, LIFE. [ yeah, i love biology =) ] . So, anything that has a cell/more than one cell is alive, to me. So, abortion is murder. Abortion doesn't make you unpregnant. It makes you the mother of a dead baby.

Strange how you say it's an "if-y" subject and dive straight into the "pro-life" idiots side of the argument. Care to argue something new perhaps, rather then the same old tired crap we've heard over and over again?

gosh, you make it sounds like you are pro-abortion.. i only said it's an if-y subject because i know that so many people have diferent arguments for it, and they all make sense to me.. i was just saying how I feel about abortion..

I'm pro-choice. As in it is up to the individual to decide what they feel is best depedent on their circumstances. What is good for one, is not always good for all.

And while you argue a single cell organism is alive, you have no problem killing millions when you wash for example, so as you see your arguement holds about as much water as a straining bowl.

There is a difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice. I would never get an abortion, at least not in the circumstances I am in now, so in that aspect I am not pro-abortion. But, I respect that others' should have the same choice I would want myself to have, should I be in the situation where I cannot handle a pregnancy/baby.

I wonder how many gnats, mosquitoes and bugs you've killed? How many bacteria (remember, living cells) in your body have you gotten rid of because you didn't like having them in your body?

Apples to oranges. It's well established that the only life humans generally care about are those of humans, their own pets, and endangered macro-organisms, in that order.

I think that's a dumb comparison. Comparing something that will become a human life, the same living being that you are, to something 1 million times smaller than what you can see, and can in fact, harm you is not an equal comparison. Killing millions of bacteria that hurt you is not bad, how could it be? Things that die as a result of your immune system, how can you bring that up? Those things are trying to invade your body and if they do, they can seriously affect your health, and in some cases kill you, and that's why they're killed first.

It's MEANT to be a dumb comparison, to show how easily the "one cell" debate falls through. To some, an embryo is alive, to others, it is yet to be alive. We were simply stating that different people have different ideas about what constitutes alive, and that this is a huge factor in the abortion debate. I wasn't directly saying that killing bacteria is wrong and that we're evil to do it. Maybe you should read the posts in context? Of course abortion is a lot more serious than using antibiotics.

(Again, someone might draw a comparison between antibiotics doing what the body could not, and abortion being this equivalent to rid a woman of something potentially harmful within her body, be that harm social, emotional or physical. But I won't, because I can't be arsed arguing that and it's probably very tenuous once into the debate.)