To think the tactics of CBR UK are disgusting? Trigger warning - pro life.

No one seriously or consistently applies the 'its a fetus not a baby' idea though, do they? Literally no one uses the term 'fetus' of a wanted pregnancy, even at the earliest stages. Women who lose wanted pregnancies early on (as I did at twelve weeks during my second pregnancy) talk about losing babies, not fetuses. 'Fetus' is only used in the abortion debate to put emotional distance between us and the babies involved.

Anyway, I think the abortion debate will stay live as it hinges on the whole idea of 'personhood'. If being 'unwanted' and dependent on another for his / her existence makes an unborn baby a non-person, then plenty of other people are logically non-people too.

I’m so embarrassed by people who think these are “gotcha” moments. It doesn’t matter what it’s defined as. The woman comes first.

Can ANYONE tell me how abortions that another women have affects them? Anyone?

Indeed. They remove choice by stealth.

They’ve also been highly criticised for deceiving women over abortions and only providing advice with a view to removing choice from women

Id like to see how they defined housing 12,000 mothers and babies.

Again this is just semantics. It’s a foetus, ergo it is not born and has no rights beyond what the woman carrying it wants for it.

Whats your practical solution then? To ban abortions? So what about raped children who get pregnant? What about people like Saavita? What about people for whom being pregnant Carrie’s a threat of death? What about women who will inevitably seek back street abortions?

It’s not a factual statement. HTH.

Life -alive, from the moment of conception and will continue to grow, develop and live inside the womb and after birth into adulthood, unless killed by a condition or action.

According to who 😂

As I’ve said before this is all just semantics, all of your posts, and it’s entirely subjective .
life or not, the life of women is far more important and trumps that of a foetus every time. The dependent foetus doesn’t and should not have the same rights as actual living women.

You haven’t answered how other women’s abortions affects you?

And I take it you think it was the right that Saavita Halappanaver died? If you think her (wanted) foetus’s life had the same rights as her?

Stop being facetious

She's not suggesting that it contains non human dna and you know that.

A foetus can grow into a human being but isn't one is a very simple explanation.

An unborn child is dependent on its mother. People do gloss over this, but ultimately abortion is the choice between the life of the woman who is already here and the unborn life that is not.

The woman is not someone who exists in isolation; what happens to her impacts others who are already here. Bearing in mind that pregnancy and birth pose a risk to health and indeed life that is considerably greaser than the risk of a safe legal abortion, this must be taken into consideration. Beyond that, there are the relationship, social, financial and employment implications to consider. Yelling 'but what about the baybeeee' is not a rational counterargument. Ultimately the decision has to rest with the person best able to take it: the woman.

While you're here, @stopfallingforyou, given that banning abortion kills women, how many dead women is an acceptable number when it comes to "protecting" the unborn?

What species is it, then? Which non-human genes does it have?

You accept that an unborn child is human and alive, then state that it can't be harmed, as it is not a person.
The personhood argument is often used to demand arbitrary and subjective definitions of what a person is, prior to removing that person's rights.
If you asked yourself when you became "you", what criteria of personhood would you choose?

These places exist? Where?

I would never donate to such a misogynistic organisation that cannot even have the basic decency of saying pregnant WOMEN.

Only if you’re too thick to gather and evaluate statistically significant and robust source material.

As a starting point, may I suggest you look at population level outcomes for women in places where abortion is legal and accessible, and the same for those places where it is not?

Thanks for sharing. I found this on there: https://abortionrights.org.uk/the-new-maltese-abortion-bill-is-potentially-worse-for-pregnant-people-than-previous-blanket-ban/

I posted a few days ago about the emergency surgery I had to save my life and remove a ruptured ectopic pregnancy a couple of years ago. Without that surgery I would have died and wouldn't be cuddling my 6 month old right now.

I can't believe how lucky I was to have that experience in the UK. I was in surgery within an hour of the scan. No-one had to seek board approval to act. None of the doctors had to fear prosecution to remove a non-viable pregnancy and save my life.

What a world we live in where people can protest amending abortion laws to allow termination to save a woman's life.

A woman dies every 2 days at the hands of a partner / ex.

Where are their placards against that?

Are they out there with photos of blackened faces and bruised thighs to highlight the epidemic of VAWG?

Are they shoving leaflets into the hands of football fans (VAWG increases around big tournaments).

Of course they fucking aren’t.

Because it’s not about anything other than controlling women.

edit - i missed the word ‘legal’ from your OP but I question if that technicality matters. Either they care about killing or not - and what a surprise it’s not important enough to protest when it’s women being killed.

As for regretting abortions (which almost none do regret it), more people regret getting married than regret having an abortion. We don't advocate banning marriage because people regret it.

Its a fetus.

It is not a baby.

It is not a human being.

If it has separate genes and is separate from the woman, and its in the womans body unwanted, she has the right to remove it from her person.

Of course there are some women who regret abortions, just as there are women who are glad they chose not to have one. Doesn't mean women shouldn't have the choice or cancel out the very many women who are glad they had one.

Adults make choices about their own lives, they don't always make the right one and that's how freedom works. The idea that people (women) should have their lives controlled so they can't ever make a decision they later regret is authoritarian and never ever truly grounded in what's best for the controlled and restricted person. We don't bring about state-forced marriage because some people marry the wrong person or state-forced jobs because some people choose the wrong career. Many people have sex with the wrong person at the wrong time and regret it; abortion is one way to help correct that regret.

"my decision to control my own life in a way that suits me"

Yeah, they really don't like that idea. Smacks too much of your body, and your life, belonging to you and only you. In their eyes, Woman's body belongs to God and man, any man, all men that want a say, but not the woman. Even if you are a non believer, their belief apparently should trump yours.

One of the things that also irks me is their moral objections to the morning after pill. All this divine spark = baby bollocks. Does not even have to progress to cells. There was an Irish poster earlier (apologies, not reading whole thread again) who had a heck of a time even getting the copper coil for much the same base reasoning.

I’ve never regretted my two terminations. One at 16 one at 22. Completely comfortable then and now with my decision to control my own life in a way that suits me. Both weren’t babies just cells.

@Gingerlingerlonger

I personally believe it's really about punishing, as you also mentioned, women for having sex by forcing them to endure the consequence. You've had sex, they disapprove of, so you must pay in suffering in penance for offending their personal puritanical beliefs.

Exactly so. That's their real motive.

It's human, but not a person. Do you understand the difference? One of your skin cells is human. It's also not a person. It's alive, but is not sentient life, therefore it can't be harmed.

You actually want to hear more of those stupid statements?
You have a stronger stomach than me.

I think these types of pro-lifers are being disingenuous with their claims of standing up for the rights of the unborn. I personally believe it's really about punishing, as you also mentioned, women for having sex by forcing them to endure the consequence. You've had sex, they disapprove of, so you must pay in suffering in penance for offending their personal puritanical beliefs. The fact you might have been raped or it stands a good chance of one or both of you both dying is neither here nor there to them. Think they're taking the whole "In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (or variations thereof) shit way too far.

Me personally, I would like to throw paint over that big poster, hack their web presentation of the images and replace with alternates or shove the leaflet up their sanctimonious arses but I'd probably just complain to the council.