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
I sit on a fence with it tbh.

I'm OK with aborting a pregnancy there are medical reasons why or the conception was through forceful act (basically rape).

Where I have the problem is people conceiving and deciding they just don't want the child because it would be inconvienent. You had sex, what were you expecting, a toaster? The idea that a termination can be used as a form of post-conception contraceptive is utterly wrong.
 
Resident said:
I sit on a fence with it tbh.

I'm OK with aborting a pregnancy there are medical reasons why or the conception was through forceful act (basically rape).

Where I have the problem is people conceiving and deciding they just don't want the child because it would be inconvienent. You had sex, what were you expecting, a toaster? The idea that a termination can be used as a form of post-conception contraceptive is utterly wrong.
Click to expand...

What if they were using contraception which failed?
 
Haggisman said:
The financial argument is a terrible one. A termination is orders of magnitude cheaper than paying for:

- The birth of a child

AND
(
- Benefits for a single mother who can no longer work OR free childcare
OR
- The cost of putting an unwanted child through the care system
AND
- The potential cost of dealing with the fallout of the above if it all goes wrong (e.g. a child with a **** upbringing turning to crime and all the associated policing costs, or paying benefits for the rest of their life)
)
Click to expand...
Nah I'm not saying force them to have the kid because I don't want to pay for the abortion, for all the reasons you listed. I am saying send them the bill, as they are responsible for their actions, not me. I accept it has to be covered if they can't afford it. I do believe the same thing for smokers, drinkers, obese, etc. It's about being responsible for your actions, rather than everyone else being responsible for your actions.
 
throwaway4372 said:
Nah I'm not saying force them to have the kid because I don't want to pay for the abortion, for all the reasons you listed. I am saying send them the bill, as they are responsible for their actions, not me. I accept it has to be covered if they can't afford it. I do believe the same thing for smokers, drinkers, obese, etc. It's about being responsible for your actions, rather than everyone else being responsible for your actions.
Click to expand...

Do you apply the same logic to people who require medical care for sporting injuries, due to car crashes, from falling down the stairs, not looking properly when they cross the road etc.?

Resident said:
Because it's ending a life because of someone's irresponsibility.
Click to expand...

Ending a life? Or preventing it from ever occurring? That comes down to the argument of "when does it become a baby"? You're against the morning-after-pill as well then?
 
throwaway4372 said:
Nah I'm not saying force them to have the kid because I don't want to pay for the abortion, for all the reasons you listed. I am saying send them the bill, as they are responsible for their actions, not me. I accept it has to be covered if they can't afford it. I do believe the same thing for smokers, drinkers, obese, etc. It's about being responsible for your actions, rather than everyone else being responsible for your actions.
Click to expand...
Should we start charging for their actions prior to accessing the NHS? How about a smoker with cancer? Or a cyclist with knackered knee? Or a jogger with a broken ankle? Or an obese person with heart problems? List goes on... What about them accepting responsibility?

Unless you do the above at the same time, this is a discriminating policy.
 
Haggisman said:
Do you apply the same logic to people who require medical care for sporting injuries, due to car crashes, from falling down the stairs, not looking properly when they cross the road etc.?
Click to expand...
Those are accidents. Sex isn't an accident lol. "woops I tripped and my weener fell in, and out, for a bit, then oops!"
 
C Kent said:
Abortion isn't a form of contraception, which is what a large % of terminations are used as. Maybe people should start taking some responsibility for their actions
Click to expand...
There has never AFAIK been a reputable study that supports that nonsense*. The likes of the "pro life" lobby in the US push that a lot based on what are usually apocryphal stories or extreme outliers

Most abortions are either because of failed contraception, or medical necessity.


*At least where contraception is readily available, and people are taught sex education in any form of effective manner, oddly enough many of the "pro life" people in the US are very against both of the things that are most likely to prevent the need for a termination where it isn't a strict medical necessity.
 
Hopefully these draconian laws in red states will be challenged soon by Jewish or Muslim women on religious freedom grounds, something the SC has been very much behind recently as the majority of cases regard Christians. In Judaism there are lots of Rabbis that say a women has a right to an abortion and a foetus is certainly not considered a human life until birth. Islam doesn't consider a foetus a human life until the quickening around 16 weeks and there is no clear prohibition of abortion in Islam. I'm sure they will avoid hearing these cases until the Circuit Court forces their hands.
 
M1k3H said:
Should we start charging for their actions prior to accessing the NHS? How about a smoker with cancer? Or a cyclist with knackered knee? Or a jogger with a broken ankle? Or an obese person with heart problems? List goes on... What about them accepting responsibility?

Unless you do the above at the same time, this is a discriminating policy.
Click to expand...
Broadly, yes.
Smokers is a great example because there already is a big tax on cigs.
Defo should be a similar tax on junk food.
I do agree about the cyclist and jogger but I don't know how you'd prove/tax that.
 
throwaway4372 said:
Broadly, yes.
Smokers is a great example because there already is a big tax on cigs.
Defo should be a similar tax on junk food.
I do agree about the cyclist and jogger but I don't know how you'd prove/tax that.
Click to expand...
We might as well scrap the NHS then cause most people would have been able to do something differently/taken (more) precautions prior to them developing a disease/having an accident, so no one will qualify for free treatment.
 
Werewolf said:
There has never AFAIK been a reputable study that supports that nonsense. The likes of the "pro life" lobby in the US push that a lot based on what are usually apocryphal stories or extreme outliers

Most abortions are either because of failed contraception, or medical necessity.
Click to expand...
You've got a contradiction there IMO. An abortion because of failed contraception is using the abortion as contraception. This is because not having sex is 100% effective, but common contraception is less effective than that. If you have sex with contraception you're knowingly entering into a small chance of relying on an abortion.
 
throwaway4372 said:
You've got a contradiction there IMO. An abortion because of failed contraception is using the abortion as contraception. This is because not having sex is 100% effective, but common contraception is less effective than that. If you have sex with contraception you're knowingly entering into a small chance of relying on an abortion.
Click to expand...
I think the difference of opinion (and i could be wrong) comes down to what you consider life, vs the potential for life.

you it would seem consider it to be the moment of fertilization? others consider it the moment of birth.

I think the point of viability outside of the womb is the sensible compromise............ otherwise if it is potential of life then like the monty python song then every sperm and every egg possesses the potential for life.

This does not mean if i was in the position to choose to have an abortion it would be easy or without any regret or feelings of guilt.......

there are people use use abortions as general contraception (i knew of one girl, my exes housemate who at 19 had had 2 abortions and was looking to get her third (hand on heart truth) and i wont lie i think her attitude was vile......but these are surely in the vast minority......... but equally I dont think a contraceptive failure leading to a very difficult decision, or knowing a fetus is going to have serious medical issues and deciding you are not prepared to have it is the same thing.

but this is one of those things like politics....... it is true we may be swayed to move our views a little bit, i think it is almost impossible that anyone will radically change their views - until perhaps they are in the position, then they may.
 
throwaway4372 said:
You've got a contradiction there IMO. An abortion because of failed contraception is using the abortion as contraception. This is because not having sex is 100% effective, but common contraception is less effective than that. If you have sex with contraception you're knowingly entering into a small chance of relying on an abortion.
Click to expand...

And finally, there we have it; people should never have sex unless they want a baby....

Stop living in sin, repent, brimstone and hellfire. Etc
 
bigmike20vt said:
I think the difference of opinion (and i could be wrong) comes down to what you consider life, vs the potential for life.
you it would seem consider it to be the moment of fertilization? others consider it the moment of birth.
I think the point of viability outside of the womb is the sensible compromise.
[...]
Click to expand...
I defined it in an earlier post, don't blame you for missing it though:
"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."
 
Haggisman said:
And finally, there we have it; people should never have sex unless they want a baby....

Stop living in sin, repent, brimstone and hellfire. Etc
Click to expand...
Nah - you've put me in a box with the pro-lifers, which I'm just not in.

Seeing as it's going downhill in terms of quality I'm going to stop the back-and-forth now. I think we've contributed some useful things that give people something to think about, but there's a point where it'll just annoy everyone else. <3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom