Pro-life / Pro-choice

against abortion = woman hater
for abortion = baby hater

Ergo the argument will never be settled.

Nope still murder but the balance tips. Just like "murder" in wartime.

It's a pity it isn't the man who gets pregnant! Then we could be Anti-abortion and Anti-men at the same time!

So you're saying that abortion is murder apart from when the women's life is at risk? Or it's still murder then, but it should be allowable murder?

There are NOT restrictions on when a termination can be carried out. It can be carried out up until birth.

I dont dictate what others can do hence why I prefaced my opinions with "I believe".

Bet it still cuts abortion rates by 99% though!!

Men don't have to forgo the same "choices" when they have sex, though, Superdiva. Men don't have the risk of falling pregnant. If a woman falls pregnant, she has to make a choice regarding her body. The man has to make a choice as to whether he stands by her or not. Hardly the same choice. Last time I checked, a woman can't walk out on a pregnancy.

As for abortion = murder? Surely life begins when the baby enters the world? They have restrictions on when a termination can be carried out, for those who wish to argue that it's sooner.

The simple answer is this. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. But don't dictate to other women what they can and can't do to their bodies.

You never know when you may become pregnant, and realise that carrying on with the pregnancy is not in your best interests.

Ive already answered. above the normal risk of pregnancy. which is actually quite low come to think of it. so in fact that does give rather a lot of leeway does it not.

OK we know you won't change your mind on this because you're a woman hater.

Women shouldn't have sex unless they're prepared to risk death for it.

And women who are raped (1 in 9 of us) who get pregant, can fuck off too.

And don't FGS demand child support for those babies, men mustn't be bothered with that.

I think we know where you're coming from.

So you can't answer my question, then? How raised? At what point does the woman's life matter?

against their will??!! I love that. shoudnt have had sex then should they. just like we all love to say to men when they moan about paying child support.

my mind wont be changed on this. it is murder pure and simple.

raised as in raised above the normal risk of pregnancy. Obviously

"I believe abortion should only be allowed if the child is 100% going to die upon birth/before birth. Or if the mother is at a raised risk of death. ONLY."

Well a pregnant woman is at raised risk of death than a non-pregnant woman, superduperdiva, so that's that one sorted. SUPER

But you do have to value women at a lower rate to that of a man, to not be able to see that putting them through the rigours of preganancy and birth against their will, is barbaric.

Funny how people can see barbarism when it affects an unborn child who or a man, but not if it affects a woman.

All pregnancies carry the risk of death. It's not until you get to delivery, that you know how serious that risk is. But people are perfectly happy to demand that women be forced to undergo that risk, because their lives simply don't matter as much as thouse of men or an unborn child.

superduperdiva Views like that must make the anti-abortion lobby so proud.

I think forcing someone to go through the trauma of pregnancy and childbirth against their will is effectively slavery.
And that is awful, selfish, and barbaric.

When you say that abortion should only be allowed "if the mother is at a raised risk of death" it provokes the question: how raised? If there's a 70% chance this pregnancy will kill me, can I end it so that my husband and toddler son will continue to have a wife and mother, or do I have to bear it and risk dying?

What about if there's a 75% chance it will kill me, then does my life and responsibilities suddenly become more important than the foetus?

Who gets to make that call? Who gets to tell me how important my life is, whether I'm worth saving from a life-threatening condition?

Why isn't it me?

ps - I'm an athiest. vehement athiest. So nothing to do with any religious nonsene. You dont need to be religious to see it is barbaric.

I believe abortion is murder.

I believe woman forfeit their right to choose when they have sex. As a man does.

I believe the truth about abortion is hushed up.

I believe abortion should only be allowed if the child is 100% going to die upon birth/before birth. Or if the mother is at a raised risk of death. ONLY.

It's awful, selfish and barbaric.

I don't believe that it is punishing women. I would feel exactly the same if men had to go through pregnancy. I believe abortion is ending a life.

We don't make anyone donate organs.

We don't make anyone give bone marrow.

We don't even make anyone give blood.

Surely the pro-life position should be to make people donate all these things to save lives? Cos bodily autonomy means nothing, apparently.

That's a good argument pornmonkey. Really well set out and cogent. Congratulations on the name btw.

ElfenorRathbone

^If men gave birth, there would be no question about whose rights were more important - it would be the grown man's.

And it is women versus men, in that no-one would ever suggest, that men should be forced to undergo a life-threatening, life-changing event, against their will. It would simply be considered an abhorrent idea. Men's lives are far too valuable to entertain such an idea^

And the prize for biggest load of tosh goes to...

Kristingle - because the only reason there is any question at all about it, is because men don't do it. SS is right, in no other area of life is a human being expected to risk their life and welfare, for the sake of another human being. Even firemen are not expected to go into a burning building to save the people in there from burning, although many of them are incredibly brave and selfless and do so - but we certainly don't criticise the ones who don't, and neither should we.

Being pregnant and going through labour is an incredibly big deal, although we live in a society which sneers at it and pretends it's no biggie and WTF should they stand up for pregnant women on the train becasue hey, it's no biggie. The reason it is so disrespected, is because men don't do it. I wouldn't frame it as women's rights versus men's, I'd frame it as women's lives and humanity being just as valuable as men's - and no-one would expect a man to undergo the equivalent physical and emotional endurance test that is pregnancy and childbirth for the sake of another person, against his will. If it were ever mooted that men should be routinely forced to do anything as arduous against their will, the sheer barbarity of such a proposition would immediately be recognised. Becasue the humanity of men is recognsied. Refusing to accept the proposition that women should be forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth against their will, is recognising the humanity of women IMO.

I mentioned that above, that being pro foetus rights isn't necessarily anti woman but that's how the debate ends up.
But childbearing is not risk free. Physically, psychologically, emotionally, pragmatically. Why should someone sacrifice so much for someone else? I used the analogy earlier of throwing oneself into the waters to save someone else. Should a person be penalised for not putting themselves at risk to save someone else?
It's a feminist issue because it's not men who have to decide whether to sacrifice elements of themselves for someone else, but women.
I say this as someone who was quite anti abortion before having my own children. While I'm still anti (who wants MORE abortion?) I'm anti even more enforced childbearing.

I dont think abortion should be illegal BTW. Im just not sure i understand how this is about womens rights vs mens rights