Abortion Debate Forum - Abortion As Birth Control

Eiri wrote:

Kypros wrote:

Eiri wrote:

No, I do agree that the law is the law. Fortunately for me, the law currently agrees with what I happen to believe, and most late-term social abortions are illegal.

In fact, I do think that the law is very hypocritical, as it stands: personhood is gained at birth yet abortion is illegal after 24 weeks (in the UK; don't know about the US).

Although, my only issue related to the law is that I firmly advocate that every citizen should support the implementation of a legislation which allows women to have the right to a legal, safe abortion at any time in the pregnancy. I have nothing against personal objective views to late-term terminations, it's just that I'm yet to be provided with a good reason why people should vote against such a law. People's views are respected, but you must allow an issue like this to be completely open for women to make their own judgement on whether it is right or wrong. If, in a sort of utopian way, the fixing of a new legislation was down to the general public, with the question being "Should abortions be available to women for any reasons right throughout the pregnancy?" and the possible answers were "Yes" and "No", what would you vote? If you vote "no", then I would find it hard to fully categorise you as pro-choice, especially since you're one of those who have told pro-lifers that they should not enforce their view (their outlook that abortion is not a nice act) as law.

I wouldn't vote for a law to make women's rights illeal; however, if there was some way to pass laws that clarified when abortion is legal and when it should be frowned upon - not made illegal, but not condoned either - I would.

Quote:

Eiri wrote:

I think my point was that forced-birth is a negative term and we try to stay away from those. If you'd like, I can call you anti-life and pro-death; but we know these names are no more accurate than pro-forced-birth.

Yes, it is a negative term, I suppose, but nevertheless still true. At the end of the day 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' are just euphemistic terms for something along the lines of 'pro-human death'/'anti-human life' and 'pro-forced birth'/'anti-women's rights' respectively. I don't have a problem with being coined to one of these negatives because I view the opinion to which I adhere as positive.

These negative terms inflame others and make them angry and upset, and I think it's stupid to use them, for this reason. It's just simple respect for the other people in this debate.

Quote:

Eiri wrote:

Well I agree to an extent: why would you carry to term if you didn't want to keep it? Shouldn't you have aborted a long, long time ago? There are points when one crosses a line in any aspect of life.

I believe that late-term frivolous abortions would be very rare, although existent.

I know; that's why this debate is little ore thn a mental excersize. In my book, almost any reason is good enough; the only reason that isn't ood is no reason at all.

Quote:

I can't imagine many women taking the issue so lightly, except in cases where perhaps the woman has serious issues. I would imagine that women who have suddenly had a serious change of heart (after initially planning to keep the baby) would fall into this category (especially young girls. I know one girl who is still a few weeks nigh of turning 16 and both of her abortions came after an original desire to keep them, although they weren't quite illegal, they were definitely "later than normal"), as would a woman who has unfortunately discovered the pregnancy too late. You can't say women should have done this or that, because only she knows that. What she didn't do (i.e. obtain a termination much earlier) is irrelevant.

I've also got no problem with the woman who didn't know. Again, circumstances out of her hands.

Quote:

Eiri wrote:

I'd be worried that she would be abusive to the child/ren and not respect their rights to live...

Well, I don't see what would make a woman who has had several late-term abortions any more or less likely to abuse any possible children than somebody who had several early abortions.

Again, it is because of the viability of the child. By 8 months, almost any pregnant woman will call that fetus a baby. Most women who carry a child that long get attached to it and care for it. To then abort shows that the woman has the disturbing ability to disconnect herself from something she loves and kill it at her convenience. It reminds me of a few cases of mothers who become killers, drowning or smothering their children because economic times have become tough, or the woman has become mentally unstable. As you said above nd agreed with me on, a woman who frivolously aborts at that stage without a reason, probably has something wrong with her.

Quote:

Eiri wrote:

Unfortunately, I don't support the right of rapists to have families either, or for people who chronically abuse drugs, or have shown themselves to be violent, horrible people. But there's no way to determine these things and they're purely social interpretations, so that's something I just have to live with.

It's really a war of words: every single person has the right to reproduce, but not everybody necessarily deserves to, as in the cases of rapists and serial child abusers. This is why I have changed my view that these people should be forcibly sterilised and rather watched very closely by authorities and strictly monitored. Somebody like Rosemary West, who tortured her children, sexually abused them, and even killed some of them, should have any future children taken off her and given up for adoption immediately (she's way too old to have kids now anyway but I'm using her as an example). Having the right to reproduce and having the right to keep your child are two very different things - especially when it comes to undescribable individuals like her.

Moo wrote:

PurestGreen wrote:

Abortions are free in the .U.K and a woman can have as many as she likes - as long as she can find two doctors willing to sign.

Not necessarily, they do stop performing abortions if a woman has had multiple in a short space of time for 'social' reasons. I have a friend who has had three and it's been made clear if she has another then she will have to go private.

I guess it depends on your doctor. I personally believe that a woman should be entitled to three social abortions on the NHS and then the doctor should be allowed to refuse (if s/he wishes) any further terminations for social reasons, so the right to abort is not stopped (she can go private if she really wants to have another abortion) and nor is the NHS abused. If this became law and was publicised quite aggresively I do believe that a good number of people would smarten up their act.

Kypros.

See that is something I can thougroully agree with.

I don't think I have much more to say on the subject now Very
Happy

.

Kypros.