Pro or anti abortion?

Post Reply New Topic

Hard to explain my position, which is neither standard for pro- nor anti-.

But the following quote by a friend of mine sums up part of why:

I meant to quite specifically address MALE circumcision in my answer, which IS removing a piece of skin. Female circumcision is not, and I wasn't confused, I did not want to get into it, given that there IS quite appropriately a huge outcry against it, and it seemed like the poster I was replying to had thrown that in more than meant it, given that it didn't fit in with the rest of his argument. If I had meant to include it by reference I would have chosen different terms and descriptions. We're talking Western practices here, as a practical matter, and female circumcision (which really is not appropriately referred to as such - it's ritualistic mutilation) is NOT a Western practice. I considered clarifying it, but I thought the wording was specific enough. One is removing skin, the other an organ. By saying "skin," I referred ONLY to male circumcision.

And, yes, there is debate about how appropriate that (male circumcision) is, as well, but I truly do consider that an entirely different can of worms than cutting tubes and permanently preventing pregnancy. They cannot be compared.

pro.
No one should tell someone what to do with their bodies and what's in them.
What people should realize is that many women died when abortion was unlawful because they tried risky outlaw abortions, and just because abortion is legal doesn't mean everyone woman will abort their babies.

Stop patronizing me.

Didn't mean to, did it come across like that then? I simply express my points of view like you and the others do, why would you see it as patronising?


I like it Steve Harley Do you like the song 'Sebastian'???

Last edited by Loborojo on 03 Sep 2008, 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This is clearly PPR material, not General.

Mods: here's another one for the Pit of Despair.

Done.

(not by me though )

done what and where?

Very much pro-choice. That said, I'd be happier if the limit was brought down to 14 or 16 weeks, with the exception of cases where the baby is going to die/has extreme disability (like those ones where they have no brain or skull or things), or where the mother's life is in danger.

Not everyone will have an abortion, but the option needs to be there for those who want and need it. Besides it being their right to do what they want with their body, if it was made illegal it would still happen, the only difference would be many women would be mutilated, extremely ill, or lose their lives as 'backstreet' operations take place or women order pills from the internet with not much idea of what's in them and fear of getting appropriate help when things go wrong.

People make mistakes, people get pregnant, and contraception fails. Simple facts of life. People needn't be punished with it for the rest of their lives - abortion is traumatic and horrifying enough to fulfil any need for 'penance'! !

I am strongly against abortion. But I believe that it should be legal and pregnant women should be free to choose whether or not to have an abortion, though not when the unborn baby is viable outside its mother's womb.

I agree with what LeKiwi wrote:

So basically I regard abortion as a matter for the conscience of pregnant women, not for the state to decide.

No a foetus is not life, don't be so bloody naive and ignorant of the facts. Do you know how many foetus's are spontaneously aborted because the chromosomes involved are not capable of supporting life. My partner has had 11 'miscarriages' 5 of which were late term. She has given birth to 4 kids . Life is only life when it can support itself.

To quote a t-shirt famously worn by a senator in Australia "Keep Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries".

You "pro-lifers" really need to start worrying about the living including the women who are pregnant with unwanted "potentials". Any person that contends that pregnancy via rape is not a good reason for abortion I suggest needs to experience it for themselves before casting judgement.

I was nearly aborted because my mother was 40 when she conceived me (1965- this made it a very dangerous pregnancy). The argument that had she aborted I would not have experienced my life, is complete and utter BS. I would have known nothing about it and therefore could not have missed anything because I would not have existed.

Full-term pregnancy / Abortion is souly the decision of the potential mother. The rest of you should just back off and as for those of you that go waving your vicious placards outside abortion clinics too me you are just pure filth.

Pro.

Why?

The embryo got consciousness and can learn, it got a human brain, in other words, not only is it alive, it is a living human being already. The only possible reason a person would have to deny this is probably convenience.

So, that's the problem you people are convinced that it is wrong to kill one week olds but it is all right to kill seven months fetus. It is a double standard, if you really think a mother's convenience is much more important than anything else, then make a law that allows mothers to have their kids killed until they actually reach an age in which they can "support themselves" - which would at least happen after the breast feeding phase...

Edit: If a girl was raped, she should have killed the thing when it was just a bunch of microscopic cells, before it became a human being - there are pills for this -, rather than waiting for it to get a brain before killing it.

Why? Because it's the woman's choice whether she wants to have the child or not. Extending on that, there's a good chance the child would have a rough upbringing if brought up by the mother which didn't even want the child to begin with. The fetus isn't even really developed to the point where it would even matter anyway usually when it is aborted.

Hear, hear!