Bear in mind that the 8-week foetus is about the size of a grape.

I believe men can still have sex even when their legs are together.

must be some balancing trick that,,,,,, :lol1::lol1::lol1::lol1::lol1:

I am 100% behind the woman's right to chose, up to whatever point the medical profession (as opposed the theologists) consider a reasonable age.

Better to abort than have an unwanted child. Whatever the reasons.

No child is being murdered here. The foetuses in your picture above may have a base resemblance to a post birth child, but they have no sense of being, awareness or existence. They do not have even close to developed brains and are simply a collection of cells that may or may not develop into an independently living, breathing child.

Who mentioned God? :wonder:

To me, it's the choice of the woman as to what she does with and to her own body, and if she chooses to have an abortion, then that is her choice.

While I might not overly like women that see it as a lifestyle choice, and possibly a simpler solution to not taking or requesting / suggesting / relying on themselves or others to take contraceptive matters in hand, it is, to me, at the end of the day, their body their choice.

If I happen to find that a woman I have been with is pregnant and it's without a doubt I'm the father, I will stand by the woman and whatever decision she makes. I'm responsible for my actions.


As someone else mentioned, at what point the cycle is a "child" able to be fully independent of it's host, e.g; no ICU incubation type scenarios as seen with premature babies?

For those who abhor the idea of abortion, then how do you reconcile a situation where a woman was raped and became pregnant and does not wish to bring the child to term? Do you really expect them to carry the child for nine months, give birth to it, and then what? raise it or offer it for adoption? How can that not be extremely traumatic for the woman?

I'm pro-choice. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be used as a form of contraception, but then we don't live in an ideal world. Also, it's not just lazy/careless people that end up pregnant when not wanting to be, accidents do happen when women are using birth control.

I see it slightly differently. :D

I don't think that children should be born into an un-stable situation and in particular to people who are in effect children themselves.

Adoption should also be made easier, for those in stable loving relationships, with adequate income, proven background, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Yes it is a good point, and I have nothing but admiration for couples who "choose" the adoption route

And I hope that if my cirumstances were different my wife and I would adopt

The only issue I have with adoption is parents to will adopt from other countries when there are just as many kids needing homes in their own country. "Oh, but the paperwork and process is too long in my country, plus a child from country X would be saving them from the life of hardship / poverty / some other excuse". That kind of argument annoys me greatly.

Lisa has a very good point about accidents happening, birth control is not 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancy, a very high (greater than 99% from what I recall) chance against, but not 100%, so there is always a small risk.

I used to have a very relaxed attitude toward abortion until my early 20s. I was involved at that time in a list, once a week of terminations. After a few months it suddenly dawned on me what I was actually doing. What really brought it home was the sheer number we were performing and that for many women it was the third or fourth time.


I used my right on moral/religious grounds to refuse to be involved and that's the way it has been ever since.
It's a great moral/ethical dilemma in my mind as I do get all the pro choice arguments but I do not want to be involved. I do wonder whether those who are unquestioning in their pro choice stance would change their mind somewhat if they actually saw ten STOPs in one morning. Ten early forms of life vacuumed out with a sucker into a plastic bottle and then discarded.

I stopped thinking about the ethical dilemma of abortion many years ago because I couldn't make my mind up. I took the easy way and just abstained from being involved.

3/4 abortions is not on really, you'd think the experience of going through it once would be enough to make a person be extra careful. It's possible that a woman could make a mistake twice over a 10/15yr period, but at the end of the day if you really don't want a child then BOTH party's need to be doing something about it.

I never wanted children when I was younger so made sure I always had condoms, even then I'd reverse on the vinegar stroke, by way of keeping as much as possible on the outside. Mates at the time would think I was joking and laugh at me, but having had one pregnancy scare at an early age, there was no way I was going to put myself through that again.

I am pro-choice. Of course, like any normal thinking person I do not see it as a form of contraception: "I do not need the pill or to use condoms, I can just have abortions" is a shocking mentality.

Prime candidates for sterilisation.
Most likely also falling foul of the 'below average intelligence threshold' so a win on all levels.

You must have missed this, Mr Maguire.

Scoobynet members actively encouraging eugenics. I guess if we scrape the bottom of the barrel long enough then someone might actually make a hole...

I have Certificate A (Abortion Act 1967) in front of me.

Box C is the most commonly ticked:

"the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman."

Rightly or wrongly, this is abortion on demand, as if you don't want the baby then the above could argued to be true.

I did not miss it, but figured you could probably rattle off more contentious ones (for the majority) ad infinitum if you felt like it. As you've asked again then for inherited conditions then 'yes', otherwise 'no'.

Viewed purely logically and accepting that children are a responsibility to be earned and not a right then what is your problem?
What barrel is it you think is having its bottom scraped?

Just to clarify, you would abort a fetus if were to have motor neuron disease.

If this is a problem then reduce the elapsed time before cut-off. This would give unsuitable potential parent(s) less time to do the right thing though.

Prevention is better than the cure. For all.

And this?

Yes.
Your turn. Take God out of the equation and give me a logical reason why you would not abort a fetus known to be 'crippled' in any way?

Stephen Hawking

I haven't read up on his specifics (or watched the film) but didn't his condition come on in his twenties, so his time in the womb is irrelevant to this topic?

Hypothetically, if geneticists could predict whether someone was likely to contract MND, would you have them hoovered out as a fetus?

A second question, what if somebody was to be born deaf and blind?

What if you were a non religious parent of a child who suffered terribly and never reached independence and guiltily kept the child when it could have been aborted due to pressure from religious people who weren't there to help when the **** really hit the fan?

These all sound like scenarios where the answers will vary person-to-person, and if anything merely reinforces the pro-choice argument.

..

Ok, that's fair. Would you euthanise the child? What if a child were found to be deaf and blind, would you have them killed before coming in to the world?

The act of abortion should be banned full stop unless it's for a proven serious health issue to mother or baby! A LIFE is created in the mothers womb, does not matter how the sad folk in this World with no moral compass try to butter it up to justify killing the baby!!!!