Poll: Abortion.. A right?

Should a woman have the right to choose whether to have an abortion?

  • Yes

    Votes: 301 93.2%

  • No

    Votes: 22 6.8%
  • Total voters
    323
MooMoo444 said:
I personally have no problem with abortion as long as it's done early into the pregnancy. By early I mean first couple of weeks.

As long as it's done nice and early, women should have the option.
Click to expand...

Pregnancy can't be detected within the first couple of weeks, not by conventional means.
 
TheCenturion said:
But at what point is the child part of her body, and at what point is the child its own body? Because with your logic, it could be argued that it's also the child's body and therefore the child's right to choose as well. Of course, in practice it's impossible for a foetus to make a decision like that, but the point is I'm questioning what rights the unborn child has
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:, the child is in her body and she's the one who has to cater for it and look after it because it's inside her body, there's no discussion needed towards this, the woman has the right to opt for an abortion because she's the one who has to carry it for several months and also get it out of her which makes it her choice.
 
ordinaryjoe said:
I know different people would react differently - I didn't say everyone would react like that... Just that some would
Click to expand...

You actually said a lot would, implying many.

I have 2 friends that have been raped, both took the morning after pill, and would never dreaming of giving birth to a child conceived in that manner. To think anyone would be ok with that is frankly astounding!
 
Deep said:
After reading that thread on here and also watching an episode of West Wing about it I'd thought I'd ask peoples opinions.

Should a woman have the right to choose if she can get an abortion or should they not be allowed?

(a poll wouldn't go amiss ;) )

I am predicting a landslide victory for the right, which I totally agree with.
Click to expand...

It should be enforced if you're on benefits. By Police if necessary - dragging women out of their council homes to abortion clinics screaming. I can see it now.
 
I think it should always be allowed, and see no negatives beyond the health and psychological issues for the woman involved. The law is already determined based around when science considers the foetus to be an independent lifeform.

On the argument of the father having any say/abstaining from further responsibility, it's a particularly difficult one. The decision to have unprotected sex is usually a mutual one, the decision to have an abortion or to carry a baby to term will have a mutual impact, but either or is a big physical/mental ask of the woman. It's a horrible powerless situation to be in as a man, especially when you're maybe not in a relationship with the woman, or it's at a time when it could completely change the course of your life.

It shouldn't be viewed as contraception, especially knowingly (i.e. where the morning after pill could have been used)
 
I would hate to be in this situation of having to decide keep the baby or not, but I guess deep down inside im quite thankful I do have the choice, although after losing a baby and seeing others lose their ability to conceive I can guess my answer would be 110% I would keep my baby if I did fall pregnant (unless it was rape) but so many circumstances could change that.

For those saying about men opting out of payments if she denies the abortion, I dont get maintenance payments from my daughters father anyway and she was planned and I dread to think how many men would just go around making life and stating "Well she opted out of abortion" when the CSA came knocking.

I also agree with all those who say it should not be used as an emergency contraception, that to me is a disgusting excuse and I wish there were a way of limiting this happening.
 
Valentino said:
Self-Actualization, the only flaw to evolution.

Lets be frank, life exists without humans, yet we have been cursed with knowing what is going on, we have a far greater understanding of the bigger picture than any other life-form we have found. A majority of our population think there is something greater to life and that is a tragedy. We live for nothing other than living, unfortunately we have created a world where some prosper and some dwindle. In the animal kingdom they all live doing what they are mean to.

If our only purpose is to live, which i believe it is, is it not better live like like all other animals than how we live?
Click to expand...

Eh?
You say that people think there is something greater to life, yet we all live for living. Contradiction?

Also, should we all go back to living in caves? Have no progression in anything in life?
Such a tragedy yet you are using the internet! Tragedy that.

In the animal kingdom the weak are left to die, attacked and forgotten about. Should we be the same?
 
Dolph said:
If we're going for emotive arguments, as some seem to be, then we can't realistically liken an early stage embryo to something alive, it is more like a cancer or a parasite, stealing from the host while serving little useful purpose.

If it is unwanted, it has no purpose other than to grow at the expense of the host, like a tumour.

What? Not appropriate?
Click to expand...

Completely appropriate. My wife is an example of the baby being more of a disease than anything else. She spent a while in hospital and had a condition that less than 0.5% of pregnancies bring on. It was sucking the life out of her so that it could grow.

At one point we considered aborting it, it was that bad. We were ready to book an appointment.

It however, was left to grow and after 8.5 months of pain 'it' was born, our beautiful baby girl.
 
And then they get pregnant again and get another £3k and another and another and another....
yep, that saves money!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom