Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade

What is you're opinion on abortion ?

  • Fully pro-life, including Embryo

    Votes: 17 2.5%

  • Pro-life but exceptions for morning after pill and IUDs

    Votes: 25 3.7%

  • Pro-choice but up until heartbeat limit of 6-weeks

    Votes: 64 9.6%

  • Pro-choice up to pre-viability limit (based on local legislation)

    Votes: 451 67.6%

  • Fully pro-choice until birth

    Votes: 110 16.5%
  • Total voters
    667
Zatoichi.uK said:
Its a difficult one and not something I've given a huge amount of thought to being a bit of a non issue in the UK. I'd say pro-choice somewhere between conception and perhaps up to 10 weeks. I'm sure there would be some who wouldn't find out until 11 weeks in though.

Under 6 weeks seems kind of crazy and over 20 even more so. 24 in the UK (I think?) seems kind of high. That's 6 months in!
Click to expand...

I'm personally of the opinion viability is based on weight / development of the baby, rather than picking a date. Again coming from a family where we've had a very early birth (24 weeks), niece was only 407g and barely survived. The hospital just 3 days before birth started talking about an abortion as her mum was starting to have serious blood pressure issues.

Had she been born at 15 weeks, or even up to 20 - she would have died without a doubt.
 
Pro choice up to a viability limit established in Parliament. With the mothers health an overriding concern. I am happy with UK law and unhappy with religion becoming involved in any way.

It was Liberal MP David Alton original proposal adopted by the then government into Law. 24 weeks may be a fraction high but it is to be decided in our parliament not on the street or pulpit.
 
The less 'guidance' we take from our cousins the better this has been true since The Monkees.
 
I’d probably put myself somewhere closer to allow it up to birth than some arbitrary limit. Certainly, the 24 week limit that we have shouldn’t be reduced here. I’m not clued up on the medicine and science but if there were major issues with the health of the foetus only discoverable closer to the birth then I’d be in favour of the choice of abortion at a later stage.

Also, why isn’t the UK standard of 24 weeks listed? Seems an unusual omission…

Ultimately, the choice on what a women wants to do with her body should be up to her and her choices shouldn’t be legislated against.

There needs to also be wide spread, easy, cost effective access to other contraceptives.

Also, we should absolutely be banning protests outside hospitals and clinics and creating buffer zones.
 
Yup indeed, The UK standard of 24 weeks is option number 4, just as the Swedish standard of 18 weeks or the Spanish limit of 14 weeks is too - as in that option is for some limit just before the foetus becomes viable. This is what most European countries have albeit with some variation in where they draw that line.

montymint said:
I'm personally of the opinion viability is based on weight / development of the baby, rather than picking a date. Again coming from a family where we've had a very early birth (24 weeks), niece was only 407g and barely survived. The hospital just 3 days before birth started talking about an abortion as her mum was starting to have serious blood pressure issues.

Had she been born at 15 weeks, or even up to 20 - she would have died without a doubt.
Click to expand...

Yup for sure, viability is going to vary a bit based on both the foetus and medical facilities available, generally, some arbitrary limit is imposed at some point before viability - I guess the UK and Germany are rather more liberal with that limit than most and pretty much draw the line very close...
 
I've never really been 'comfortable' with the idea of abortions full stop, especially when the bundle of cells starts to become fetus-like. Just feels a bit too close to infanticide - potential for a full human life in that body if only it can be allowed to develop for another 7 months or however long it is when the decision is taken. For pregnancies where the mother's life isn't at significant risk I guess my 'ideal world' preference would be for the baby to be kept, born, and adopted (by a well funded and organised system which doesn't really seem to exist atm either here ir in the USA) if the parents didn't want it.

At the same time there is a lot of evidence showing that having access to abortions results in fewer dangerous back-street alternatives being administered, removes a very genuinely difficult and possibly traumatising burden from a woman which could otherwise negatively impact her in all sorts of ways, and also reduce the number of kids ending up in abusive homes where they were never really wanted in the first place.

I think I've changed my mind over the years, but would have to go for abortions being legal up to the viability limit. Just seems to have a lot of benefits, and I can sort-of (but also kind of not really depending on how you think about it) see an argument about the fetus not really being a proper independent human being up until that point.

Unless the intent is to keep the baby alive if possible (which isn't really what I'd call abortion) I can't see any possible defence for allowing 'choice' abortions past the 24 week limit though.
 
Lysander said:
That's what pre-viability is.
Click to expand...
It’s stated as 15 weeks on the poll though… I didn’t know what it was to be honest and had to google it. If I saw the poll I would have assumed the limit here is 15 and not 24. 24 is certainly closer to my view than 15 or the day before birth. Maybe we’re splitting hairs here but just think it should be accurate and reflect what the current position is.
 
I suspect @montymint may have had a problem just specifying a viability limit criteria not based on mothers medical condition as they are still two seperate considerations and the viability limit is not normally 15 weeks but dependant on the country or state legislation.
 
Hagar said:
I suspect @montymint may have had a problem just specifying a viability limit criteria not based on mothers medical condition as they are still two seperate considerations and the viability limit is not normally 15 weeks but dependant on the country or state legislation.
Click to expand...

worded to be more specific, should help @Ahleckz too
 
Hagar said:
I suspect @montymint may have had a problem just specifying a viability limit criteria not based on mothers medical condition as they are still two seperate considerations and the viability limit is not normally 15 weeks but dependant on the country or state legislation.
Click to expand...

15 weeks 18 weeks were just meant as rough examples - it was just meant as *some* set pre-viability limit, obviously, most European countries have this sort of law in place but these pre-viability limits do vary a bit.
 

Fully pro-choice until birth​


Not our place to say nor judge anyone else's choice assuming its a single female. I'm also for fully allowing mainly other woman to make rules for them.
Also of course Fully pro-choice until birth unless contested by a male partner and no medical repercussions to the health of the mother are in play. At that point if the woman does not want the child but partner does she should be able to sign over any and all rights to the child to the father with zero legal comback at all and no child maintenance would be forced upon the mother. Common sense really should dictate all of these choices not religion or semantics and that's coming from a religious person.
 
Dave85 said:
And of course Fully pro-choice until birth
Click to expand...
Trouble with this is that what do you do with the baby? It'll be born alive and, depending on when in the pregnancy it was aborted, will probably live with medical help.

Do doctors just allow it to die? Should there be a consideration that, if helped to live, there may be long term medical issues from premature birth?

It's complicated.
 
GreatAuk said:
I've never really been 'comfortable' with the idea of abortions full stop, especially when the bundle of cells starts to become fetus-like. Just feels a bit too close to infanticide - potential for a full human life in that body if only it can be allowed to develop for another 7 months or however long it is when the decision is taken.
[...]
I think I've changed my mind over the years, but would have to go for abortions being legal up to the viability limit. Just seems to have a lot of benefits
Click to expand...

I used to think like that - not really comfortable with abortions at all but in favour of a pro-choice position because it's practical but I think, I'm a bit more at ease re: the abortion aspect too now, and still have the same general view re: what the law should be - some pre-viability limit (perhaps actually slightly lower than the UK's current limit even).

The heartbeat thing at 6 weeks is sometimes touted by people but I think thats gets a bit silly, it's not really a proper heart at that time and frankly, there are a fair few more weeks where the life/foetus is still not really aware of anything.

On one hand for a mother who wants a baby then having a miscarriage at any point is super traumatic, that life form was a potential child they wanted, while abortions can be tragic too there is at least some comfort that, at least during the first several weeks, it's just a larger lifeform that doesn't really have any awareness at all. Later on of course, when it becomes, essentially, a premature baby, then that is highly dubious ethically IMO.

I'd kind of look at it in the way some (more sane) vegans look at muscles and oysters - you have the hardcore vegans who won't eat any meat, seafood or dairy but then you have other vegans who recognise that muscles aren't really sentient beings either... if you can eat a plant then why can't you eat some muscles?

If you can chuck away an embryo then why not a small foetus? If you're happy to undergo IVF and dispose of some embryos or if you're happy to have an IUD fitted or to take a morning-after pill then you're technically disposing of some lifeform that might have become a baby... leaving it a few more weeks just means there is a bit more genetic material to get rid of, it still isn't necessarily aware of anything.
 
I'd separate abortion from contraception, including the morning after pill, as in my view nothing as formed at that stage.

So for me abortion only becomes an issue for someone who hasn't taken any form of contraception.

I think abortion is a symptom of an issue, and stopping the symptom isn't going to solve the issue.

As far as I'm aware this law change isn't about stopping abortions. It is apparently a weak law that as always been open to challenge. So it's been challenged and potentially (as officially we don't know what will happen) be removed and the responsibility for abortion laws will go back to the State level.

In my view this current debate is actually about democratic accountability. The people who support abortion laws want them to be Federal, while the people who are against abortion want them to be at State level.
 
I'm not sure which box to tick, so I'll tell you what I think and you can tell me which box it is:
- I define life as from conception. An embryo is alive, even though it is parasitic, that's scientific fact. I believe this should be defined in law.
- I don't like contraception because it encourages promiscuous behavour which results in unwanted pregnancies. I accept that I don't have the right to force people not to use contraception. I mention it because it speaks to the couple taking responsibility for their actions. They caused the unwanted pregnancy, the embryo is innocent. I try to use the word "couple" when they aren't aware of the embryo exists and "parents" after they are aware.
- I support termination without knowledge that the embryo exists, via the morning after pill. I believe this can't be referred to as murder because the couple lack the knowledge that the embryo exists (you can't murder nobody).
- I support the murder of an embryo as soon as the parents become aware of the pregnancy. The parents are deliberately ending the life of their offspring. They can determine whether the offspring would have a good life or not, ususally based on family stability or medical reasons.
- I encourage termination on medical grounds. For deformities - I strongly believe that the quality of life of the parents and the child, and other children, and potential grandchildren, is so adversely affected and this isn't properly understood at the time the decision is made. For miscarriages - I believe a woman can't maintain mental health after going through a miscarriage.
- I don't like the term "pro-choice". I think of termination as the parents making a responsible decision to only proceed with a pregnancy if they believe the offspring will have an adequate quality of life. The words "choice" and "murder" together are always bad, but this "responsible decision" is frequently the right thing to do.
- I don't recognise heartbeat and viability as important stages of development in this debate.
- When parents become aware of the pregnancy and choose not to terminate then I believe the right to life is implied. I believe this should be defined in law.
- I only agree with later termination on medical grounds.
- I strongly believe that a woman can't maintain mental health after going through an abortion.

Edit: As for Roe v Wade. I think a law about issue this controvertial shouldn't be backed by a case - it should be in the constitution. Sounds like it'll go that way, so IMO this whole situation is just progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom