# Pregnant girl looking for abortion money



## Blossy

sorry if this shouldnt be in AA LAW? 

hi, i have a male friend, that slept wiht a girl, who now claims she is pregnant, she is lookng for 700 euros from the father to go to england.

he is fairly sus about the whole thing and has asked her to take a test to prove it to him. she has refused to do so, he is terrified to give the money as she is going to oz at the end of the year and he feels, its towards her travels. he is in the building trade, so will have to get a loan from somewhere to give it to her.

has he any rights here, can he get something to make her show she is preganant. in a mature world, she would take the test but she wont.
she is now claiming she cannot afford it herself so he is ruining both of their lives if he doesnt give her the money.

her exuse is that he should believe her. it is extremely childish. but no matter was is said she refuses to do this. he has called in the troops friends etc to ask her to do it for them and again she refuses to do so!

any suggestions?


----------



## z103

What reason would she refuse to do the test?
The only one I can think of is that she is not pregnant.


----------



## Blossy

exactly, he cant prove it, she is being very difficult. the obvious answer here is to not give her the money, but he is terrified, that if she actually is pregnant, both thier stubborness will bring a child into a terrible situation.

time is a major factor here, he cant get a court order to make her prove she is pregnant? what else can he do? ps they arent that young early - mid 20s


----------



## D8Lady

What a load of..! 

She should produce a valid result - any chemist will have a home test or a doctors note or something. 
If not, he should have her charged with blackmail or fraud.

Absolutely disgraceful. He shouldn't part with a one cent. 


And get him some condoms!


----------



## csirl

He should try a response along the lines of "great......I've always wanted children.....can I come along for the first ultrasound scan?". Should flush out any untruthfulness


----------



## MrMan

Well the only option if she wont take a test is to wait and see and if so is he willing to pay maintenance and take care of his responsibilities? It doesn't sound like he is the most sensitive guy in the world and I would have thought that 'calling in the troops' was not the right thing to do, if she is pregnant she could be terrified of the prospect of having a child. Has she previous in regards to not being known for her honesty, integrity etc?


----------



## Vanilla

God, poor girl. Maybe he should try to be a bit more sensitive and actually arrange a time to meet her and talk this through maturely and rationally. If she is pregnant she is probably all over the place emotionally. The last thing she needs is this guy telling all his friends and getting them to target her.

They need to sit down together, alone and sort this. No-one elses business.


----------



## Blossy

To be fair, i dont think he knows her all that well, by calling in the troops, i meant that he is trying to be as sensitive as possible by asking her female friends that know the situation to ask her to take a test for them,. they are also doubting the pregnancy! and she has also refused for them. 

I agree its a disgraceful situation. the fact he doesnt know her all that well worries him that maybe she will continue the pregnancy, he would support her financially.


----------



## truthseeker

It sounds odd that she wont take a test to prove she is pregnant? Especially if she definitely wants to have an abortion - one would imagine that she would be eager to prove it to get the money.

If I were the man in this situation Id just politely refuse to hand over any money without proof. Id be more than willing to hand it over with proof. 

The thing that doesnt add up is that she might go ahead with the pregnancy - if she is supposed to go away travelling and is asking for money for an abortion then how does this make sense? 

If she genuinely wants an abortion she will provide proof of the pregnancy, its unlikely that she will bring a child into the world out of sheer stubbornness.


----------



## Blossy

they initially sat down and she told him she was pregnant but was not keeping it, he said fine! was very shocked, then when he thought about it ( and im guessing people put ideas in his head) he decided to ask her for a test. she has refused, and cries and gets upset. he doesnt want to offend her or be mean to her, he just wants the truth. i think th eseed of doubt has grown considerably since she wont take the actual test, it has completely blown out of proportion.

she may just be stubborn, but IMO there is more at stake than pride.


----------



## DeeFox

He should offer to travel with her and pay for all costs as they come up.  
If she is not pregnant then she is unlikely to go through the charade of going abroad to prove a point/try and get money from him.
If she is pregnant then of course he should step up to his responsibilities and they should deal with it the situation together.


----------



## truthseeker

Thats mad Blossy. I totally agree with the guy in this situation. Id want proof too. He is entitled to proof of pregnancy if he is going to part with 700 quid for an abortion. There is nothing mean about it or offensive IMO.

What reason is there to not give him proof?


----------



## Caveat

I think definitely a one-on-one talk. If she cannot prove she is pregnant he should advise her to stop harassing him, then completely ignore her.


----------



## krissovo

Sounds like a clever scam but you never know.  

I would travel over as well and make all the arrangements for flights etc.


----------



## truthseeker

Caveat said:


> I think definitely a one-on-one talk. If she cannot prove she is pregnant he should advise her to stop harassing him, then completely ignore her.



Spot on advice - the guy is afraid if he does this and she really IS pregnant that he will end up having to pay maintenance etc.. I doubt this would happen.


----------



## Purple

If she is pregnant is he OK with her killing the baby?


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> If she is pregnant is he OK with her killing the baby?



If you look at an earlier post Blossy said they initially sat down and talked and she told him she was pregnant and not keeping it and he said 'fine' - so presumably yes.

Thats a very harsh way to describe termination of a bunch of cells that may or may not make it to full term - but thats a whole different discussion......


----------



## Blossy

hi, i have decided to contact her, and be polite but firm, and state that decision is hers to go to england, if she decides otherwise, to contact him in 9months with a birthcert, and he will have bo problem in supporting the child. If she needs help in paying for england provide proof and he has no problem in doing so, good luck and thanks.

well thats all that can be done, i am showing him this thread because i think he needed unbiased suggestions and a clearer view on other peoples ideas. so thank u all very much!


----------



## Blossy

Purple said:


> If she is pregnant is he OK with her killing the baby?


 
to be honest, im not sure has anyone asked him this!! its sad but the way it has worked out! agian another issue, but why does she get the say!


----------



## susie1

Blossy said:


> she is lookng for 700 euros from the father to go to england.


 
is this his half of the expense or does she expect him to foot the entire cost involved?

i think it is a scam, i wonder if this has been tried by her before.


----------



## Caveat

By the way if it turns out that this is a scam, personally, I wouldn't leave it at that. I wouldn't let her get away with this.


----------



## Scotsgirl

He should call to her house with a pregnancy test and the €700 euro.  Tell her to do the test while he waits, and if it proves positive (and she shows it to him) he will give her the money.  He should only give her half of the cost of the trip to England, and she should pay half.

I doubt very much she hasn't got the money if she is heading to Australia at the end of the year!


----------



## truthseeker

Caveat said:


> By the way if it turns out that this is a scam, personally, I wouldn't leave it at that. I wouldn't let her get away with this.



Like what? 
Even if it turns out she isnt pregnant she may well have thought she was when asking for the money.

I wouldnt bother with retribution, Id consider it a lucky escape and take better precautions when engaging in activities that could lead to pregnancy from here on in. Id also go for a full STD check.


----------



## demoivre

If this girl turns out to be pregnant  should  the op's friend accept that the child is his? After all, according to the op 





> To be fair, i dont think he knows her all that well


.


----------



## sam h

I'd agree with most of what was said.

 - He should only pay with proof (could he agree to reimburse her when she shows the invoices)
 - He should only have to pay half (it takes 2 to tango!!)


----------



## ney001

Definitely only pay with proof although I doubt you'll get this and only pay half as well - takes two to tango, she should be paying half herself (if it's true).  Personally I wouldn't believe a word of it and certainly wouldn't go out of my way to throw money at her!


----------



## MrMan

Scotsgirl said:


> He should call to her house with a pregnancy test and the €700 euro.  Tell her to do the test while he waits, and if it proves positive (and she shows it to him) he will give her the money.  He should only give her half of the cost of the trip to England, and she should pay half.
> 
> I doubt very much she hasn't got the money if she is heading to Australia at the end of the year!




No1 - If she is pregnant it may not be his child.
No.2 - If it is his and he agrees to a termination, I think it is more than fair that he pays the full amount. There is more than the money to consider and she is the one that will have to go through the procedure which isn't something that someone would go through lightly.


----------



## Scotsgirl

I wouldn't for a moment suggest it's an easy decision to have a termination.  It must be the hardest decision any woman has to make. But regarding responsibility for her getting pregnant (if she really is), that is down to the two of them, not just the guy.  Cost should be split between the two of them.


----------



## MrMan

Scotsgirl said:


> I wouldn't for a moment suggest it's an easy decision to have a termination.  It must be the hardest decision any woman has to make. But regarding responsibility for her getting pregnant (if she really is), that is down to the two of them, not just the guy.  Cost should be split between the two of them.



Its not just the decision, its the physical act and the aftermath that are tough to deal with. I would think that it would be a very cold man that would haggle over the costs of sending a girl to get an abortion.


----------



## FredBloggs

I would agree with Mr Man - the guy shouldn't haggle if she is pregnant.  If she isn't there's seriously something wrong with her to pull this.   
I don't know why she won't agree to the test.  In five minutes she'd have proof for him - end of story.  The only thing I can think of was she was hoping he'd be opposed to the abortion and try and talk her out of it and was annoyed/disappointed when he didn't.


----------



## PM1234

> The only thing I can think of was she was hoping he'd be opposed to the abortion and try and talk her out of it and was annoyed/disappointed when he didn't.


Somehow I doubt this. If she thought he'd try and talk her out of an abortion, it would come to light fairly quickly when they go to the doctor for a scan etc.



Blossy said:


> hi, i have decided to contact her, and be polite but firm,



Errr....am I missing something blindingly obvious here but unless your friend is not copes mentes, what business is it of yours to get involved in this situation?

The poor girl is probably distraught even if she just thinks she is pregnant. The last thing she needs is anyone other than the alleged father getting involved.

Let things settle and let the ONLY people this actually concerns sort this out themselves.


----------



## FredBloggs

PM1234 said:


> Somehow I doubt this. If she thought he'd try and talk her out of an abortion, it would come to light fairly quickly when they go to the doctor for a scan etc.


 
My understanding from the Ops posts is she looked for the money for an abortion not that he accompany her to scans.  My presumption was she said i'm pregnant and i'm going to have an abortion I need money and when he said ok have the abortion but proove you're pregnant she freaked that he didn't try and disuade her.  Only a theory...


----------



## ajapale

Moved from Askaboutlaw to  LOS


----------



## PM1234

FredBloggs said:


> she freaked that he didn't try and disuade her.  Only a theory...




I don't follow your logic. If she isn't pregnant or doesn't think she is pregnant, what would she gain from him asking her not to go through with the abortion? 

She wouldn't get the financial cost of the abortion and  surely she would expect that he would want to accompany her to appointments etc. 

Anyway the poor girl is probably confused and distraught and I hope the two adults involved sort it out themselves.


----------



## majik

He can't scrouge around for 700 euros? WTF?

Pay her the goddam money and be done with it. He'll never have to see or speak to her again after that and he can put it down as a 'learning experience'. Sometimes you have to pay for sanity and peace of mind and write off the cost accordingly. In this day and age 700 euros really is not that much money.


----------



## Thirsty

> ..dont think he knows her all that well..


Evidently knows her well enough to get her pregnant....


----------



## cleverclogs7

700e my butt.dont want to put the cat amoung the pegions but 10 yrs ago i had a termination in eling.it cost 590 pounds back then.

Tell him to use *Reverse psychology with her.Or...........ok i'll go with you .we are in this together.*
*Id bet she would soon tell the truth.*


----------



## PM1234

cleverclogs7 said:


> *Reverse psychology with her.Or...........ok i'll go with you .we are in this together.*
> *Id bet she would soon tell the truth.*



Which is what he should have done in the first place. Its not reverse psychology. Its simply facing his responsibilities!


----------



## Caveat

majik said:


> Pay her the goddam money and be done with it.


 
What?!

It's far from certain that the girl is even pregnant!

She is convinced enough that she is pregnant to talk about abortion, yet won't agree to a pregnancy test nor presumably has she taken one herself - otherwise it would make sense for her to claim that she had done this already as her proof. Hmmmm 

If this is some scam (and it sounds very like it to me) and it all comes out, well legally it's a bit pointless to pursue but morally, it's nothing less than attempted extortion and I would treat it as such in that I certainly wouldn't let it go unpunished.

IMO it is essential that the two of them talk alone and that it can be proved that the girl is in fact pregnant for a start. Forget any talk of money, bluff calling or other negotiations until then.


----------



## FredBloggs

PM1234 said:


> I don't follow your logic. If she isn't pregnant or doesn't think she is pregnant, what would she gain from him asking her not to go through with the abortion?
> 
> She wouldn't get the financial cost of the abortion and surely she would expect that he would want to accompany her to appointments etc.
> 
> Anyway the poor girl is probably confused and distraught and I hope the two adults involved sort it out themselves.


 
My original post was suggesting a reason why she mightn't take the pregnancy test if she is pregnant - ie she didn't get the response from the guy she hoped for/expected and therefore refused to show him a test.  

At the end of the day none of us know - we're all surmising.  she might be pregnant or she mightn't be.  She might be trying to get money off the guy.  She might be trying to get his attention. Only she knows.


----------



## majik

Caveat said:


> What?!
> It's far from certain that the girl is even pregnant!



It doesn't matter if she's pregnant or not, she sounds like a loon. The less dealings with her the better. Grease the palms and let her be gone. The last thing the guy should do is drag it out any further, trust me.


----------



## ney001

majik said:


> It doesn't matter if she's pregnant or not, she sounds like a loon. The less dealings with her the better. Grease the palms and let her be gone. The last thing the guy should do is drag it out any further, trust me.



Maybe if the guy had 700 euro to spare but as stated he has to take out a loan for the money.  No damn way should he pay this loon and quite frankly he is not obliged to pay for the abortion even if she is pregnant!.


----------



## MrMan

ney001 said:


> Maybe if the guy had 700 euro to spare but as stated he has to take out a loan for the money.  No damn way should he pay this loon and quite frankly he is not obliged to pay for the abortion even if she is pregnant!.




why are you calling her a loon? There is always two sides to every story and the majority of posters here seem happy to write her off as a scam artist, loon etc, we don't know if she's telling the truth so we can't call her a liar, we don't know what actually happened on that faithful night so we don't know if anything untoward happened that maybe she feels terrible about i.e things went further than she wanted. The fact of the matter is there are so many possible variables we are doing her a dusjustice.


----------



## Purple

He needs to find out one way or the other if she is pregnant. There is more at stake than just paying for the abortion. At some point in the future the OP’s friend may start a family and he may have issues of guilt about aborting what he could then see as his first child. I am not making a judgement call one way or the other about abortion, I am just pointing out that for some people it can cause long term psychological problems. He needs to know if he is really facing such a major decision or if he is being scammed. If the girl is pregnant and proceeds with the abortion then I agree with PM1234 that he needs to face up to his responsibility and go with her.


----------



## Kate10

Blossy,

I think you and your friend are completely out of line.  I have no idea if this girl is lying or not, but it seems to me that if someone says they're pregnant and are having an abortion, it is more likely than not that they are telling the truth.

Look at it this way, if she's lying, at worst your friend is out of pocket a few hundred quid.  He can put it down to experience and learn to be more circumspect with his sexual behaviour.  

On the other hand, if she's telling the truth, at the very least he has just made what is possible the most traumatic experience of her life into something so much worse.  He has accused her of lying, bullied her, and told all his friends about the situation, getting many of them to contact her.

Frankly, he sounds like a contemptible person.  I am shocked that his first concern is his money.


----------



## Ciaraella

Kate10 said:


> Blossy,
> 
> Frankly, he sounds like a contemptible person. I am shocked that his first concern is his money.


 
I think it's wrong to suggest that money is the first thing he's thinking about, from my reading of the posts it's the fact that this girl could be lying that's the issue, not whether he'll be out of pocket. Like Purple said regardless of the money there could be more consequences down the line. Like previous posters have said he should say that'll book the flights, pay for the hotel and apppointment and go with her, that way he's doing right by her if she is pregnant but also preventing himself from being scamed. She won't be forced to take a test, if she's genuine but just doesn't want to take the test, and presumably she'll back off if she's lying.


----------



## Flax

This is all very odd.

I agree with a previous poster that he should approach her with the €700 and a pregnancy test. If she refuses to take the test he should tell her to f- off and never speak to her again. If she agrees to the test and is pregnant, just give her the money and be done with her.

Tbh I don't understand why she can't just gather the money herself and go to England. I understand and agree he should fund her, but as its dragging on surely she has the cop on to just get the money and get it over with.

Btw I also think this is a scam. I have met some serious weirdos in my life - the type of people who would pull this kind of nonsense.


----------



## ailbhe

As someone who found myself pregnant after a brief relationship I can sort of understand the girls reaction.
Just playing Devils advocate here.
I know how shocked and upset I was finding out, I know how much I struggled with the dilemna of whether to even tell the father. I didn't know whether to have an abortion or to keep the pregnancy (I was 19). 
I was in pieces and a friend convinced me I had to tell the dad. So I did. He tried to convince me to have an abortion etc etc...but not once did he say "are you sure you are pregnant....are you sure it is mine..."
Perhaps if we had agreed to go down the abortion route and he had offered to pay/accompany me he may have asked for proof. If he had been interested when the child was born he may have asked for DNA tests....

But to spring those kind of accusations on her when she (if she is pregnant) is probably in shock and so upset and tormented....I can totally understand why she would be defensive.
The two of them are being stubborn (I am assuming she is pregnant). He needs to talk to the girl and tell her he is sorry for his reaction, that he was in shock. He needs to tell her he will accompany her to the doctor / clinic and will pay costs.


----------



## ClubMan

Purple said:


> If she is pregnant is he OK with her killing the baby?


Baby? Surely you mean embryo or fetus?


----------



## Blossy

hello all! 

the main question was had he any rights to find out if someone is pregnant when they claim to do so and refuse a test, it was a legal question. i am certainly not out of line as someone mentioned in asking these questions or doubting her motives, i am entitled to my own opinion. 

the point was this girl not very well known to my friend and is asking for 700 for something she will not prove....

may i ask, if you were involved in a car incident and you both drove away, if the other driver approached you on the street and asked for a sum of money, you would ask to see the car, you would ask for proof. anyone that would hand over the money without proof would be an idiot.

The money is not the main issue here, it is he could be a father to the a child, or it could be aborted, or it all could be a bix hoax, either way it seems to revolve around this 700euros. he has said he will pay for the abortion once she proves it, he just want to be made an idiot of.

note, not sure who mentioned it but i mistyped 'i' , i myself am not getting directly involved i was just looking for advise and other opinions.
i myself got pregnant very young, and am a single mother so believe me am not being nasty to this girl. when i was pregnant, and if england was an option, i would have gladly taken a test, to prove so, no matter how much my pride was hurt. if i wanted the baby or whatever you want o call it, if i was willing to get it taken from my body and go through that ordeal, surely wee-ing on a stick is nothing to do to get the money for the abortion.


----------



## Vanilla

No he doesn't have any legal rights to demand a pregnancy test. Abortion is illegal in this country. The only time he could legally demand a DNA test is if she subsequently pursues him for maintainence for this child and then he could ask a judge for said test. Might be something for him to bear in mind- that an alleged pregnancy could well progress to an alleged child. This is not a car accident nor anything like.


----------



## Blossy

yes i have noted he is aware that there will be a child involved, but as mentioned previously he seems to have no rights she makes the decision. he may well want to be father and i have not said otherwsise only that he said 'okay' when she mentioned england. he feels he has no rights, if she goes there he cant stop her, you cant force someone to have your baby, nor can you force them to have an abortion, a guy cant win! i do believe however, that if she does keep the child, he has to live up to the responsibilties that come with that. he is aware of this, and has told her so.


----------



## MrMan

Blossy said:


> yes i have noted he is aware that there will be a child involved, but as mentioned previously he seems to have no rights she makes the decision. he may well want to be father and i have not said otherwsise only that he said 'okay' when she mentioned england. he feels he has no rights, if she goes there he cant stop her, you cant force someone to have your baby, nor can you force them to have an abortion, a guy cant win! i do believe however, that if she does keep the child, he has to live up to the responsibilties that come with that. he is aware of this, and has told her so.




Regards his rights and his wants, if he doesn't want her to have an abortion then he can say so, but the gist of the story suggests that he is ok with the abortion but not ok with paying for in case he is being made a fool of. A woman has more rights for this type of scenario which is obviously for the better because it is her body that is key to everything. 
Your analogy of a car crash further proves to me that you are not being sensitive enough in this situation. As for he barely knows her - that is not the point he slept with her and used no contraception (presumably) even though he didn't know her so that is not enought o call her integrity into doubt.
If it was me and she asked I would pay and even if I felt it was a scam I would feel that I walked into the situation with very real repurcussions on the table and if this is all that he has to suffer it may be a cheap lesson.


----------



## dereko1969

Blossy said:


> he is in the building trade


well i hope he's learnt his lesson and will wear a helmet on site in future!


----------



## Pique318

dereko1969 said:


> well I Hope He's Learnt His Lesson And Will Wear A Helmet On Site In Future!


:d


----------



## Blossy

why do people keep mentioning that he walked into this and he should pay, So did she, she isnt on the pill she didnt put on the condom, neither did he put on a condom, i dont think i should be overly sensitive when she also didnt use protection, and she also knew she could get pregnant?


i personally think both parties are to blame, i am not being sensitive to either party as they both made the mistake and both should pay and both should be mature about it! 

it was sex nothing more no relationship will come of this, is she doesnt want the child and wants him to pay, she should just prove it. if she wont he wont pay and i dont think he should have to.

IMHO i dont think its fair a woman gets to call all the shots.


----------



## Sunny

Why doesn't he just offer her half the cost i.e. €350 without the pregnancy test to either make her go away and if she wants the other €350 she will have to take the test.

What a crazy situation. They obviously know each other and wasn't just a one night stand with a stranger if your friend knows her friends well enough to ask them to get involved. The two of them should probably be steralised after this to make sure they don't reproduce if this is how they carry on.


----------



## Caveat

One question Blossy - this girl, do you happen to know how she knows she is pregnant?

If we are talking about simply a missed/late period - what is the first thing any woman on this site would do in this case?


----------



## ClubMan

Caveat said:


> If we are talking about simply a missed/late period - what is the first thing any woman on this site would do in this case?


Buy a new handbag or pair of shoes?


----------



## Sunny

Caveat said:


> If we are talking about simply a missed/late period - what is the first thing any woman on this site would do in this case?


 
Complain?


----------



## Pique318

Sunny said:


> The two of them should probably be steralised after this to make sure they don't reproduce if this is how they carry on.


Deep insightful comment there !


----------



## ney001

ClubMan said:


> Buy a new handbag or pair of shoes?




Yep, should cost about €700!


----------



## truthseeker

Caveat said:


> If we are talking about simply a missed/late period - what is the first thing any woman on this site would do in this case?



Buy 'pee on a stick' type test in local chemist and go home and pee on it.


----------



## susie1

Caveat said:


> If we are talking about simply a missed/late period - what is the first thing any woman on this site would do in this case?


 


ClubMan said:


> Buy a new handbag or pair of shoes?


 
is from your personal experience? might explain the hormones alright


----------



## Purple

ClubMan said:


> Baby? Surely you mean embryo or fetus?


No


----------



## Caveat

truthseeker said:


> Buy 'pee on a stick' type test in local chemist and go home and pee on it.


 
Of course. 

Yet the girl in question has not even claimed to have done this - no mention of this or any other test so far.

You think she would at least _claim_ a positive result on a home test wouldn't you? Seemingly she has had a few opportunities to make this claim already.


----------



## Purple

Caveat said:


> Of course.
> 
> Yet the girl in question has not even claimed to have done this - no mention of this or any other test so far.
> 
> You think she would at least _claim_ a positive result on a home test wouldn't you? Seemingly she has had a few opportunities to make this claim already.



Looks like she could be taking the pee...


----------



## Blossy

Claims she has been to the doctor.

The situation at the moment is she, is saying she will go over, she asked that he doesnt come along, she doesnt need the money she said and that is it!

To be fair if she is pregnant, then she created a huge drama for herself instead of just taking the test. She wont show him docs reciepts or anything like that. 

it really is a strange one, she could be and is now just hurt, but in my eyes, its a very stubborn thing to do. i know if it was me i would like the support of someone, she refused him to go along. he will forever not know whether it was true or not.


----------



## MrMan

Blossy said:


> Claims she has been to the doctor.
> 
> The situation at the moment is she, is saying she will go over, she asked that he doesnt come along, she doesnt need the money she said and that is it!
> 
> To be fair if she is pregnant, then she created a huge drama for herself instead of just taking the test. She wont show him docs reciepts or anything like that.
> 
> it really is a strange one, she could be and is now just hurt, but in my eyes, its a very stubborn thing to do. i know if it was me i would like the support of someone, she refused him to go along. he will forever not know whether it was true or not.



How did she create a huge drama? Did she tell everyone or just him, I thought it was him that pulled others into the equation?

Regards the support of someone, I bet you would choose someone who showed a little more tact to share your burden.


----------



## michaelm

This thing is clearly a scam.





truthseeker said:


> Thats a very harsh way to describe termination of a bunch of cells that may or may not make it to full term - but thats a whole different discussion......


Indeed.  You've no idea what you're talking about there. A heart beat from 22 days, brain waves from 42 days, fully formed at 13 weeks, can survive if born from 23 weeks.  Abortion is always the wrong solution.





Blossy said:


> he will forever not know whether it was true or not.


Poor him.  He's happy with an abortion and is just concerned about being scammed.  He should assume it was a scam and forget about it.


----------



## Blossy

michaelm said:


> This thing is clearly a scam.Indeed. You've no idea what you're talking about there. A heart beat from 22 days, brain waves from 42 days, fully formed at 13 weeks, can survive if born from 23 weeks. Abortion is always the wrong solution.Poor him. He's happy with an abortion and is just concerned about being scammed. He should assume it was a scam and forget about it.


 
i think its a scam too, i honestly dont know whether or not he would like to have kept it and to be fair, his head is a mess at the moment so didnt even ask. all he was saying was he has no choice in the matter.

to all, i want ye to know that he seems to be the bad guy here, and i think he just wanted proof that she was pregnant, was happy to support either which way england or not. she had said she would keep it, when he replied ill support you, it changed day later, to she was going and she didnt want him along or the money!!! oh and she had made her situation somewhat public herself. 

i dont know the girl, but i feel for her, if she was pregnant then its tough, but no need to add to the situation. if she wasnt pregnant then she needs help fast.


----------



## ney001

michaelm said:


> Abortion is always the wrong solution.



It is a necessary solution for a lot of people! but the issue is not about whether  abortion is right or not!.

The guy got away lightly and should draw a line under it - next time be more careful and that applies to both parties.


----------



## ClubMan

michaelm said:


> Abortion is always the wrong solution.


In *your *opinion. Plenty of people would disagree with you.


----------



## csirl

> she had said she would keep it, when he replied ill support you, it changed day later, to she was going and she didnt want him along or the money!!! oh and she had made her situation somewhat public herself.


 
Sounds like she was scamming all along - saying that she will go alone with no money just to save face - no way of him ever finding out if she does genuinely go. I bet she never really makes the trip.


----------



## ailbhe

csirl said:


> Sounds like she was scamming all along - saying that she will go alone with no money just to save face - no way of him ever finding out if she does genuinely go. I bet she never really makes the trip.


 

Or perhaps she is disgusted with him for accusing her of fraud when he knows it is fairly possible she is pregnant (what with the sex and all) and she is now being stubborn and going it alone rather than putting up with the crap he is throwing at her??
I did the same. When I decided in the end not to have an abortion and bio dad was telling me all sorts to convince me to (like how useless a mother I would be), I had enough on my plate dealing with the shock of being pregnant, people finding out, life changing decisions etc to be listening to that so I simply told him to leave me alne, take some time to get hi head around the idea and I would contact him closer to the time.

Still just playing devils advocate here.Perhaps her parents have since found out and offered to support her throgh the abortion and she no longer needs his financial support (i know telling my parents was the one thing I wanted to avoid - they found out though. The baby gave it away  ). Perhaps she is now thinking "f you and your stinky attitude. I can do this myself without having to deal with the accusations".


----------



## Caveat

clubman said:


> in *your *opinion. Plenty Of People Would Disagree With You.


 
+1


----------



## Vanilla

ailbhe said:


> Or perhaps she is disgusted with him for accusing her of fraud when he knows it is fairly possible she is pregnant (what with the sex and all) and she is now being stubborn and going it alone rather than putting up with the crap he is throwing at her??
> I did the same. When I decided in the end not to have an abortion and bio dad was telling me all sorts to convince me to (like how useless a mother I would be), I had enough on my plate dealing with the shock of being pregnant, people finding out, life changing decisions etc to be listening to that so I simply told him to leave me alne, take some time to get hi head around the idea and I would contact him closer to the time.
> 
> Still just playing devils advocate here.Perhaps her parents have since found out and offered to support her throgh the abortion and she no longer needs his financial support (i know telling my parents was the one thing I wanted to avoid - they found out though. The baby gave it away  ). Perhaps she is now thinking "f you and your stinky attitude. I can do this myself without having to deal with the accusations".


 
Excellent post.


----------



## Sherman

clubman said:


> in *your *opinion. Plenty Of People Would Disagree With You.


+1


----------



## michaelm

ClubMan said:


> In *your *opinion. Plenty of people would disagree with you.


They might. And they'd be entitled to. But they'd be wrong.


----------



## Vanilla

michaelm said:


> They might. And they'd be entitled to. But they'd be wrong.


 
God, your world must be great. You know- where you are absolutely certain you are right and therefore anyone who disagrees is wrong.


----------



## Purple

I was not offering an opinion one way or the other; I just wanted to point out that having an abortion is not like throwing away an old pair of shoes and can have long-term psychological effects on both parties involved. My interest in this comes from the experience of the wife of a close friend who had a deep bout of depression after the birth of their first child as a result, (according to her and her psychiatrist) of an abortion she had 12 years before.


----------



## Caveat

Purple said:


> I just wanted to point out that having an abortion is not like throwing away an old pair of shoes and can have long-term psychological effects on both parties involved.


 
I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I also think it's grossly irresponsible to use abortion almost like a standard form of contraception as some appear to do.

I believe michaelm is simply looking for a row BTW.


----------



## michaelm

Vanilla said:


> God, your world must be great. You know- where you are absolutely certain you are right and therefore anyone who disagrees is wrong.


Yes. For me this is a black and white issue.  I have a consistent life ethic.  Apart from abortion being the wanton taking of life it is also detrimental to the individual and to society.





			
				Caveat said:
			
		

> I believe michaelm is simply looking for a row BTW.


Indeed, a row? Not that my views could be genuinely held? .


----------



## Caveat

michaelm said:


> They might. And they'd be entitled to. But they'd be wrong.


 
Well posts like this don't exactly encourage open discussion do they?


----------



## truthseeker

Caveat said:


> Well posts like this don't exactly encourage open discussion do they?



No they dont, its trolling by michaelm in my opinion. 

I agree that abortion is not something to be taken lightly but ultimately it is a still only the 'potential' for a baby - many pregnancies end naturally before the 13 week mark, heartbeats at 22 days and brainwaves at 42 days dont change this. 

I believe in choice, I dont think a woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy that could result in many peoples lives being ruined (the mother who doesnt want a child, the child who is unwanted, the relations of the mother of the child who see her falling apart through despair).

Carrying a pregnancy to term is not always a good option for everyone.

Abortion should not be used as a method of contraception, but in a modern society its a necessary evil.


----------



## Flax

truthseeker said:


> I agree that abortion is not something to be taken lightly but ultimately it is a still only the 'potential' for a baby - many pregnancies end naturally before the 13 week mark, heartbeats at 22 days and brainwaves at 42 days dont change this.
> 
> I believe in choice, I dont think a woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy that could result in many peoples lives being ruined (the mother who doesnt want a child, the child who is unwanted, the relations of the mother of the child who see her falling apart through despair).
> 
> Carrying a pregnancy to term is not always a good option for everyone.
> 
> Abortion should not be used as a method of contraception, but in a modern society its a necessary evil.


 
I completely disagree with you.

In the UK you can have an abortion up to 24 weeks - that's 6 months. I'm sorry, but that is killing an unborn child.

Saying people need to have an abortion because having a child will "destroy" their life is ridiculous on so many levels. No child ever "destroys" someone's life - yes, the child will force you to make some major adjustments to your routine and alter some of your plans, but is that really enough of an excuse to physically destroy a life? No, it's not, it's utter selfishness.

I'm not religious and I don't have any warped views on "what is life" (for example, the morning after pill is not killing an unborn child), but abortion is wrong if it is done to save the parents from inconvenience. And that's why it is used - inconvenience.


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> I'm not religious and I don't have any warped views on "what is life" (for example, the morning after pill is not killing an unborn child), but abortion is wrong if it is done to save the parents from inconvenience.



Do you think a young girl committing suicide because she cannot cope with an unwanted pregnancy is simply someone who views it as inconvenience?


----------



## Flax

truthseeker said:


> Do you think a young girl committing suicide because she cannot cope with an unwanted pregnancy is simply someone who views it as inconvenience?


 
Why are you using an extreme and rare example to prove a general point?

Of course I think abortion should be considered for extreme cases like suicide (mother and child will die) or an unwanted child from a rape.

But examples like that are perhaps... 0.5% of cases? Less?


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> Why are you using an extreme and rare example to prove a general point?
> 
> Of course I think abortion should be considered for extreme cases like suicide (mother and child will die) or an unwanted child from a rape.
> 
> But examples like that are perhaps... 0.5% of cases? Less?



Because I think that stating abortion saves parents from inconvenience is a gross over generalisation.

Its inconvenient when someone parks in your car parking space.
 Someone not being able to go to college (or travel) because they cant afford childcare and taking a dead end job just to make ends meet is not an inconvenience, its a life change that may be so unwelcome as to be impossible to comprehend.


----------



## Flax

truthseeker said:


> Someone not being able to go to college (or travel) because they cant afford childcare and taking a dead end job just to make ends meet is not an inconvenience, its a life change that may be so unwelcome as to be impossible to comprehend.


 
I agree having a child is a major issue, but is that enough of a reason to kill an unborn child? Of course not! It is not remotely close to being a good enough reason.

I understand abortion is a difficult topic, especially for people who have had abortions, but the reality is it is killing an unborn child. Seriously, just have the kid and give it up for adoption - it will be so grateful you didn't kill it. And you'll still get to live a normal life.

There is no reason not to have the child and give it up for adoption. Arguments like "but having a child will change the shape of my body" or "I don't want to have to alter my diet for 9 months" etc. are NOT strong enough to abort the pregnancy.


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> I agree having a child is a major issue, but is that enough of a reason to kill an unborn child? Of course not! It is not remotely close to being a good enough reason.
> 
> I understand abortion is a difficult topic, especially for people who have had abortions, but the reality is it is killing an unborn child. Seriously, just have the kid and give it up for adoption - it will be so grateful you didn't kill it. And you'll still get to live a normal life.
> 
> There is no reason not to have the child and give it up for adoption. Arguments like "but having a child will change the shape of my body" or "I don't want to have to alter my diet for 9 months" etc. are NOT strong enough to abort the pregnancy.



Well this may be your opinion but for someone faced with this difficult decision they may feel differently - and whether or not I presonally think abortion is right or wrong I have respect the choices of others.


----------



## Sherman

Flax said:


> I agree having a child is a major issue, but is that enough of a reason to kill an unborn child? Of course not! It is not remotely close to being a good enough reason.
> 
> I understand abortion is a difficult topic, especially for people who have had abortions, but the reality is it is killing an unborn child. Seriously, just have the kid and give it up for adoption - it will be so grateful you didn't kill it. And you'll still get to live a normal life.
> 
> There is no reason not to have the child and give it up for adoption. Arguments like "but having a child will change the shape of my body" or "I don't want to have to alter my diet for 9 months" etc. are NOT strong enough to abort the pregnancy.


 
Sorry, who are you to decide whether a woman should carry a foetus for 9 months and then 'just give it up for adoption'?  

Ultimately, this is about control of a woman's body, and I for one do not want to force women to have children they don't want.


----------



## Flax

Sherman said:


> Sorry, who are you to decide whether a woman should carry a foetus for 9 months and then 'just give it up for adoption'?
> 
> Ultimately, this is about control of a woman's body, and I for one do not want to force women to have children they don't want.


 
I would agree with you IF the woman didn't have sex and somehow got pregnant. It's not like the baby magically appears - she has to have sex while she's ovulating.

I simply believe the right to life is more important than inconvenience.

For example, I know a lot of girls who've had abortions (it's very common, even in Ireland) and they all did it because they didn't want to have to carry a baby during college, or a similar, small reason.

I cannot understand how someone can put a small want like "ah sure the next 9 months will be easier if I'm not pregnant" ahead of "I'm going to terminate a life".

It's wrong. I know society is pushing us to accept it as right, but it's not. It is selfish and it is the classic example of people's unwillingness to accept personal responsibility for their actions.


----------



## Sherman

Flax said:


> I would agree with you IF the woman didn't have sex and somehow got pregnant. It's not like the baby magically appears - she has to have sex while she's ovulating.


 
What, so she should be punished by having the state dictate what she does with her own body?


----------



## ClubMan

Purple said:


> No


Doesn't make much sense so.


----------



## ClubMan

michaelm said:


> They might. And they'd be entitled to. But they'd be wrong.


----------



## ClubMan

Purple said:


> I was not offering an opinion one way or the other; I just wanted to point out that having an abortion is not like throwing away an old pair of shoes and can have long-term psychological effects on both parties involved. My interest in this comes from the experience of the wife of a close friend who had a deep bout of depression after the birth of their first child as a result, (according to her and her psychiatrist) of an abortion she had 12 years before.


Do you usually generalise from individual incidents like this? I know more than one woman who has had an abortion (and some more than one) who have not been obviously unduly physically or mentally affected by it. If they have been then they hide it very well.


----------



## Flax

Sherman said:


> What, so she should be punished by having the state dictate what she does with her own body?


 
There's more to it than her body... there's a life growing inside her.

She should accept responsibility for what she did (got herself pregnant) and give the child up for adoption if she doesn't want the inconvenience of having to raise it.

I think having to put up with being pregnant for 9 months is a reasonable compromise.


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> I think having to put up with being pregnant for 9 months is a reasonable compromise.



Thats a simplistic overview, there is a lifelong psychological aspect to carrying a baby for 9 months and then giving it up.


----------



## Purple

Flax, I agree with you completely.


----------



## Purple

truthseeker said:


> Thats a simplistic overview, there is a lifelong psychological aspect to carrying a baby for 9 months and then giving it up.


Just as there can be from aborting it.


----------



## Flax

truthseeker said:


> Thats a simplistic overview, there is a lifelong psychological aspect to carrying a baby for 9 months and then giving it up.


 
I don't understand how you are unable to grasp what the unborn child might feel about all of this.

In my opinion an abortion throws up some pretty serious issues for the unborn child - a lot more serious than the mother!


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> Just as there can be from aborting it.



I dont disagree with this - of course there is, but I suspect the worry of a child being out there who may or may not make contact some day is a different kind of issue than something that is definitely completely in the past.


----------



## MrMan

Sherman said:


> What, so she should be punished by having the state dictate what she does with her own body?



I guess the argument is that she is not merely dictacting what goes on in her own body, she is dictating whether another person should die or have a chance for life. It is rarely cut and dried and for either stance to take a black and white approach isn't right imo because of the many variables that effect every case.


----------



## michaelm

truthseeker said:


> whether or not I presonally think abortion is right or wrong I have respect the choices of others.


That's a common misconception (no pun intended). If you think murder, rape, abuse, torture, abortion, whatever is wrong you do not have to respect the choices of others is such regard.  Abortion is not a solution to social, medical or mental health problems, but rather a compounding factor in such problems.  Women deserve better.  People should educate themselves as to what abortion really entails; those with a strong constitution might Google partial-birth abortion.  There are many tens of millions of abortions (majority female) worldwide every year,  an annual Hidden Holocaust.


----------



## Purple

ClubMan said:


> Do you usually generalise from individual incidents like this? I know more than one woman who has had an abortion (and some more than one) who have not been obviously unduly physically or mentally affected by it. If they have been then they hide it very well.


 I did not generalise from an individual incident. I made a general point and then let people know why I have a specific interest in the subject. Are you suggesting that it is not the case that women who have abortions can have  long term psychological problems as a result (Note that I did not say they this always happens)?


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> I don't understand how you are unable to grasp what the unborn child might feel about all of this.
> 
> In my opinion an abortion throws up some pretty serious issues for the unborn child - a lot more serious than the mother!



And thats where we differ. I believe in the rights of the mother over the rights of the unborn child. People may disagree with this but its my opinion.


----------



## Flax

truthseeker said:


> I dont disagree with this - of course there is, but I suspect the worry of a child being out there who may or may not make contact some day is a different kind of issue than something that is definitely completely in the past.


 
This says it all. The "worry" that you might one day make contact with the child you gave up for adoption is more important than the concept of killing it.

"Worried you might bump into the child you gave up for adoption? No problem! Come to our clinic and we'll kill it. Problem solved."

I cannot believe the selfishness of some people.


----------



## Sherman

truthseeker said:


> and Thats Where We Differ. I Believe In The Rights Of The Mother Over The Rights Of The Unborn Child. People May Disagree With This But Its My Opinion.


 
+1.


----------



## ney001

Flax said:


> There's more to it than her body... there's a life growing inside her.
> 
> She should accept responsibility for what she did (got herself pregnant) and give the child up for adoption if she doesn't want the inconvenience of having to raise it.
> 
> I think having to put up with being pregnant for 9 months is a reasonable compromise.



Does this theory apply to those that have been sexually abused and/or raped or even those in abusive relationships, having a child in these circumstances will mean that the abuser will be in their lives forever.  Get off your high horse if you haven't been in the position of an unwanted and unexpected pregnancy you have no right to say that it is reasonable to carry a child for nine months then give it away.  Quite frankly I know two single mothers (one is an alcoholic) who I can honestly say have made a pigs ear of raising their children and I often think that in these cases abortion would have been a better option for all concerned!


----------



## Flax

ney001 said:


> Does this theory apply to those that have been sexually abused and/or raped or even those in abusive relationships, having a child in these circumstances will mean that the abuser will be in their lives forever. Get off your high horse if you haven't been in the position of an unwanted and unexpected pregnancy you have no right to say that it is reasonable to carry a child for nine months then give it away. Quite frankly I know two single mothers (one is an alcoholic) who I can honestly say have made a pigs ear of raising their children and I often think that in these cases abortion would have been a better option for all concerned!


 
I have already said I have a different opinion when it comes to sexual assault/suicidal mothers. Read my posts before jumping to conclusions please. My problem is with 99% of abotions which are based on the inconvenience of being pregnant.

You think people who bring up their children badly should have had an abortion. That's lovely. Who else should we abort? Unintelligent people? Disabled people? People you don't like?

Killing unborn children is not the solution to bad parenting.

Insane.


----------



## truthseeker

Surely it is an horrendous abuse of human rights to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term that she would rather terminate?


----------



## Ham Slicer

Flax said:


> Who else should we abort? Unintelligent people? Disabled people? People you don't like?




Most of the junkies on Middle Abbey Street for a start.  Too busy in work to list the rest.


----------



## Flax

truthseeker said:


> Surely it is an horrendous abuse of human rights to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term that she would rather terminate?


 
Oh - I think an unwanted pregnancy is a terrible thing. I know this is not a simple issue.

But you have to decide what is more important - the life of the innocent, unborn child, or the choice of the woman who got pregnant.

I think protecting life should come first. As stated previously, it's not like the mother magically got pregnant - she did complete the full act which led to pregnancy. 

So my opinion would be "I'm sorry, but it's too late to change your mind now."


----------



## Purple

truthseeker said:


> Surely it is an horrendous abuse of human rights to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term that she would rather terminate?


Surely it’s a horrendous abuse of the rights of an unborn child to kill it because it’s mother chooses not to live with the consequences of her own actions (where the pregnancy is a result of rape it is a different matter).


----------



## Purple

Ham Slicer said:


> Most of the junkies on Middle Abbey Street for a start.  Too busy in work to list the rest.


Retroactive abortion… I don’t think it will catch on.


----------



## michaelm

truthseeker said:


> Do you think a young girl committing suicide because she cannot cope with an unwanted pregnancy is simply someone who views it as inconvenience?





Flax said:


> Of course I think abortion should be considered for extreme cases like suicide . . or an unwanted child from a rape


Another fallacy.  Studies show that such unstable 'young girls' are far more likely to attempt suicide post-abortion than post-childbirth.  They need counseling and support, an abortion is not a fix for suicidal tendencies.   Flax, if you think about it, do you think that one unborn child should have less right to life than another based on the circumstances of its conception?


----------



## Flax

michaelm said:


> Another fallacy. Studies show that such unstable 'young girls' are far more likely to attempt suicide post-abortion than post-childbirth.


 
OK, this is possible, I don't know all the statistics. My point I suppose was I would have a different opinion on the subject for extreme situations.




michaelm said:


> Flax, if you think about it, do you think that one unborn child should have less right to life than another based on the circumstances of its conception?


 
No, I still think the child is innocent and has a right to life, but I think an evil act like rape is an exceptional situation. Obviously I don't think abortion is a "good" solution in this case, but I can understand the mother's reason for wanting it.


----------



## Sunny

I thought the Golden rule of Irish pub chat was to never discuss abortion, religion or Northern Ireland politics! 

People are for it and people are against it. You are never going to change peoples minds but you could end up causing pain to someone even if you don't mean to by using words like 'killing'. Its an emotive subject that I am sure has affected alot of people including myself. Its fine to have opinions and people have the freedom to express them but nobody has the right to pass judgement or try to impose their moral beliefs on others.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> I thought the Golden rule of Irish pub chat was to never discuss abortion, religion or Northern Ireland politics!
> 
> People are for it and people are against it. You are never going to change peoples minds but you could end up causing pain to someone even if you don't mean to by using words like 'killing'. Its an emotive subject that I am sure has affected alot of people including myself. Its fine to have opinions and people have the freedom to express them but nobody has the right to pass judgement or try to impose their moral beliefs on others.



If I was a racist and my opinion was that I should not employ black people should I be exempt from anti-discrimination laws because _“nobody has the right to pass judgement or try to impose their moral beliefs on others”_?


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> If I was a racist and my opinion was that I should not employ black people should I be exempt from anti-discrimination laws because _“nobody has the right to pass judgement or try to impose their moral beliefs on others”_?


 
I don't get it. Nobody is breaking any laws by having an abortion.


----------



## Flax

It is killing though. Pretending it is something else is part of the reason why so many people assume abortion is a form of contraception.

I know one girl who had a "lunch break" abortion in the UK. Yep, you get them during your lunch break and you go back to work! Surely this is a sign that people think abortion is somewhat unserious?


----------



## Caveat

I agree Sunny.

One thing I've always found a bit strange though is that many of those who claim not be under the influence of the teachings of the catholic church just happen to hold the same views as the church do on abortion.  

What a coincidence eh? 

Does it not strike anyone as unusual that some of the most anti abortion citizens in Europe just happen to live in one of the few European states where abortion is illegal save for certain exceptions?


----------



## Sunny

Flax said:


> It is killing though. Pretending it is something else is part of the reason why so many people assume abortion is a form of contraception.


 
Thats your opinion. You have already exposed your moral ambiguity by stating it is acceptable to 'kill' under some circumstances. I can understand people who are totally against it but I struggle to see your view.


----------



## ney001

Flax said:


> I have already said I have a different opinion when it comes to sexual assault/suicidal mothers. Read my posts before jumping to conclusions please. My problem is with 99% of abotions which are based on the inconvenience of being pregnant.
> 
> You think people who bring up their children badly should have had an abortion. That's lovely. Who else should we abort? Unintelligent people? Disabled people? People you don't like?
> 
> Killing unborn children is not the solution to bad parenting.
> 
> Insane.




99%, where did that number come from?

And I'm not just talking about bad parenting I am talking about women who should never have had the children because from day one the child didn't have a good life, born to alcoholic mother, passed around to anybody who'll mind him/her, not provided with the vital tools needed to grow up happy and healthy.  I personally believe that a lot of children born to a set up like this get into a vicious circle and they themselves will end up having unwanted children or will end up in a life of drugs/crime etc as a way of escaping an abusive situation at home.  

In an ideal world, these people would not be allowed to have children in the first place but if we cannot prevent them from getting pregnant then I think once it's done at a very early stage - abortion is one solution. 

I can honestly say that while I personally would not have an abortion (due to  knowing that I could provide adequately for a child) I wouldn't hesitate to allow my 13/14/15/16 year old daughter to have one.  And yes of course teenagers shouldn't be having children but they are children themselves and do bloody stupid things , as such I would not force any child of mine  to bring a child into the world as a way of making her pay for having unprotected sex!.


----------



## michaelm

Sunny said:


> Nobody is breaking any laws by having an abortion.


In the early 40's a German doctor could legally kill Jews, in Britain he'd be charged with murder.  In the 70's a British doctor could legally carry out abortions, in Germany he'd have been prosecuted.  Laws change but right and wrong don't.


----------



## ney001

michaelm said:


> In the early 40's a German doctor could legally kill Jews, in Britain he'd be charged with murder.  In the 70's a British doctor could legally carry out abortions, in Germany he'd have been prosecuted.  Laws change but right and wrong don't.



Aren't we lucky that MichaelM can tell us what is right and what is wrong!


----------



## Caveat

michaelm said:


> In the early 40's a German doctor could legally kill Jews, in Britain he'd be charged with murder. In the 70's a British doctor could legally carry out abortions, in Germany he'd have been prosecuted. Laws change but right and wrong don't.


 
It's a good example - but laws change for a reason.

Germany is unusual in that to this day abortion is technically illegal there - although it is carried out and no-one is prosecuted. 

Ireland has the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe and in the vast majority of European countries abortion is available on request - are they all wrong?


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> In the early 40's a German doctor could legally kill Jews, in Britain he'd be charged with murder. In the 70's a British doctor could legally carry out abortions, in Germany he'd have been prosecuted. Laws change but right and wrong don't.


 
Is that seriously the best you can do? For someone with such strong beliefs on something, that is a weak defence. I am not going to waste my time tearing that argument apart.

Just want to ask who decides right and wrong for us all? You?


----------



## csirl

Getting back to the OPs original question. Lets look at it from a purely legal unemotional point of view:

Person A & Person B jointly engage in an activity.

As a result of this activity, Person A claims to have incurred unforeseen expenditure.

Person A asks Person B to share the unforeseen expenditure as both are equally responsible.

Person B says, yes I will share the unforeseen expenditure, can you show me proof that the expenditure was incurred.

Person A refuses to show the proof so Person B, who has no proof the expenditure was actually incurred and doubts that it was, refuses to pay.

I think that if the above ever went to court, the Judge would rule that Person A should not expect to receive payment unless they provide proof of expenditure to Person B.


----------



## Purple

Caveat said:


> One thing I've always found a bit strange though is that many of those who claim not be under the influence of the teachings of the catholic church just happen to hold the same views as the church do on abortion.


All major religions oppose abortion. 
My opinion on abortion is that it is not a black and white issue but an unborn child is being killed; it is not a form of contraception. My view on the subject are not informed by the Catholic Church or any other Church as I am an atheist and have been for a very long time. This is about the only morally contentious subject where my views are close to those of the Catholic Church.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Is that seriously the best you can do? For someone with such strong beliefs on something, that is a weak defence. I am not going to waste my time tearing that argument apart.


 I thought it was a well made point.



Sunny said:


> Just want to ask who decides right and wrong for us all? You?


We decide collectivly and we are all entitled to our opinion and to express it as stronly as we like within the law.


----------



## Pique318

Jaysus, generalisations and statistics are flying like pellets from a scattergun in here now !


What follows is basically a condensed version of the previous 3 pages....

It's right to be able to choose.
No it's not, choice gives the opportunity of murder.
So it's wrong in all cases ?
Yes.
And rape, incest..is it still wrong to have an abortion then?
Well, perhaps not.
So murder is OK then ?
No...but at times....maybe.
Oh maybe?
Well..um..y'see it's too easily accessible, people do it without thinking it through.
So you're saving them from themselves?
Yes, exactly !
Ohh, Now I see. Thanks for your time, Oh Omnipotent One.
You're welcome.




Now here's a spanner to throw in the works...
Murder means taking a life. Murder of a 30-weeks-pregnant woman is still only murder of 1 person.
In my opinion, life begins when that being (lamb, calf, puppy, kitten or infant) is born and breathes on its own, or else I'm 9 months older than I think I am. Anything can happen (especially in the first 15 weeks) to cause the pregnancy to terminate 'naturally'. Some women don't know they're pregnant and their lifestyle may cause it unintentionally. Should they be charged with manslaughter ?
If not, why not ? Intentional killing is murder, unintentional killing is manslaughter.


----------



## truthseeker

jaybird said:


> excellent Post!
> Flax (and Agreers) You Have An Absolutist Approach To Morality, And You See Abortion As The Killing Of A Child. Many Will Disagree, Firstly, With Your Terminiology. For Me (and Many Others) A Baby Is Not A Baby Until It Is Born. It Is A Foetus, And Before That An Embryo, Not A Baby, But A Potential Baby. You Say Abortion Is Killing, I Say It Is Termination, That Is, Termination Of The Possibility Of Life.
> I Also Say That A Woman,who Is Already A Living, Breathing, Autonomous Person, Has More Rights Than A Collection Of Cells That Is Wholly Dependent On That Women For Survival.
> Prohibiting Abortion Is An Infringement On A Womans Right To Liberty And Physical Integrity. Imo It Is Utterly Wrong To Require A Woman To Complete A Pregnancy When She Is Unwilling Or Unable To Undertake Such An Enormous Commitment.
> Every Child Should Be A Wanted Child.



+1


----------



## Caveat

Purple said:


> All major religions oppose abortion.


Yes, but I was contending that many people whether they realise it or not, in this country, hold the views they do because of the influence of the catholic church - even those who claim not to be religious. I'm not saying people are incapable of independently holding these views but I think it's rare.


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> We decide collectivly and we are all entitled to our opinion and to express it as stronly as we like within the law.


 
Exactly and peope have decided collectively that abortion is ok albeit in the usual Irish roundabout way of saying it is ok as long as it is not done here. Where did I say you were weren't allowed to express your opinion? I said you are not entitled to pass judgement or impose your moral beliefs on people who disagree with you as they are not doing anything illegal. And in my opinion saying people who have abortions are 'killers' is passing judgement based your own personal beliefs. 

Out of curiosity, do people consider the morning after pill an abortion?


----------



## Vanilla

I personally wish abortion didn't exist. I think it is wrong under any circumstance to have an abortion except where there is a real medical issue affecting the life of the mother or child. But I cannot impose my morality on other people. Because if travelling to the UK to have an abortion is not against the law then all we have left is our own personal morality. I believe that people must ( within the confines of the law) adhere to their own code of morality. So while I am saddened by the circumstances of the OPs post and wish that the girl in question would consider anything other than an abortion ( keeping the child or adoption), I do not think that I or anyone else can force the issue.


----------



## Sunny

Vanilla said:


> I personally wish abortion didn't exist. I think it is wrong under any circumstance to have an abortion except where there is a real medical issue affecting the life of the mother or child. But I cannot impose my morality on other people. Because if travelling to the UK to have an abortion is not against the law then all we have left is our own personal morality. I believe that people must ( within the confines of the law) adhere to their own code of morality. So while I am saddened by the circumstances of the OPs post and wish that the girl in question would consider anything other than an abortion ( keeping the child or adoption), I do not think that I or anyone else can force the issue.


 
Well said.


----------



## CharlieC

I've noticed that everybody that is for *abortion* has already been born. ~*Ronald Reagan*


----------



## Purple

jaybird said:


> Excellent post!
> Flax (and agreers) you have an absolutist approach to morality, and you see abortion as the killing of a child. Many will disagree, firstly, with your terminiology. For me (and many others) a baby is not a baby until it is born. It is a foetus, and before that an embryo, not a baby, but a potential baby. You say abortion is killing, I say it is termination, that is, termination of the possibility of life.


So you're cool with abortion at 8 months?


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> So you're cool with abortion at 8 months?


 
Go the other way and are you against the morning after pill?


----------



## Caveat

CharlieC said:


> I've noticed that everybody that is for *abortion* has already been born. ~*Ronald Reagan*


 
Oh yeah. Forgot about that genius.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Where did I say you were weren't allowed to express your opinion? I said you are not entitled to pass judgement or impose your moral beliefs on people who disagree with you as they are not doing anything illegal.


 You didn't and I didn't suggest you did.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Go the other way and are you against the morning after pill?



No. Now will you answer my question?


----------



## Flax

Caveat said:


> One thing I've always found a bit strange though is that many of those who claim not be under the influence of the teachings of the catholic church just happen to hold the same views as the church do on abortion.
> 
> What a coincidence eh?


 
I must be influenced by the catholic church because I happen to think abortion is wrong? 

The catholic church happen to have a lot of opinions on a lot of things - it makes sense *some* of my, your and everyone elses opinions will be the same as the catholic church.

Seriously, come on now.




			
				Sunny said:
			
		

> You have already exposed your moral ambiguity by stating it is acceptable to 'kill' under some circumstances


 
Abortion is not the black and white subject you think it is. Saying everyone should be able to have an abortion or no one should be able have an abortion is simplistic and lazy. There is a middle ground, and I happen to think that middle ground is abortion should be tolerated for extreme circumstances, for example, if the mother is going to commit suicide.

If a maniac stabbed a pregnant woman in the stomach and killed her unborn child, you would say he "killed" her unborn child. You wouldn't say he aborted her fetus. People don't use the term "kill" when talking about abortion because is it not nice, not because it is not accurate.

I am a feminist and I have a lot of friends who have had abortions, but the fact of the matter is an abortion is an extreme solution to a problem of inconvenience.


----------



## michaelm

Caveat said:


> Ireland has the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe and in the vast majority of European countries abortion is available on request, without restriction - are they all wrong?


Well maybe Malta has tighter abortion laws than Ireland.  Germany, France, Italy, Poland and others have various restrictions.  The UK effectively has an abortion on demand regime with 200,000 abortions carried out every year.  And yes, countries where abortion is legal are wrong.  The tide of abortion will eventually turn and future generations will be horrified when reading the history about the rise and fall of legal abortion from 1968 Britain onwards.

Uncomfortable as it may be for some but pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion. Those who refer to clumps of cells have little idea of what abortion is.  I'm against the death penalty and I think that if someone is for it then they should be prepared to do it themselves.  Similarly, anyone who is for abortion should be willing to carry out or assist in the procedure.


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> You wouldn't say he aborted her fetus.



That is exactly how I would say it. I would never use the word kill about the aborting of a fetus.


----------



## Pique318

michaelm said:


> Uncomfortable as it may be for some but pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion. Those who refer to clumps of cells have little idea of what abortion is.  I'm against the death penalty and I think that if someone is for it then they should be prepared to do it themselves.  Similarly, anyone who is for abortion should be willing to carry out or assist in the procedure.


I love it !  The lunatics have taken over the asylum ! 

Pro-choice is saying you can have an abortion if you need one.
Pro-abortion is going up to a pregnant woman and telling her to have an abortion. See the slight difference there ?

I'm for the death penalty in certain cases. And believe me, I would have no problem putting a gun to the back of the head of some of the scum we've seen in the news recently and pulling the trigger. That would be difficult only in getting to be the one to do it out of all the people who would readily volunteer.

I'm for the availability of abortions too, but I'm not a medical professional, so me doing it would be like letting a blind man do it.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> Similarly, anyone who is for abortion should be willing to carry out or assist in the procedure.



Id have no problem carrying out or assisting in abortion - as a medical procedure.

Nor would I have any problem being the person who administers lethal injection. They are both just jobs and as neither case goes against my own moral code Id do either.


----------



## diarmuidc

Purple said:


> No. Now will you answer my question?


Where during the pregnancy do you draw the line?


----------



## Flax

diarmuidc said:


> Where during the pregnancy do you draw the line?


 
People have already stated it is not a baby until it is born. That's rather simplistic if you ask me...

I think a lot of people don't understand what an abortion is. They think it must be ok because lots of countries have legalised it. But you know what? Throughout history lots of countries have legalised lots of terrible things, e.g. slavery.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> I'm against the death penalty and I think that if someone is for it then they should be prepared to do it themselves.  Similarly, anyone who is for abortion should be willing to carry out or assist in the procedure.



This argument is baffling actually because there are plenty of things I agree with that Id rather not do as a job. Like sewerage systems for example. Or surgery - I totally agree with surgery but I wouldnt have the nerve in case I messed it up.


----------



## michaelm

truthseeker said:


> That is exactly how I would say it. I would never use the word kill about the aborting of a fetus.


Fetus is simply the term for an unborn child from eight weeks until birth.  It's linguistic semantics; people are more comfortable with 'abort the fetus' than with 'kill the unborn'; somewhat similar to the military using 'collateral damage' to describe 'civilian deaths'.


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> No. Now will you answer my question?


 
I have no problem saying I would have serious concerns about late term abortions mainly because of the likely impact on the woman but I do understand them if there is medical concerns with regard the safety of the mother or if it can determined that the child would have severe disabilities or illness. Anyway, I don't think many women would go through 6 months of pregnancy and suddenly wake up and decide she wanted an abortion for the sake of convenience.


----------



## Flax

michaelm said:


> Fetus is simply the term for an unborn child from eight weeks until birth. It's linguistic semantics; people are more comfortable with 'abort the fetus' than with 'kill the unborn'; somewhat similar to the military using 'collateral damage' to describe 'civilian deaths'.


 
Yes, people are either refusing to understand this or are unable to understand this. This is scary as we're talking about life and death.

I dunno. I just think it's sad that so many people have lost the sense of the importance and value of life. They think their own comfort is more important, and like so many people these days do not understand the concept of personal responsibility.


----------



## Flax

Sunny said:


> I have no problem saying I would have serious concerns about late term abortions mainly because of the likely impact on the woman


 
Do you care about the unborn at all?

You do realise they are aborting an actual human life?


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> Yes, people are either refusing to understand this or are unable to understand this. This is scary as we're talking about life and death.




Just because people disagree with your opinion does not mean they do not understand or are unable to understand any of this. That is an extremely patronising attitude to take.

I personally find it just as scary that someone would force a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy. Its just a different point of view - you can disagree with me but that does not mean that you are right and I am wrong (or vice versa).


----------



## MrMan

diarmuidc said:


> Where during the pregnancy do you draw the line?




Maybe some of the 'for' camp should answer purples question first, it is a reasonable question and offers the chance for a direct answer rather than a reaction, so will someone or all opposed to an unborns childs right to life answer purples Q: Are you cool with abortion at 8 months pregnancy?


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> You do realise they are aborting an actual human life?



Again this is patronising, I am quite sure Sunny understands what an abortion entails (judging from her posts)


----------



## Flax

truthseeker said:


> Just because people disagree with your opinion does not mean they do not understand or are unable to understand any of this. That is an extremely patronising attitude to take.
> 
> I personally find it just as scary that someone would force a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy. Its just a different point of view - you can disagree with me but that does not mean that you are right and I am wrong (or vice versa).


 
Having sex, getting pregnant and then being forced to give birth to the child is INFINITELY better than having sex, getting pregnant, and then killing the unborn child.

Can you not see one is bad but the other is extremely more severe?


----------



## Flax

truthseeker said:


> Again this is patronising, I am quite sure Sunny understands what an abortion entails (judging from her posts)


 
Then why does she think aborting an 8 month old unborn child should be taken with care, _because it might injure the woman_?

Either she doesn't understand the reality of an abortion or she simply doesn't give a damn about unborn children.


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> Having sex, getting pregnant and then being forced to give birth to the child is INFINITELY better than having sex, getting pregnant, and then killing the unborn child.
> 
> Can you not see one is bad but the other is extremely more severe?



In your opinion - not in other everyones opinion. 

In my opinion is it infinitely worse to force the pregnancy. Again Flax - this is where we differ. I am up for the rights of the mother.


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> Then why does she think aborting an 8 month old unborn child should be taken with care, _because it might injure the woman_?
> 
> Either she doesn't understand the reality of an abortion or she simply doesn't give a damn about unborn children.



Or perhaps she has a different set of morals than people who are anti abortion.


----------



## Pique318

Flax said:


> You do realise they are aborting an actual human life?


aha...but from when ? Conception, conscious thought or stimulus response ?


----------



## Flax

OK. You put the rights of the mother ahead of the unborn child, even if this means defending her right to abort her child's life because she couldn't be arsed giving birth and giving the child away for adoption.

I think you are grossly misunderstanding what an abortion does - it kills a life.


----------



## michaelm

Pique318 said:


> I'm not a medical professional, so me doing it would be like letting a blind man do it.





truthseeker said:


> This argument is baffling actually because there are plenty of things I agree with that Id rather not do as a job. Like sewerage systems for example. Or surgery - I totally agree with surgery but I wouldnt have the nerve in case I messed it up.


You people are not stupid (maybe misguided).  It's the principle of it, whether you'd be prepared to get directly involved, slop out the bucket if you will.


----------



## Flax

Pique318 said:


> aha...but from when ? Conception, conscious thought or stimulus response ?


 
In the UK you can abort up to 6 months. No one can argue that it is just a blob at 6 months - it's not - it's a life.

If there was a strict limit of perhaps one week after you discover you're pregnant (i.e. 4 - 6  weeks after the act) then perhaps I'd be more flexible, but the reality is no one has abortions at that early stage.


----------



## MrMan

My stance is very 'grey area' and I can probably have that stance as a man I would never have a definitive input as to choosing to abort or not. I do think that the arguments at both sides have been good at times but often lose credibility with nuggets like 'if you agree then you should carry out the abortion' or at the other side 'I look at some kids and their parents and think they should have been aborted' - a nice little foray into genocide. There is a lot of emotion attached and it is a very personal situation but my own particular leanings are to the childs right and the fact that there have been changes in thinking as to when the embryo develops into a child it makes the decision to abort all the more difficult. The wording has been offensive to some if not most when some posters say 'kill' rather than terminate but really it is stronger language of the same meaning so maybe those offended are not as comfortable with their arguments as it seems. One other point that I would argue with is that women should not be forced to go through pregnancy, I agree that they should not be forced to conceive but when they undertake an action that has real consequences then they should not look upon it as being forced to do anything.


----------



## Pique318

Flax said:


> I think you are grossly misunderstanding what an abortion does - it kills a life.


Oh forgive us, for we know not what we speak


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> OK. You put the rights of the mother ahead of the unborn child, even if this means defending her right to abort her child's life because she couldn't be arsed giving birth and giving the child away for adoption.
> 
> I think you are grossly misunderstanding what an abortion does - it kills a life.




I never said I would defend the rights of a mother who couldnt be bothered giving birth - I dont think its ever that simple. There is a massive amount involved in being pregnant and giving birth, plus the possibility of complications that could threaten the mothers life.

I do understand what an abortion is Flax.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> You people are not stupid (maybe misguided).  It's the principle of it, whether you'd be prepared to get directly involved, slop out the bucket if you will.



Ah, us people. I have not gotten personal with you michaelm - why get personal with me?

I have already stated I would be prepared to get directly involved.


----------



## Purple

Vanilla said:


> I personally wish abortion didn't exist. I think it is wrong under any circumstance to have an abortion except where there is a real medical issue affecting the life of the mother or child. But I cannot impose my morality on other people. Because if travelling to the UK to have an abortion is not against the law then all we have left is our own personal morality. I believe that people must ( within the confines of the law) adhere to their own code of morality. So while I am saddened by the circumstances of the OPs post and wish that the girl in question would consider anything other than an abortion ( keeping the child or adoption), I do not think that I or anyone else can force the issue.


I agree. 
It is a complex issue and while emotive language should be avoided people should also be aware that it is  a very serious decision with very serious consequences. There is, for me, a major clash of rights; the right of a woman to decide whether or not to go through with a pregnancy and the right to life of an unborn child. I do not know how to square the two issues.


----------



## Sunny

Flax said:


> Then why does she think aborting an 8 month old unborn child should be taken with care, _because it might injure the woman_?
> 
> Either she doesn't understand the reality of an abortion or she simply doesn't give a damn about unborn children.


 
You don't know me, what my situation is, what my past has been or anything about me that allows you to make sweeping statements like that. 

I said I had serious concerns about allowing late term abortions and yes I admit that my main concern is the medical risk to the mother and the psycological damage to the mother. Late term abortions are illegal in alot of places and alot of doctors won't carry them out even where it is legal for the reasons outlined above. 

Do I care for unborn children? Of course I do. I wish every child could be born into a great big loving family and not suffer from illnesses or disability. 
Do I wish there was no need for abortion? Of course I do. 
Do I wish young teenagers were taught sex education properly in school so they can see the consequences of entering into a sexual relationship. Yes I do. 
Do I agree with the concept mentioned above of something like a lunch time abortion ( I have never heard of it). No I don't. I think everyone who expresses a wish to have an abortion should be properly counceled by an independent person and have the options explained to them. 
Do I think contraceptives should be alot cheaper and more widely available? Yes I do. 
But most importantly do I believe in peoples right to choose? Yes I do.

And by the way, you should also know I am an advocate of the right to die with dignity as well.


----------



## michaelm

truthseeker said:


> Ah, us people. I have not gotten personal with you michaelm - why get personal with me?


Any personalisation was unintended.  I have been accused directly and indirectly of looking for a row, trolling, being a religious nutbar and being a lunatic so far in this thread .  I'm just trying to give a pro-life perspective, a voice to the voiceless.  I'm passionately pro-life but try to argue the case dispassionately.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> And by the way, you should also know I am an advocate of the right to die with dignity as well.


 So am I.


----------



## FredBloggs

Mods hasn't this post veered slightly off the topic of the Ops opening post? ie was the guy being scammed and hadn't the Op effectively drawn a line under it with their last post?


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> So am I.


 
Good stuff. Just thought I would change the line of the debate. It was getting a bit personal!


----------



## michaelm

Sunny said:


> And by the way, you should also know I am an advocate of the right to die with dignity as well.


And I, who doesn't.  But, I suspect, we have a different view of what that entails.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> And I, who doesn't.  But, I suspect, we have a different view of what that entails.




Funnily enough - was thinking that same thing myself


----------



## ney001

Flax said:


> I think you are grossly misunderstanding what an abortion does - it kills a life.




So bloody patronising! - I think you are grossly misunderstanding the trauma that carrying a child to full term and then giving it away could have. Not to mention the severe pain that children of drug addicts/alcoholics are born with, all going through withdrawals and having after effects for the rest of their lives.

For the record, I am pro choice and if abortion is to be carried out I believe it should only be carried out at an early stage I don't agree with eight months or anything like it!.  The first trimester would be my own personal limit.


----------



## MrMan

FredBloggs said:


> Mods hasn't this post veered slightly off the topic of the Ops opening post? ie was the guy being scammed and hadn't the Op effectively drawn a line under it with their last post?



I don't think that there is reason for bringing mods into it and if anything the issue does lie deep in the ops original question because the issue of abortion is at the core of it.


----------



## MrMan

ney001 said:


> So bloody patronising! - I think you are grossly misunderstanding the trauma that carrying a child to full term and then giving it away could have. Not to mention the severe pain that children of drug addicts/alcoholics are born with, all going through withdrawals and having after effects for the rest of their lives.
> 
> For the record, I am pro choice and if abortion is to be carried out I believe it should only be carried out at an early stage I don't agree with eight months or anything like it!.  The first trimester would be my own personal limit.




with regards the point that keeps popping up about the life that the child will be born into, I'm sure some of the most gifted, creative, and brightest people have come from such terrible beginnings to flourish in later life and vice versa so i don't believe that this element belongs in an abortion debate, but (disclaimer) obviously its only my own opinion.


----------



## ney001

MrMan said:


> I don't think that there is reason for bringing mods into it and if anything the issue does lie deep in the ops original question because the issue of abortion is at the core of it.



He he feel like somebody just told the teacher on us because we were fighting


----------



## Caveat

michaelm said:


> Well maybe Malta has tighter abortion laws than Ireland. Germany, France, Italy, Poland and others have various restrictions.


 
See here.

OK I forgot about Malta but I think you are understating Ireland's position. 

Essentially, in Western mainland Europe, abortion is completely legal and freely available in all but and handful of countries: Spain, Poland, Germany, Finland and Ireland - and Ireland has the most restrictions.

As has been mentioned, Germany is an unusual case. 

Spain and Poland are conservative countries that are strongly influenced by the catholic church so no surprises there. 

Finland's stance is actually not that far from practical legality.

You mentioned France and Italy? whilst obviously conditions as to length of pregnancy etc vary, abortion is legal and available in these countries.


----------



## ney001

MrMan said:


> with regards the point that keeps popping up about the life that the child will be born into, I'm sure some of the most gifted, creative, and brightest people have come from such terrible beginnings to flourish in later life and vice versa so i don't believe that this element belongs in an abortion debate, but (disclaimer) obviously its only my own opinion.




Just as I am sure that they have had terrible early lives having been born into a situation out of their control - it's not all disney happy endings for a lot of kids, particularly those who were never wanted in the first place!.

Anyway I've made my views clear - I think we all need to be a little more tolerant and recognize that not everybody out there aborts a child because they can!.  There's a whole other world out there and there's a whole bunch of people who are in horrible situations, situations which we couldn't even begin to understand.  The zealots on this thread should try to recognize that.


----------



## truthseeker

ney001 said:


> The zealots on this thread should try to recognize that.



I dont know if the zealots are all that zealous though. There seems to be a grey area around abortion in cases of rape, sexual abuse or incest. This would indicate to me that they think the unborn baby has the right to life - sometimes. Other times its ok to abort it.


----------



## MrMan

ney001 said:


> He he feel like somebody just told the teacher on us because we were fighting



I know and that feeling of injustice never goes away


----------



## michaelm

michaelm said:


> I have been accused directly and indirectly of looking for a row, trolling, being a religious nutbar and being a lunatic so far in this thread .





ney001 said:


> There's a whole other world out there and there's a whole bunch of people who are in horrible situations, situations which we couldn't even begin to understand.  The zealots on this thread should try to recognize that.





truthseeker said:


> I dont know if the zealots are all that zealous though. There seems to be a grey area around abortion in cases of rape, sexual abuse or incest. This would indicate to me that they think the unborn baby has the right to life - sometimes. Other times its ok to abort it.


I'm gonna assume that I'm included in 'zealots' above and add that to the list of accolades I've collected in this thread.  Just to be clear, I'm apposed to abortion in all cases (and I'm sure there's nothing in my posts to suggest otherwise).


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> I dont know if the zealots are all that zealous though. There seems to be a grey area around abortion in cases of rape, sexual abuse or incest. This would indicate to me that they think the unborn baby has the right to life - sometimes. Other times its ok to abort it.




The grey area for me is that we have a right to create life and having sex obviously has a risk of doing just that, but if someone violates your rights i.e rapes you then you are not a willing party in the creation of life so you have a right to opt out as it were.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> The grey area for me is that we have a right to create life and having sex obviously has a risk of doing just that, but if someone violates your rights i.e rapes you then you are not a willing party in the creation of life so you have a right to opt out as it were.



Thats true. Also in some cases people take all the proper precautions - so they did not try to create life, but the condom burst, the pill failed (or whatever method was being used failed for some reason). In this case the woman is not a willing party in the creation of life either.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> I'm gonna assume that I'm included in 'zealots' above and add that to the list of accolades I've collected in this thread.  Just to be clear, I'm apposed to abortion in all cases (and I'm sure there's nothing in my posts to suggest otherwise).



In all cases? In the case of an 11 year old girl raped by a family member and ends up pregnant as a result? (I realise this is an extreme example - just wondering about your thoughts on it - and what do you think is the correct way to proceed in this situation?)


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> Thats true. Also in some cases people take all the proper precautions - so they did not try to create life, but the condom burst, the pill failed (or whatever method was being used failed for some reason). In this case the woman is not a willing party in the creation of life either.




I kind of agree but another part of me says that the condom is a precaution and known to not be 100% safe so you are still entering a risky situation. (I really hope I'm not jinxing myself here).


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> I kind of agree but another part of me says that the condom is a precaution and known to not be 100% safe so you are still entering a risky situation. (I really hope I'm not jinxing myself here).



So does that mean that anyone who engages in activity that may lead to pregnancy - whether or not they willingly intended to create life - should just suck it up and take the consequences?


----------



## Sherman

michaelm said:


> Fetus is simply the term for an unborn child from eight weeks until birth. It's linguistic semantics; people are more comfortable with 'abort the fetus' than with 'kill the unborn'; somewhat similar to the military using 'collateral damage' to describe 'civilian deaths'.


 
Speaking of semantics, what does 'unborn' mean anyway?  I'm alive and breathing - does that mean I'm 'undead'.


----------



## michaelm

truthseeker said:


> In all cases? In the case of an 11 year old girl raped by a family member and ends up pregnant as a result? (I realise this is an extreme example - just wondering about your thoughts on it - and what do you think is the correct way to proceed in this situation?)


Yes.  All cases.  I view things the other way round, which simplifies the issues for me (some might view this as indulgent), in that I do not believe the right to life of the unborn should be predicated on how conception transpired.  Hard cases make bad laws.


----------



## ney001

michaelm said:


> I'm apposed to abortion in all cases (and I'm sure there's nothing in my posts to suggest otherwise).



Can I assume from your name that you are a Man? - if so perhaps you also underestimate the mental trauma that having an unwanted child could have - i.e carrying it for nine months, bonding then giving birth and giving it away!.     (Oh god, here I fear I  have opened a big ass can of worms!)   And before all the men jump down my throat - I do think that a woman has a greater insight into this as she is the one who potentially carries the child.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> Yes.  All cases.  I view things the other way round, which simplifies the issues for me (some might view this as indulgent), in that I do not believe the right to life of the unborn should be predicated on how conception transpired.  Hard cases make bad laws.



Any thoughts on the resultant effect that this would have on the 11 year old girl in this instance?


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> So does that mean that anyone who engages in activity that may lead to pregnancy - whether or not they willingly intended to create life - should just suck it up and take the consequences?



Thats the thing, if you willingly have sex then you are doing so for the enjoyment if not procreation and if you happen to end up pregnant anyway then you should have been aware of this possibility in the first place. Pregnancy is a real possibility if you have sex, thats not a shock.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> Thats the thing, if you willingly have sex then you are doing so for the enjoyment if not procreation and if you happen to end up pregnant anyway then you should have been aware of this possibility in the first place. Pregnancy is a real possibility if you have sex, thats not a shock.



I agree - but surely sex is a basic human function that people should not be punished for partaking in, if they were responsible consenting adults who took all proper precautions to avoid an unwanted pregnancy but there was some failure along the way that was no ones fault?


----------



## rabbit

AS someone else said, he should call to her house with a pregnancy test and the €700 euro. Tell her to do the test while he waits, and if it proves positive (and she shows it to him) he should give her the money.   It would be a lot better than bringing an unwanted child in to the world.


----------



## Pique318

MrMan said:


> Thats the thing, if you willingly have sex then you are doing so for the enjoyment if not procreation and if you happen to end up pregnant anyway then you should have been aware of this possibility in the first place. Pregnancy is a real possibility if you have sex, thats not a shock.


Drowning is a real possibility if you go swimming, being attacked is a real possibility if you wander into certain areas at certain times, dying is a real possibility if you go into hospital for a procedure that requires general anesthetic....do you not have a right to complain if something like that happens ? Sheesh. are you a flat-earther too MrMan ? 
"Don't come running to me if you break your leg!"


----------



## michaelm

ney001 said:


> Can I assume from your name that you are a Man?


Assume what you will.  Abortion is not a women's issue, it's a societal issue.  A sizeable majority of aborted children are female, aborted because they're female, which is causing demographic issues in places like China and India.





truthseeker said:


> Any thoughts on the resultant effect that this would have on the 11 year old girl in this instance?


Yes.  The victim in such cases should receive all the care and support they require, they did nothing wrong, nor did the child they carry.  To put them through the second ordeal of an abortion would be detrimental to their longterm well being.  Abortion would not be in their best interest.


----------



## dereko1969

this thread should be locked. it's pointless at this stage and will end up having people annoyed with each other and regarding the good advice given in other threads as 'tainted' by what is said here.


----------



## michaelm

dereko1969 said:


> this thread should be locked. it's pointless at this stage and will end up having people annoyed with each other and regarding the good advice given in other threads as 'tainted' by what is said here.


This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language.  Don't read it.  This is LOS.


----------



## ney001

dereko1969 said:


> this thread should be locked. it's pointless at this stage and will end up having people annoyed with each other and regarding the good advice given in other threads as 'tainted' by what is said here.



I think we all adult enough to separate discussions here. We are allowed to disagree - doesn't mean we are dumb enough not to take on board somebody's suggestions about mortgage payments etc just because they do/don't believe in abortion. sheeeeeeeesh!


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language.  Don't read it.  This is LOS.




See - Michaelm and myself are in full agreement on this issue!

Michaelm - I thought of a question for you. If a woman was pregnant and her own life was threatened by the pregnancy (lets just say that this is definitive - she WILL die if she carries the pregnancy to term) - should she be allowed to have an abortion?


----------



## Dave Vanian

truthseeker said:


> So does that mean that anyone who engages in activity that may lead to pregnancy - whether or not they willingly intended to create life - should just suck it up and take the consequences?


 
If they do that, there won't be any consequences, if my knowledge of biology is correct.  

_OK I'll duck now.  _


----------



## ney001

Dave Vanian said:


> If they do that, there won't be any consequences, if my knowledge of biology is correct.
> 
> _OK I'll duck now.  _



Very good!


----------



## Flax

ney001 said:


> So bloody patronising! - I think you are grossly misunderstanding the trauma that carrying a child to full term and then giving it away could have. Not to mention the severe pain that children of drug addicts/alcoholics are born with, all going through withdrawals and having after effects for the rest of their lives.


 
You still don't get it.

I fully understand carrying a baby and giving birth is not a pleasant, problem free experience. However discomfort and unhappiness cannot be considered comparable to killing something. They are miles apart. 

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but women do not magically get pregnant. They understand the risks, take the risks, and then they get pregnant. Yes they might be shocked that it actually happened and wish they could go back in time, but killing the unborn child is an extreme way of dealing with their mistake.

Seriously, the discomfort and inconvenience a surprise pregnancy causes cannot be compared to extinguishing a life. You cannot see this, and that is why I have doubts you understand what an abortion is.

Simple question: should your mother be allowed go back in time and abort your life?


----------



## michaelm

truthseeker said:


> Michaelm - I thought of a question for you. If a woman was pregnant and her own life was threatened by the pregnancy (lets just say that this is definitive - she WILL die if she carries the pregnancy to term) - should she be allowed to have an abortion?


Abortion is the deliberate and wanton destruction of the unborn.  Your question is erroneous in your use of the word 'abortion' to  describe the loss of life of an unborn child in relation to a surgical  procedure necessary to save the life of the mother.  Irish hospitals do not carry out abortions but necessary  lifesaving treatment is never denied to expectant women.  This is as it should be.


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> You still don't get it.
> 
> I fully understand carrying a baby and giving birth is not a pleasant, problem free experience. However discomfort and unhappiness cannot be considered comparable to killing something. They are miles apart.



Flax - I think you dont get it. They are miles apart - in YOUR opinion - not in the opinion of others. 



Flax said:


> I'm sorry to repeat myself, but women do not magically get pregnant. They understand the risks, take the risks, and then they get pregnant. Yes they might be shocked that it actually happened and wish they could go back in time, but killing the unborn child is an extreme way of dealing with their mistake.



But sometimes they get pregnant when they dont want to and forcing a woman to use her body to carry a baby to term and give birth taking a womans choice about what she wants to use her own body for. Raping a woman is also taking away her choice about what she wants to use her own body for. I believe woman should be allowed to choose how they want to use their own bodies.




Flax said:


> Seriously, the discomfort and inconvenience a surprise pregnancy causes cannot be compared to extinguishing a life. That is why I have doubts you understand what an abortion is; you cannot see the real difference between giving birth and killing something.



I dont believe that it is extinguishing a life. I believe it is extinguishing the POTENTIAL for a life.

It is not that people do not understand what abortion is, but some people view on what constitutes life is different to others. This does not mean that anyone is wrong - just that their opinions differ. It does not mean that anyone is not 'getting it'. They just disagree with your viewpoint.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> Abortion is the deliberate and wanton destruction of the unborn.  Your question is erroneous in your use of the word 'abortion' to  describe the loss of life of an unborn child in relation to a surgical  procedure necessary to save the life of the mother.  Irish hospitals do not carry out abortions but necessary  lifesaving treatment is never denied to expectant women.  This is as it should be.



So you do agree with abortion in some cases then.


----------



## ney001

Flax said:


> You still don't get it.
> 
> I fully understand carrying a baby and giving birth is not a pleasant, problem free experience. However discomfort and unhappiness cannot be considered comparable to killing something. They are miles apart.
> 
> I'm sorry to repeat myself, but women do not magically get pregnant. They understand the risks, take the risks, and then they get pregnant. Yes they might be shocked that it actually happened and wish they could go back in time, but killing the unborn child is an extreme way of dealing with their mistake.
> 
> Seriously, the discomfort and inconvenience a surprise pregnancy causes cannot be compared to extinguishing a life. You cannot see this, and that is why I have doubts you understand what an abortion is.




Last post on this matter from me!

I understand well what an abortion entails! However, do not glibly right off the fact that somebody gets an abortion as they cannot detail with the discomfort or inconvenience - do you have any idea just how patronising you are???  I have serious doubts that you do.  

As I have stated - most people don't just have an abortion because they can! - they assess their own situations and as stated they could be drug addicts/in abusive relationships/ rape victims/children themselves and they make a decision based on that - not just because it'll be uncomfortable for nine months! Don't be so naive.  Oh of course I forgot according to you 99% of people who get abortions do so just because they can! - I must come up with some fantastic percentages of my own!.

Have a good weekend everybody! 
Flax - don't fall off your soap box!


----------



## MrMan

Pique318 said:


> Drowning is a real possibility if you go swimming, being attacked is a real possibility if you wander into certain areas at certain times, dying is a real possibility if you go into hospital for a procedure that requires general anesthetic....do you not have a right to complain if something like that happens ? Sheesh. are you a flat-earther too MrMan ?
> "Don't come running to me if you break your leg!"



I think the right to complain is far removed from the right to abort because you unintentionally got pregnant. Of course you can complain, feel  sorry for yourself etc thats the natural reaction but does that excuse the fact that you knew that what happened could have happened in the first place. I don't understand why you would think I was a flat earther when I'm dealing in logic and fact.


----------



## Flax

No, I'm afraid on this issue it is not a matter of opinion, but a misunderstanding of the facts.

Most babies born after 24 weeks (which is when you can have an abortion in the UK) survive ok. So I think it is fair to say they are "alive" in the womb and not some kind of pretend-life.

So if you exterminate this life because you don't want to be pregnant, that is a very selfish and extreme act.

If a woman gives birth after 26 weeks, and then kills the child, is it "abortion" or murder? If it's murder, why is it suddenly different because the child is no longer in her body?

You can say "in my opinion the child born after 26 weeks isn't alive" but you'd be wrong. Not everything can come down to "a matter of opinion". Some things are facts.

Killing a life is killing a life, whether or not the life is still in the woman's body or has come into the world.


----------



## michaelm

truthseeker said:


> So you do agree with abortion in some cases then.


Now you're being somewhat disingenuous here.  Abortion is the removal of the embryo or fetus in order to end the pregnancy.  The loss of the embryo or fetus related to a lifesaving operation or lifesaving medication is NOT abortion.  An abortion serves only to prematurely end a pregnancy, it does not solve medical or mental health problems.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> Now you're being somewhat disingenuous here.  Abortion is the removal of the embryo or fetus in order to end the pregnancy.  The loss of the embryo or fetus related to a lifesaving operation or lifesaving medication is NOT abortion.  An abortion serves only to prematurely end a pregnancy, it does not solve medical or mental health problems.



No matter what kind of 'linguistic semantics' you employ, termination of a pregnancy is termination of a pregnancy no matter what the reason.


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> Most babies born after 24 weeks (which is when you can have an abortion in the UK) survive ok. So I think it is fair to say they are "alive" in the womb and not some kind of pretend-life.



Im willing to be corrected on this but I dont think they 'survive ok' without massive medical intervention. If a baby is born at 24 weeks and a woman just tries to get on with feeding, changing, washing etc that baby will die.


----------



## Flax

truthseeker said:


> Im willing to be corrected on this but I dont think they 'survive ok' without massive medical intervention. If a baby is born at 24 weeks and a woman just tries to get on with feeding, changing, washing etc that baby will die.


 
Yes, generally it will require some medical help, but the point I am making is _the child is alive_. It are not pretend-life. So when you abort this life you really are ending an actual life.

I know humans are peculiar, but I would hope most are able to see past themselves for the sake of saving another life.


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> Yes, generally it will require some medical help, but the point I am making is _the child is alive_. It are not pretend-life. So when you abort this life you really are ending an actual life.
> 
> I know humans are peculiar, but I would hope most are able to see past themselves for the sake of saving another life.



But its life is wholly dependant on medical intervention. In a lot of countries this would effectively mean a dead baby. It still only has 'potential' for life.


----------



## ubiquitous

Hi folks

Does anyone else agree that it might be time now to close this thread given that the original query has been addressed?


----------



## Flax

truthseeker said:


> But its life is wholly dependant on medical intervention. In a lot of countries this would effectively mean a dead baby. It still only has 'potential' for life.


 
Ah, it's alive. Come on.

There's so much denial going on here.

Abortion is ending a life. We can debate all day whether or not the mother is being selfish or extremely selfish but the fact of the matter is she is ending a life to avoid some issues. And the reality is the issues tend to be something like "I don't want to damage my career" or "I don't want to disrupt college", you know, things I would consider fairly insignificant when compared to killing something!


----------



## Flax

ubiquitous said:


> Hi folks
> 
> Does anyone else agree that it might be time now to close this thread given that the original query has been addressed?


 
Yeah, go ahead and lock it. We're way off topic now.


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> Ah, it's alive. Come on.
> 
> There's so much denial going on here.
> 
> Abortion is ending a life. We can debate all day whether or not the mother is being selfish or extremely selfish but the fact of the matter is she is ending a life to avoid some issues. And the reality is the issues tend to be something like "I don't want to damage my career" or "I don't want to disrupt college", you know, things I would consider fairly insignificant when compared to killing something!



I dont see your point here - do you think the fact that some people hold different opinions to your own means that other people are in denial?

For some it is far more significant to continue with career, college or other things than go through with an unwanted pregnancy.


----------



## Flax

truthseeker said:


> I dont see your point here - do you think the fact that some people hold different opinions to your own means that other people are in denial?


 
People are trying to claim it is not ending a life. That is either denial or misunderstanding.




truthseeker said:


> For some it is far more significant to continue with career, college or other things than go through with an unwanted pregnancy.


 
I know, and I think it is wrong to put things like college and career ahead of a life. Let's be clear - the woman is choosing to end a life for these things. 

I cannot understand why so many people support that kind of primitive, brutal mentality. Abortion is not progress - it is quite the opposite.


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> People are trying to claim it is not ending a life. That is either denial or misunderstanding.



I dont think a fetus is a life - I think it is the potential for a life.



Flax said:


> I know, and I think it is wrong to put things like college and career ahead of a life. And by that I mean you will end a life for these things. I cannot understand why so many people support that kind of primitive, unkind mentality.



You are entitled to that opinion. 

People who agree with abortion dont force the consequences of their opinions on others. People who are against it do. I think thats wrong. I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion and choice.


----------



## Flax

truthseeker said:


> I dont think a fetus is a life - I think it is the potential for a life.


 
Do you think the fetus wants to die?

Or can it not die because it isn't alive? 

If it isn't alive, what is it? Sort of alive?

What is sort of alive?




truthseeker said:


> People who agree with abortion dont force the consequences of their opinions on others. People who are against it do. I think thats wrong. I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion and choice.


 
I don't force anyone to do anything. As stated, I have friends who have had abortions - that's their business. However I don't believe we should lie to ourselves about the reality of abortion. It is killing a life. It is selfish. If you want to go ahead and do it, fine, but what you are doing is wrong and selfish.


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> Do you think the fetus wants to die?



I dont think a fetus has any kind of 'wants' in the sense you mean. It is a collection of cells that is wholly dependant on the body of the woman it is in order to progress to being a life.



Flax said:


> I don't force anyone to do anything. As stated, I have friends who have had abortions - that's their business. However I don't believe we should lie to ourselves about the reality of abortion. It is killing a life. It is selfish. If you want to go ahead and do it, fine, but what you are doing is wrong.



I dont mean you personally Flax. I mean that generally speaking if someone had the power to pass a law saying 'abortion is illegal because it is wrong' it means that people who have unwanted pregnancies have to suffer the consequences that they would not have had to suffer if they were allowed to have an abortion.

If someone said 'abortion is legal because a person should have a choice' then no one has to suffer the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.

I realise that you probably think the second part of that ignores the consequences for the unborn child - but I dont think that the unborn child is a person with rights. I think it is only the potential for a life.

I admire that you have strong beliefs and are willing to debate them. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I believe you are morally wrong, it just means I have a different set of views on it to you. 
I dont believe I am right and thats the end of that. Just in my perfect world women would have the choice.


----------



## FredBloggs

ubiquitous said:


> Hi folks
> 
> Does anyone else agree that it might be time now to close this thread given that the original query has been addressed?


 
I suggested this about sixty posts ago but the reaction wasn't too good. I'll have to insist they write 100 lines each "I shall not argue about abortion in public"


----------



## cole

Just wondering if anyone has actually seen what a 6 week old foetus is like?

It has a brain with brain waves.
It has eyes with eye lids.
It has ears.
It has fingers with fingerprints.
It has a beating heart.

Is this not life?


----------



## orka

cole said:


> It has a brain with brain waves.
> It has eyes with eye lids.
> It has ears.
> It has fingers with fingerprints.
> It has a beating heart.


But not as we know them.  The whole thing is a clump of cells that looks like a peanut.


----------



## Dave Vanian

orka said:


> But not as we know them. The whole thing is a clump of cells that looks like a peanut.


 
Why should the appearance of a foetus have any relevance to a discussion on whether or not it has life?


----------



## truthseeker

cole said:


> Is this not life?



I personally dont think so. Do you consider your heart to have a life of its own? It cant function outside of your body. Neither can a 6 week old foetus.


----------



## cole

I was considering the foetus in its totality ie with a brain, heart, eyes, fingers etc.

I don't subscribe to the notion that a foetus must be capable of existing on it's own before the concept of life is recognised. I'm not sure where this concept arose. We regularly see people (foetuses, babies, adults) kept alive on life support machines who would be unable to live without the machine.


----------



## cole

From a purely scientific/logical point of view I'd say life begins at conception as from that point on there is really no clear way of distinguishing life at different stages e.g. if you say life begins at 6 weeks what is the difference in the foetus at 5 weeks 6 days and one day later? With conception there is a clear difference between the individual gametes (sperm/egg) and a fertilised embyro.


----------



## Kate10

Delete


----------



## Flax

cole said:


> Just wondering if anyone has actually seen what a 6 week old foetus is like?
> 
> It has a brain with brain waves.
> It has eyes with eye lids.
> It has ears.
> It has fingers with fingerprints.
> It has a beating heart.
> 
> Is this not life?


 
Apparently there is no such thing as facts, just opinions. So even if you prove it is life, it's still just your opinion.

I find it interesting that no one is able to answer any of my previous questions.

I'll try one of them again:

If a baby is born premature at 20 weeks and survives, is it alive or dead? For a second please don't say "it's a matter of opinion" because the baby is either alive or dead: in this case, it's alive. So if a baby is alive when it is born prematurely at 20 weeks, how is it not alive when it is 20 weeks old but still in the womb?

I think a lot of people want to define life as only existing when a baby is born, and think anything else is just an opinion. I'm sorry, but as a scientist I can tell you there are opinions and there are facts. The fact of the matter is a baby in a womb is alive. Seriously, some things are not "opinions" - they are facts.

Once you can understand that an unborn child is alive, it changes everything. It saddens me so many people are not able to grasp these basic concepts. It's literally a life and death situation and ignorance seems to be winning.


----------



## PM1234

Firstly I do not believe abortion should ever be a substitute for contraception. For what its worth,  my personal but idealistic opinion is whereas an abortion may or not be regretted, it is in rare circumstances that people look at their sons and daughters and wish they had never been born. 

When a woman is making the very difficult decision as to whether or not to keep an unplanned baby, it can often mean more than just deciding if she wants the child in her life. Apart from some of the points raised such as lack of emotional or financial support, if the child is conceived in poor circumstances, having the child often means the mother still has to maintain a relationship (however bad it is) with the child's father who may demand his rights. And many women will do this, even outside of a court hearing, for the sake of giving the child an opportunity to know its dad.

 I am aware this also works in reverse but for the most part (be it because of the laws of this land or otherwise) the mother is the primary carer and I'm making my point based on this. 

I am pro choice and I believe it is simplistic to read comments about how a woman could carry a child for nine months and unemotionally give it up for adoption or  forget who the father is and keep the child. The woman carries the child,  the woman goes through pregnancy and the woman goes through labour.  Two people had sex. One person is left literally holding the baby. It is her body and her psychological well being and therefore it is ultimately her decision.


----------



## truthseeker

cole said:


> From a purely scientific/logical point of view I'd say life begins at conception as from that point on there is really no clear way of distinguishing life at different stages e.g. if you say life begins at 6 weeks what is the difference in the foetus at 5 weeks 6 days and one day later? With conception there is a clear difference between the individual gametes (sperm/egg) and a fertilised embyro.



Does this mean that practicioners of IVF, where sperm and eggs are brought together outside of the human body and only the most viable embryos are implanted into the womb and the rest discarded, are murdering children when they dispose of the sperm/egg combinations that are deemed less viable?


----------



## truthseeker

Flax said:


> Apparently there is no such thing as facts, just opinions. So even if you prove it is life, it's still just your opinion.



But where is the 'proof' that it is life? What is your definition of life?



Flax said:


> I find it interesting that no one is able to answer any of my previous questions.
> 
> I'll try one of them again:
> 
> If a baby is born premature at 20 weeks and survives, is it alive or dead? For a second please don't say "it's a matter of opinion" because the baby is either alive or dead: in this case, it's alive. So if a baby is alive when it is born prematurely at 20 weeks, how is it not alive when it is 20 weeks old but still in the womb?



A baby born at 20 weeks has the capacity to survive only with massive medical intervention, remove the breathing apparatus and it is in fact dead. People who are clinically brain dead can be kept 'alive' with the assistance of medical apparatus, this does not mean they are 'alive' - they are organic matter that is being kept 'alive' artificially.



Flax said:


> I think a lot of people want to define life as only existing when a baby is born, and think anything else is just an opinion. I'm sorry, but as a scientist I can tell you there are opinions and there are facts. The fact of the matter is a baby in a womb is alive. Seriously, some things are not "opinions" - they are facts.



I find it difficult to believe any scientist would deal in such absolutes. A baby inside the womb is only an extension of the carrier, the woman whose womb it is in. Taken as an entire system the cells that constitute the baby in the womb can be considered to be 'alive' - as long as they are part of the womans body. Alone there is no life until the feotus has progressed to a point at which it can independantly live outside of the womans body. It is only a fact that there is potential to progress to a life.



Flax said:


> Once you can understand that an unborn child is alive, it changes everything. It saddens me so many people are not able to grasp these basic concepts. It's literally a life and death situation and ignorance seems to be winning.



It is not a matter of understanding that an unborn child is alive and it is extremely patronising of you to assume a lack of understanding in the people who hold different opinions to you.
Your arguments are completely circular 'its life, you are wrong, you do not understand' - in the face of intelligent and well educated posts that differ in opinion to yours. Repeating the same opinion over and over again and believing that those who do not think as you do are ignorant does not make you right and all others wrong - that type of propaganda is known as religion. 

As an aside to where life begins and whether or not abortion is morally wrong, people who believe it is wrong and want it outlawed force the consequences of their own moral code upon others. I believe in choice. This does not force any of my own beliefs on others, if someone wants to have an abortion I believe that whatever their choice is, is the morally correct decision. So if they do it or not they are not wrong in my eyes. Nor does my belief system force consequences upon people who have a different set of beliefs to me. Which is the more compassionate way to behave? Force your beliefs on others or allow people to make their own decisions without judgement?


----------



## liaconn

truthseeker said:


> But where is the 'proof' that it is life? What is your definition of life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an aside to where life begins and whether or not abortion is morally wrong, people who believe it is wrong and want it outlawed force the consequences of their own moral code upon others. I believe in choice. This does not force any of my own beliefs on others, if someone wants to have an abortion I believe that whatever their choice is, is the morally correct decision. So if they do it or not they are not wrong in my eyes. Nor does my belief system force consequences upon people who have a different set of beliefs to me. Which is the more compassionate way to behave? Force your beliefs on others or allow people to make their own decisions without judgement?


 
But those of us who don't agree with abortion would say you are forcing your choice onto a very vulnerable little life. That is genuinely what we believe, its not about making high handed judgments, its about feeling very sad and concerned that a little baby is having its life deliberately ended.


----------



## truthseeker

liaconn said:


> But those of us who don't agree with abortion would say you are forcing your choice onto a very vulnerable little life. That is genuinely what we believe, its not about making high handed judgments, its about feeling very sad and concerned that a little baby is having its life deliberately ended.



I dont believe it is a life though - but lets say for a minute that I accepted that life begins at conception and that we are talking about a human life.

Is it any humans responsibility to use their own body to prolong the life of another? 

If you needed a kidney to live and my kidney was a match would I be morally wrong if I didnt want to use my own body to give you my kidney? Should I be forced to give you my kidney? Of course I shouldnt be.

But if a woman doesnt want to use her own body to carry a pregnancy to term why should it be deemed morally wrong for her to make that decision?

To my mind forcing a woman to use her body to do something she doesnt want to do is no different than raping her. No human should be expected to use their own bodies in a manner in which they dont want, even if it does mean saving the life of another human. People have to be allowed to control what happens to their own bodies. 

Regardless of when life begins, conception or later in pregnancy, I dont think that anyone should be expected to make use of their bodies to carry a pregnancy to term if they dont want to.


----------



## Purple

truthseeker said:


> Regardless of when life begins, conception or later in pregnancy, I dont think that anyone should be expected to make use of their bodies to carry a pregnancy to term if they dont want to.


 So if a woman is two days away from term she should be allowed to have an abortion? You have a very absolutist view on this matter.


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> So if a woman is two days away from term she should be allowed to have an abortion? You have a very absolutist view on this matter.



In reality that is an extremely unlikely situation to arise. 2 days short of term a baby would be likely to survive out of the womb without major medical intervention. So that doesnt really hold with the point I am making. A woman doesnt need to use her own body to ensure the survival of a baby 2 days short of term, if doctors remove the baby it will live anyway.


----------



## Purple

truthseeker said:


> In reality that is an extremely unlikely situation to arise. 2 days short of term a baby would be likely to survive out of the womb without major medical intervention. So that doesnt really hold with the point I am making. A woman doesnt need to use her own body to ensure the survival of a baby 2 days short of term, if doctors remove the baby it will live anyway.


But if it's not a live 'till birth then she should be allowed to insist on an abortion at any time before that, even if the "baby" is capable of independent life. I am just pointing out the flaw in taking an absolutist position when two basic rights are in conflict.


----------



## shanegl

cole said:


> From a purely scientific/logical point of view I'd say life begins at conception as from that point on there is really no clear way of distinguishing life at different stages e.g. if you say life begins at 6 weeks what is the difference in the foetus at 5 weeks 6 days and one day later? With conception there is a clear difference between the individual gametes (sperm/egg) and a fertilised embyro.


 
The clear point for me is when the brain stem forms, which I think from memory is around 7 weeks. I don't think there can be any argument that a foetus without a brain is a life. After that it gets fuzzy.


----------



## Purple

shanegl said:


> The clear point for me is when the brain stem forms, which I think from memory is around 7 weeks. I don't think there can be any argument that a foetus without a brain is a life. After that it gets fuzzy.



Good post


----------



## cole

shanegl said:


> The clear point for me is when the brain stem forms, which I think from memory is around 7 weeks. I don't think there can be any argument that a foetus without a brain is a life. After that it gets fuzzy.


 
At 21-25 days the heart is beating. By 30 days it has a brain.


----------



## shanegl

cole said:


> At 21-25 days the heart is beating. By 30 days it has a brain.


 
Those numbers seem suspect, but I could be wrong. Does anyone have a definitive source? The point about heart beat seems spurious though, since there's no brain to tell it to beat!


----------



## cole

jaybird said:


> And your point is...?


 

Here is a source from the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Week 3 of gestation 

The brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop
The gastrointestinal tract begins to develop


----------



## cole

I take issue with the tone of your posts and under normal circumstances I wouldn't bother answering them. This is a different issue.

I won't bother trying to explain about a beating heart and brain being more than potential for life.

Regarding your query on contraception...

If I (as I do) believe that life begins at conception, then anything that destroys that destroys life.

I hope that is clear enough for you.

I don't intend taking any further part in this discussion.


----------



## Purple

jaybird said:


> Because it is too difficult? Probably why Flax left as well. You should have read his/hers posts if you didn't like my tone, although as you are in agreement, I guess that would be ok.
> 
> *Its not very clear, no. If you are saying that life begins at the first moment that the egg is fertilised, that leaves you on a very sticky wicket, as it would mean being against many common forms of contraception. As would the removal of an ectopic pregnancy. Fair enough if that is your opinion, but you may want to elucidate it a little better if it is.



If it's just a potential life right up to birth then you must have no problem with abortion right up to 9 months. Is this the case?


----------



## Caveat

Just out of interest, I would like to ask a question.

Do you think the legal position on abortion in Ireland is too restrictive, not restrictive enough or about right?

And if you think it is either too restrictive/not restrictive enough what changes would you like to see?


----------



## Purple

jaybird said:


> The difference between my pro-choice and your (if you are) pro-life stance, is that I don't believe I have the right to be ok with it or not, thats not the point. It's not my choice to make for others. It's not my opinion on that really matters. I believe that the only person who can make that decision is the woman involved.
> If you are asking do I think it should be legal for abortion up to term, then I have to say (with difficulty) yes. It may go against my own feelings on the matter, but I don't think my feelings are what should dictate the choices of others. I don't honestly think it would be a choice that many would take, and I don't think that many a doctor would assist in such a choice, added to which I think it would be a rather unpopular law, so I think it a moot point.
> 
> I think that it is an issue for private morality, not public opinion and legislation. (Which also answers Caveats question on the legislation)
> 
> Personally, I think that a cutoff at the point where the life of the foetus is viable on its own is a fair stance, so about 22 weeks. I think that it should be much easier to access early abortion services, and the morning after pill, so that late term abortions are a rarity (which they are already, but more so). I think the law in the UK is pretty fair. But like I said, it's not my choice to make for others. I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, and I am not being argumentative when I say that I truly don't understand why people think it is up to them to make moral and ethical decisions of such a personal nature for others.


I appreciate your openness. For my part I feel strongly pro-life and strongly pro-choice cannot reconcile the two...
Since I think that a baby is a person with rights before it is born I see no difference between abortion two weeks before birth and two weeks after, therefore I do not consider it to be a case of personal choice. By 24 weeks there is little or no moral conflict left (in my mind).


----------



## truthseeker

jaybird said:


> The difference between my pro-choice and your (if you are) pro-life stance, is that I don't believe I have the right to be ok with it or not, thats not the point. It's not my choice to make for others. It's not my opinion on that really matters. I believe that the only person who can make that decision is the woman involved.
> If you are asking do I think it should be legal for abortion up to term, then I have to say (with difficulty) yes. It may go against my own feelings on the matter, but I don't think my feelings are what should dictate the choices of others. I don't honestly think it would be a choice that many would take, and I don't think that many a doctor would assist in such a choice, added to which I think it would be a rather unpopular law, so I think it a moot point.
> 
> I think that it is an issue for private morality, not public opinion and legislation. (Which also answers Caveats question on the legislation)
> 
> Personally, I think that a cutoff at the point where the life of the foetus is viable on its own is a fair stance, so about 22 weeks. I think that it should be much easier to access early abortion services, and the morning after pill, so that late term abortions are a rarity (which they are already, but more so). I think the law in the UK is pretty fair. But like I said, it's not my choice to make for others. I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, and I am not being argumentative when I say that I truly don't understand why people think it is up to them to make moral and ethical decisions of such a personal nature for others.



More articulately said that I was able to but I feel pretty much the same way as this post.

Purple - you asked me specifically if I agreed with very late term abortions, just to answer you, very late term I believe there is a viable alternate option, that the baby could be removed from the womans body and survive in the outside world (to be adopted). In theory I still support the womans right to choose to have the baby taken from her body, but I do think that in practice, so late term any doctor would advise the alternate option over an abortion.

I dont think anyone here is arguing for legalisation of late term abortions. Simply to allow the person who is in the situation to make up their own minds whether or not they want to abort. 

I dont think its an easy decision for anyone to have to make, and nor do I feel it is black and white, if there are other options it is important they are considered. In practice Id rather see people take up other options (like carrying the pregnancy to term and giving the baby up for adoption) but as this is not a viable option for everyone, I would not condemn someone for making a different decision - even if it is not a decision that I myself would make.


----------



## michaelm

jaybird said:


> Abortion is not killing a baby. It is terminating a foetus. A foetus is a potential life. You say that makes no difference if the foetus is inside the woman or outside. It makes a huge difference. One is not breathing. Breathing is pretty high on the list for things that are considered to be alive. Inside= not technically alive. Outside= alive. Different.


Again,  foetus is the term for the unborn baby from eight week until birth.  Would you agree with partial birth abortion so? Where a developing child (20 - 24 weeks) is extracted from the womb, feet first, to the neck, an implement is then inserted to suck out the contents of its skull before the skull is crushed and the body is removed intact.





orka said:


> The whole thing is a clump of cells that looks like a peanut.


Indeed. Because it's small or hard to differentiate it's not worthy.  Good argument.





truthseeker said:


> To my mind forcing a woman to use her body to do something she doesnt want to do is no different than raping her. . . People have to be allowed to control what happens to their own bodies.


Wow; restriction of abortion = rape . . in Ireland it's no more legal/ethical for a doctor to carry out an abortion than to assist a suicide, remove a limb on a whim or a kidney for auction.  There are limits to what people can ask others to do to their bodies.





truthseeker said:


> No matter what kind of 'linguistic semantics' you employ, termination of a pregnancy is termination of a pregnancy no matter what the reason.


Here's some  'linguistic semantics'; all pregnancies are ultimately terminated, most with a wondrous new baby.  Sadly a significant minority end with the flash of cold steel and a tiny dismembered body; always the worst solution (IMHO).


----------



## michaelm

jaybird said:


> MichealM, instead of picking apart the posts of others, could you try giving more than the most basic opinion of your own? And read the rest of the posts that have already answered several of you points?


I'm not on trial here . .





jaybird said:


> Could you answer some of my questions please?
> 1) When does life begin?
> 2) What is your moral stance on forms of contraception that involve the prevention of implantation? And the removal of an ectopic pregnancy?
> 3) What specifically is it about the human aspect of life that makes it more unethical to abort a human foetus as opposed to euthanising an animal?
> 4) Is the foetus distinctly human from the start, or does it acquire it's entitlement to personhood and human rights at some stage during the pregnancy?
> 5) If the majority of people in the state want abortion to be made legal, do you think it should be?


. . but I'm happy to field your specific questions: 
1. Fertilization  
2. Opposed to IUD.  My understanding is that although both the Contraceptive Pill and Morning After Pill can act as abortifacient they can act to prevent fertilization (on which basis they are licensed in Ireland). No issue with condoms.  My views are not informed by religious beliefs.  As I have stated previously in this thread every necessary medical treatment is afforded to pregnant women in Ireland, be that the removal of an ectopic pregnancy or the loss of the unborn due to a hysterectomy related to cervical cancer or whatever.  Such procedures are not abortion.  Irish hospitals do not carry out abortions (on the basis that they are neither legal nor ethical). 
3. I believe in human rights and animal welfare(not rights).  On that basis I view that an unborn child has a right to life but the welfare of a sick animal may be best served by putting it down.  I think that ending the life of a 23 week unborn child (ironically while elsewhere a team of doctors care for a child born premature at 23 weeks) to be different from putting down a badly injured dog.
4. As in 1. above my view is life begins at fertilization; you draw that line wherever you feel most comfortable.
5. No.





jaybird said:


> I am genuinely in pro-life argument answers to these questions, and would appreciate answers from that viewpoint.


Interested in?


----------



## MrMan

jaybird said:


> MichealM, instead of picking apart the posts of others, could you try giving more than the most basic opinion of your own? And read the rest of the posts that have already answered several of you points?
> 
> Could you answer some of my questions please?
> 1) When does life begin?
> 2) What is your moral stance on forms of contraception that involve the prevention of implantation? And the removal of an ectopic pregnancy?
> 3) What specifically is it about the human aspect of life that makes it more unethical to abort a human foetus as opposed to euthanising an animal?
> 4) Is the foetus distinctly human from the start, or does it acquire it's entitlement to personhood and human rights at some stage during the pregnancy?
> 5) If the majority of people in the state want abortion to be made legal, do you think it should be?
> 
> I am genuinely in pro-life argument answers to these questions, and would appreciate answers from that viewpoint.




I know this was aimed at someone else but I would like to reply.

1. I am not a scientist, but I don't believe a date can be put in place to accurately pinpoint when life begins because there are abnormalities and we dont yet understand the mind, brain or body enough to determine how early there is a living thinking being in place. 
2. I do believe that where the mother is in danger she should have the choice in deciding what to do with regard to an ectopic pregnancy. I have no issue with contraception.
3. I don't think it is appropriate to compare aborting a child with putting down an animal.
4. We are all used to seeing scans and making out the human form, but I think from a personal point of view if my partnet told me she was pregnant in the morning I would consider that there was a person in her womb and it was my baby, I wouldn't consider it a cluster of cells, a blob etc just my baby.
5. I don't but that is democracy, majority rules so there is nothing that I could do about it.

I do understand both sides and that pro choice seems more liberal than pro life but I think alot more people fall somewhere in between and are not comfortable with abortion being a convenience rather than a medical requirement.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> 2. Opposed to IUD.  My understanding is that although both the Contraceptive Pill and Morning After Pill can act as abortifacient they can act to prevent fertilization (on which basis they are licensed in Ireland).



I believe the Morning After Pill prevents implantation of a fertilised egg (if taken after fertilisation has occured).


----------



## michaelm

jaybird said:


> And just specifically on question no 3, I was wondering what it is about human life as opposed to other forms of life that make it a higher morality, if you like. I'm not arguing that they are the same thing, and I don't personally believe that.


I can't give you a concise definitive answer to that question, which is probably why you pose it but I suspect that if the other animals knew what we do to some of our unborn they'd think we were crazy.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> I can't give you a concise definitive answer to that question, which is probably why you pose it but I suspect that if the other animals knew what we do to some of our unborn they'd think we were crazy.



I doubt it, infanticide is common in the animal kingdom - particularly in societies that are hierarchically organised with one Alpha male in charge - a specific example is Gorillas, if a new alpha male takes over the harem he will murder the existing infants in order to bring the females back into an ovulation cycle so that he can impregnate them himself and ensure his genes win out.
Chimpanzees have also been observed to kill infants - but the reason is not as clear.
Certain among the big cats will also kill the weaker newborns rather than waste resources on raising them.

The 'runt' of a dog litter is left to fend for itself rather than waste resourses also.

Nature is red in tooth and claw and all that.......


----------



## michaelm

truthseeker said:


> I believe the Morning After Pill prevents implantation of a fertilised egg (if taken after fertilisation has occured).





jaybird said:


> Which is also a secondary function of the contraceptive Pill, including the mini-pill. I'm interested in those pro-lifers who accept the Pill, what is the difference?


Is there a question here?  I said . .





michaelm said:


> My understanding is that although both the Contraceptive Pill and Morning After Pill can act as abortifacient they can act to prevent fertilization (on which basis they are licensed in Ireland).


----------



## michaelm

jaybird said:


> There are others involved in this thread. I am interested in those who think that abortion is wrong but the Pill is ok. As I said the prevention of implantation is the secondary function of the pill, the primary function to prevent fertilisation. There are a great many people who would be against abortion but for the Pill, and I would like to know if anyoe has an opinion on why that is.


I suspect that some who are opposed to abortion do not oppose the Pill on the basis I have suggested, that they are licensed (and taken) with the intention of preventing fertilization.


----------



## ailbhe

I was always pro life, thought abortion was so wrong. Then I got pregnant at 19 with a person who wanted nothing to do with me or the child. Funny how you consider things you never thought you would when you find yourself in that position 

I considered abortion and decided it wasn't for me. I also considered adoption and decided the same.
However, 6 years on I am strongly pro choice. Parenthood is hard. Being a single parent is hard. My life has changed beyond recognition, some ways for the better, some not. I adore my daughter but if I am 100% honest I do have some regrets.
I was fortunate that by 19 I had a good education and prospects. I have an amazing family who are so supportive and I manage ok. I cannot imagine how a girl would cope with no support and no prospects.

So while I cannot imagine ever having an abortion, and I have some issues with it, overall I feel that the right to choose is more important. 
My daughter was a twin and I miscarried her sibling at 7 weeks. Now i do not look at her at feel upset or sad at the loss of the twin. I feel relief. That may sound harsh and perhaps it is but I am being honest. I could not have imagined having twins and the hardship that would entail. And I didn't have to make that decision, it was made for me so i feel no guilt. In some ways it was for the best as I feel if I had been carrying twins I would have had an abortion.


----------



## truthseeker

ailbhe said:


> I was always pro life, thought abortion was so wrong. Then I got pregnant at 19 with a person who wanted nothing to do with me or the child. Funny how you consider things you never thought you would when you find yourself in that position
> 
> I considered abortion and decided it wasn't for me. I also considered adoption and decided the same.
> However, 6 years on I am strongly pro choice. Parenthood is hard. Being a single parent is hard. My life has changed beyond recognition, some ways for the better, some not. I adore my daughter but if I am 100% honest I do have some regrets.
> I was fortunate that by 19 I had a good education and prospects. I have an amazing family who are so supportive and I manage ok. I cannot imagine how a girl would cope with no support and no prospects.
> 
> So while I cannot imagine ever having an abortion, and I have some issues with it, overall I feel that the right to choose is more important.
> My daughter was a twin and I miscarried her sibling at 7 weeks. Now i do not look at her at feel upset or sad at the loss of the twin. I feel relief. That may sound harsh and perhaps it is but I am being honest. I could not have imagined having twins and the hardship that would entail. And I didn't have to make that decision, it was made for me so i feel no guilt. In some ways it was for the best as I feel if I had been carrying twins I would have had an abortion.



Thank you Ailbhe, that was a very open post from you. I am interested in the fact that your opinions were actually changed by your own experiences. Without meaning to throw the cat among the pigeons I do wonder if men (not just posting here but generally speaking) can actually relate to this issue in its entirety because it is not something that will ever happen to a mans body. Of course people are still entitled to their opinion whether male or female, but Ailbhe is an example of someone who changed their mind on the issue due to direct experience - something that can never happen to a man.


----------



## ailbhe

I'm not sure. Many men are affected by unplanned pregnancies though in essence they have a choice, the same choice that abortion gives a woman.
A man can choose to walk away, not be involved (except financially and some don't do that either). If they do they must live with the "what ifs" and guilt and sense of wondering and perhaps regret. But they have the choice. Be involved or don't.

A woman has the choice of continuing with the pregnancy, abortion or adoption. If she chooses abortion or adoption then she lives with the same what ifs, guilt, wondering etc.

However the difference in essence is that if a man walks he can walk back. If a man chooses not to be involved and the woman has the child, if the man changes his mind then he can make contact and try to build a relationship with the child. For a woman either adoption or abortion is final, there is no going back from either. 

Personally I knew I could not carry and give birth to a child and hand it over. That would have killed me and I don't think I ever would have been "right" again. I would have driven myself insane with thinking about it. I know myself and I know how it would have been, and that is why my options were abortion or keeping the child.
It was the hardest choice I ever had to make and neither choice was wrong or right, both had their ups and downs...It is not a decision that is made lightly and I resent when people assume that anyone who has an abortion does so in a callous way. Just like "oh i'll have an abortion".
Maybe there are some out there who do but for most it is a difficult decision. Beyond difficult.


----------



## truthseeker

ailbhe said:


> However the difference in essence is that if a man walks he can walk back. If a man chooses not to be involved and the woman has the child, if the man changes his mind then he can make contact and try to build a relationship with the child. For a woman either adoption or abortion is final, there is no going back from either.



Thats an absolutely excellent point Ailbhe - Id never thought of it that way before.


----------



## Purple

Excellent and brave post Ailbhe. It is a great example of how this issue is not black and white.
Can I ask what your opinion is on the what the fathers rights should be (if any) when abortion is being considered. I have always had sympathy with a guy in the scenario where the mother has an abortion but he wants to keep the baby (though I don’t know how often, if ever, it happens).


----------



## ailbhe

Also to point out that I don't feel that men have it easy either.
In the case of an unplanned pregnancy a man is pretty much powerless which is terrible. Either he loses a child he wanted (abortion) or is forced to have a child he doesn't want and be financially responsible for it.

There are no winners in the case of unplanned pregnancies. Just a lot of pain and difficult decisions and hard choices. 
however, while i think it is awful that men are powerless I think that the decision has to lie with the female. A woman cannot and should not be forced to be a parent and give birth.
On the flip side, that case with the embryos where the woman wanted to use them and the man didn't? I felt he shouldn't be forced to be a parent and she shouldn't be allowed use them.


----------



## michaelm

truthseeker said:


> I do wonder if men (not just posting here but generally speaking) can actually relate to this issue in its entirety because it is not something that will ever happen to a mans body.


Abortion is not a women's issue, it's a societal issue.





truthseeker said:


> Ailbhe is an example of someone who changed their mind on the issue due to direct experience.


Indeed, people's experiences can change their view on things.  Like a pro-life talk I was at where one speaker previously worked in a abortion clinic and was now firmly pro-life or pro-choice people I know who, following the birth of their children, are now pro-life.  I don't think one needs to be abused as a child to oppose child abuse.


----------



## ailbhe

michaelm said:


> Abortion is not a women's issue, it's a societal issue.


 
I would have to disagree. I think it is all about the person who finds themselves in that position and not really anything to do with society as a whole. It is about the person and their circumstances and their decisions.But then, I am coming at it from a personal point of view.

And as we cannot have abortion on a case by case basis, we either have it or don't. Alas, here we don't which causes undue stress and anguish for those who decide to have an abortion. on the issue of late term abortions, did you know that a woman who gives an Irish address to a clinic has to wait until 12 weeks to have the procedure even if they know they are pregnant at 6 weeks? This means they do not have the option of the least invasive option of the "tablet". They must wait until 12 weeks and have the more invasive procedure. 
So our laws are protecting the unborn but harming the women of this country in my opinion.


----------



## MrMan

> So our laws are protecting the unborn but harming the women of this country in my opinion.



The law doesn't harm women, their own decisions harm them.


----------



## michaelm

ailbhe said:


> And as we cannot have abortion on a case by case basis, we either have it or don't.


I would agree with this.





ailbhe said:


> So our laws are protecting the unborn but harming the women of this country in my opinion.


And entirely disagree with this.


----------



## ailbhe

MrMan said:


> The law doesn't harm women, their own decisions harm them.


 
In your opinion. In mine the women are making a decision which is difficult but which they believe is for the best and having made that decision they are being forced to jump through hoops and put themselves through a lot simply because of a law, which lets face it, is outdated.


----------



## ailbhe

michaelm said:


> And entirely disagree with this.


 

But who says whether we have it or not? When was the last vote on abortion? Why has there been no vote in the last few years. Times are changing and those of us who are facing these decisions were too young to vote in the last referendum on abortion. Those who are older now, more than likely secure financially and emotionally are the ones making the decisions for young women. When will we get our chance to have our say?


----------



## MrMan

ailbhe said:


> In your opinion. In mine the women are making a decision which is difficult but which they believe is for the best and having made that decision they are being forced to jump through hoops and put themselves through a lot simply because of a law, which lets face it, is outdated.




So change the law to suit yourself is it? You live in a country that has a law and complain when you have leave to get around it.


----------



## truthseeker

michaelm said:


> Abortion is not a women's issue, it's a societal issue.



Would have to disagree with this.



michaelm said:


> Indeed, people's experiences can change their view on things. Like a pro-life talk I was at where one speaker previously worked in a abortion clinic and was now firmly pro-life or pro-choice people I know who, following the birth of their children, are now pro-life. I don't think one needs to be abused as a child to oppose child abuse.



Im not suggesting men should not have an opinion - I asked could they ever relate to the issue fully though? I still dont think that they can given that no man will ever find himself in the position of being left pregnant without a partner.


----------



## MrMan

ailbhe said:


> But who says whether we have it or not? When was the last vote on abortion? Why has there been no vote in the last few years. Times are changing and those of us who are facing these decisions were too young to vote in the last referendum on abortion. Those who are older now, more than likely secure financially and emotionally are the ones making the decisions for young women. When will we get our chance to have our say?



I would imagine that women from an older generation would say that the choices on offer for them were far starker than for the current generation and that they would be more than capable of understanding the needs of the current problems women today face. Would the younger women even get out and vote? should the many underage mothers also go out and vote and do you think that all young mothers actually regret the fact that they had their children?


----------



## Purple

jaybird said:


> Whether you are pro-life or not, you must admit that whatever strictures or legislation is put in place, abortion is a fact of life.


This is true of lots of things that society deems to be undesirable and illegal. The fact that they happen anyway is not an arguement for legalising them. I am not commenting on abortion, just making a general point.


----------



## Caveat

MrMan said:


> So change the law to suit yourself is it? You live in a country that has a law and complain when you have leave to get around it.


 
Ah come on MrMan - this is unlike you.

Are you saying if you don't like the law live somewhere else?


----------



## ailbhe

MrMan said:


> So change the law to suit yourself is it? You live in a country that has a law and complain when you have leave to get around it.


 

Not to suit myself, no.
 If you read my posts you would see that. I made the decision to NOT have an abortion as I didn't feel it was the right choice for me. I just feel that the choice should be available to women.
Personally, i wouldn't have an abortion I don't think though I hope I never have to make that decision again.
But I do feel that an all out ban on abortion is wrong. i think the choice should be there along with better sex ed (including teaching kids what being a parent is really like), better crisis pregnancy services, better support for women who have children (couselling, education etc) and better counselling for those who are considering abortion and those who are post abortion.
Prevention is better than cure in my opinion but I think a woman should at least have the option to make the decision.


----------



## MrMan

> Im not suggesting men should not have an opinion - I asked could they ever relate to the issue fully though? I still dont think that they can given that no man will ever find himself in the position of being left pregnant without a partner.



But they canbe left in the position of wanting a baby that they have helped create and have to stand on the sidelines as the mother decides to abort/terminate their childs life. It's not an easy stand point on either side and granted more often than not some guys will be happy that the decision is taken out of their hands.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> So change the law to suit yourself is it? You live in a country that has a law and complain when you have leave to get around it.



Its not nice for a woman to not only have to face the trauma of an abortion but to have to travel to do it, plus it costs money. If the law was changed in this country it would cause less pain and suffering for women who are already in an emotionally fragile state.

Just setting aside all morals for a second - what is the point in it being illegal in Ireland if a woman can go elsewhere to have it done? 
Surely it would be more compassionate to just allow it in this country?


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> But they canbe left in the position of wanting a baby that they have helped create and have to stand on the sidelines as the mother decides to abort/terminate their childs life. It's not an easy stand point on either side and granted more often than not some guys will be happy that the decision is taken out of their hands.



I do agree with this but feel the numbers of guys who want to have the baby and raise it themselves is probably very small - practically speaking.


----------



## PM1234

MrMan said:


> So change the law to suit yourself is it? You live in a country that has a law and complain when you have leave to get around it.



Two people had sex. One person is left holding the baby. Literally. 

So what do you suggest is the solution for breaking the law MrMan? Further punishment for women who made the already very difficult decision to have an abortion? Imprisonment maybe?


----------



## ailbhe

MrMan said:


> I would imagine that women from an older generation would say that the choices on offer for them were far starker than for the current generation and that they would be more than capable of understanding the needs of the current problems women today face. Would the younger women even get out and vote? should the many underage mothers also go out and vote and do you think that all young mothers actually regret the fact that they had their children?


 
I don't know if they would vote but shouldn't they be given the chance.
The choices on offer for women years ago were starker. They were forced into "unmarried mothers" homes, laundries or marraiges. Their babies were taken from them and in some cases sold. They were second class citizens. 
in 30 years time will our daughters be looking back on options available to us now and shaking their heads in disbelief.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> should the many underage mothers also go out and vote and do you think that all young mothers actually regret the fact that they had their children?



Very harsh - I would be inclined to think that a lot of young mothers regret aspects of being in the position that they are in but have accepted their lot - as they have no other choice. I certainly know a number of people who say that they have regrets - but with no other choices available they do not dwell on those regrets.


----------



## MrMan

Caveat said:


> Ah come on MrMan - this is unlike you.
> 
> Are you saying if you don't like the law live somewhere else?



Your making me feel bad, i guess I'm finding it difficult to find the right words to make my argument, I'm not one for telling people where to go or what to do, it justs bugs me sometimes when people feel that the law doesn't suit so lets get rid of that law just like the L plate scenario (this was going to be my original analogy but I deemed it insensitive because people might feel I was misunderstanding the plight of pregnant girls/women).


----------



## MrMan

> Just setting aside all morals for a second - what is the point in it being illegal in Ireland if a woman can go elsewhere to have it done?



You can go to amsterdam for a smoke, go to different countries for differing age of consent, we can only make our own laws to suit this island.


----------



## ailbhe

But Mr Man, laws change. things change. There have been absurd laws made to suit particular groups of people. Contraceptives were illegal, women voting was illegal, black people sitting with white people was illegal, slavery was legal.....I could go on and on and on.

Also, most of these laws were made by men to suit men. I am asking when we are going to be allowed a say. If people feel strongly enough they will vote. Same applies for those who disagree with abortion. I just feel incensed that women my age and younger, who are the ones in need of abortion services are not allowed to have their say? And why? Because no politician wants to touch the subject!


----------



## MrMan

PM1234 said:


> Two people had sex. One person is left holding the baby. Literally.
> 
> So what do you suggest is the solution for breaking the law MrMan? Further punishment for women who made the already very difficult decision to have an abortion? Imprisonment maybe?



I didn't mention breaking the law I just don't agree with changing it unless there is a majority of people in Ireland wanting it to be so and in that case majority wins. It is easy to paint anybody with a less liberal view of abortion as conservative or out dated. My views are always there to be changed but I haven't seen the argument yet to fully change mine right now. I think the video shown in my school of actual abortions taking place and the remains of whatever you want to call them (children/embryos) lying in what looked like buckets has coloured my view a tad. Religious propaganda or not it did leave an imprint.


----------



## PM1234

MrMan do you honestly think there are many women in secure stable relationships and/or with financial and emotional support who choose the option of abortion as anything other than a last resort for them? 
Do you really think many women see it as another form of contraception?
Do you honestly really think this decision is one that many women ever make lightly?


I was also shown the infamous abortion tape in school and even then thought it was a crass attempt to influence younger people.


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> Very harsh - I would be inclined to think that a lot of young mothers regret aspects of being in the position that they are in but have accepted their lot - as they have no other choice. I certainly know a number of people who say that they have regrets - but with no other choices available they do not dwell on those regrets.



And alot of young mothers plan to have children rather than 'fall' pregnant. I wasn't having a go at ailbhe by the way, i have lots of regrets myself as I'm sure most do.


----------



## MrMan

ailbhe said:


> But Mr Man, laws change. things change. There have been absurd laws made to suit particular groups of people. Contraceptives were illegal, women voting was illegal, black people sitting with white people was illegal, slavery was legal.....I could go on and on and on.
> 
> Also, most of these laws were made by men to suit men. I am asking when we are going to be allowed a say. If people feel strongly enough they will vote. Same applies for those who disagree with abortion. I just feel incensed that women my age and younger, who are the ones in need of abortion services are not allowed to have their say? And why? Because no politician wants to touch the subject!




Probably because there is no winner in the debate, but I would have no problem with another referendum.


----------



## MrMan

PM1234 said:


> MrMan do you honestly think there are many women in secure stable relationships who choose the option of abortion as anything other than a last resort?
> Do you really think many women see it as another form of contraception?
> Do you really think this decision is one that many women ever make lightly?




I would say that yes some women/couples choose it because it interupts their plans for travel, career etc. I would hope that it is not seen by many as a form of contraception and that it wouldn't be taken lightly, but I would be naive to think that it isn't the case for at least some.


----------



## Caveat

MrMan said:


> ... we can only make our own laws to suit this island.


 
But are we that different from most other countries? 
The vast majority of progressive modern states (and even more traditional or conservative states) seem to think that it is acceptable for abortion to be available in some shape or form.

What makes Ireland such a special case? - because as has been stated, in Europe,  we are almost alone on this one. 

I'm sure other countries have considered and deliberated over their decision and their position is not simply in response to 'market demand' to put it crudely.


----------



## ailbhe

MrMan said:


> And alot of young mothers plan to have children rather than 'fall' pregnant. I wasn't having a go at ailbhe by the way, i have lots of regrets myself as I'm sure most do.


 
Hence why as well as offering abortion i think that sex ed needs to be dramtically improved. And not just to focus on "don't have sex". The emotional side of things, the hardships of parenthood, the reality of what can happen, the consequences..... Sex ed in this country is diabolical and parents need to pick up the slack. I have a 6 year old daughter and I will be totally open with her about sex and contraception etc.
My mother never discussed sex with us. We weren't allowed to learn about contraception in school because it clashed with religion (well, we learned about natural methods)...
I had sex, the condom split. I wasn't stupid, I went to the college doctor and asked for the morning after pill and was told no, that she didn't perscribe it due to her beliefs! So armed with a list of doctors I went to another who told me I would be ok as I was on day 17 of my cycle and the window for conception had passed. i was dubious but could face no more embarrassment so i left it and hey presto, 9 months later I had a bouncing baby girl.

What sort of college doctor refuses to supply the morning after pill? Seriously?

Anyway, thats off the point really.
I would wish that nobosy would ever have to have an abortion. I wish that unplanned pregnancies never happened, that all pregnancies were planned and wanted. That would be an ideal scenario. But it is unlikely so I would prefer that women had the choice when they find themselves pregnant. 

I am aware there are older women who have abortions and younger women who have planned pregnancies. But statistically speaking, younger women are more likely to find themselves pregnant and not have planned it. And their voices are not being heard.


----------



## PM1234

Abortion illegal in all circumstances or permitted only to save a woman's life

South America:
Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gustamala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nigaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela,
  Sub-Saharan Africa:
Angola, Benin, Central African Rep.Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda.
  Middle East and North Africa:
Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.
  Asia and Pacific:
Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka.
  Europe:
Ireland, Malta.



What a great way to show ourselves to be a progressive country


----------



## MrMan

Caveat said:


> But are we that different from most other countries?
> The vast majority of progressive modern states (and even more traditional or conservative states) seem to think that it is acceptable for abortion to be available in some shape or form.
> 
> What makes Ireland such a special case? - because as has been stated, in Europe,  we are almost alone on this one.
> 
> I'm sure other countries have considered and deliberated over their decision and their position is not simply in response to 'market demand' to put it crudely.



Well like I have already said I would be happy to partake in a vote on the issue and would give my vote serious thought but I wouldn't be surprised if the vote went against allowing abortion in Ireland. If that were the case then what? do those in favour of it think that we should still ditch our law to be in line with most other countries?


----------



## ailbhe

MrMan said:


> Well like I have already said I would be happy to partake in a vote on the issue and would give my vote serious thought but I wouldn't be surprised if the vote went against allowing abortion in Ireland. If that were the case then what? do those in favour of it think that we should still ditch our law to be in line with most other countries?


 

Personally yes I would still prefer to see it introduced but we live in a democracy.
A referendum would need to be held every few years though. If memory serves me (and I am open to correction) wasn't the last referendum very close? Is that why there is nobody willing to bring it to the table again?


----------



## PM1234

MrMan said:


> I would say that yes some women/couples choose it because it interupts their plans for travel, career etc. I would hope that it is not seen by many as a form of contraception and that it wouldn't be taken lightly, but I would be naive to think that it isn't the case for at least some.



Abortion is far more likely to be carried out in the cases of young, poor and/or unmarried women (in today's lifestyle unmarried women are those not in stable relationships).


----------



## ailbhe

Can I ask those who disagree with abortion (and this is a genuine question)....lets say you have a daughter. She is 16, smart and talented. You have high hopes for her going to college, having a great life, seeing the world etc.
She comes home and tells you she is pregnant and the dad isn't interested and she has decided to have an abortion but she needs your help, financially and emotionally. You offer to help her raise the child, help financially but she has her mind made up.
What do you do?

Personally if it were my daughter I would take her for counselling, ensure she was fully aware of the choice she was making and travel with her and ensure she got post abortion counselling.


----------



## PM1234

ailbhe said:


> Personally If It Were My Daughter I Would Take Her For Counselling, Ensure She Was Fully Aware Of The Choice She Was Making And Travel With Her And Ensure She Got Post Abortion Counselling.



+ 1

Then again you forgot the other option -  force her to have the child in order to teach her a lesson, make her give it up for adoption and tell her to forget about it, then sterilise her to make sure it never happens again and for good measure have her thrown into prison for a spell


----------



## Purple

ailbhe said:


> Can I ask those who disagree with abortion (and this is a genuine question)....lets say you have a daughter. She is 16, smart and talented. You have high hopes for her going to college, having a great life, seeing the world etc.
> She comes home and tells you she is pregnant and the dad isn't interested and she has decided to have an abortion but she needs your help, financially and emotionally. You offer to help her raise the child, help financially but she has her mind made up.
> What do you do?
> 
> Personally if it were my daughter I would take her for counselling, ensure she was fully aware of the choice she was making and travel with her and ensure she got post abortion counselling.


That’s a good question and without meaning to duck it let me answer it this way.
If someone raped my daughter I would kill them. I would do it slowly and in the most painful way that I could. I know with absolute certainty that I would do this but I also know that it would, by any balanced standard, be wrong.


----------

