Do you LOVE Zara Larsson too?

[hejsvejs]

I love this woman. Look her up on Instagram and Twitter, she's a very sttong woman and a great role model for young girls.

And that's all I wanted to say

www.buzzfeed.com/vikky/34-times-zara-larsson-was-the-queen-of-twitter-y65c?utm_term=.lfD8YAV8YL

And these....still only a small selection of her posts.

I agree with most of it apart from the bit about abortion, unless the woman in question is willing to pay for the procedures herself that is. Abortion is something done to a woman by someone else, i.e. a qualified surgeon, so it's not quite right to say that someone can just have one whenever they feel like it the same way they would get a tattoo.

I don't understand your objection itllallbefine. Are you concerned about cost? How do you think the cost of an abortion compares to the cost of supporting a woman through pregnancy and birth, and the potential costs of the state caring for an unwanted child?

Itllallbefine, I agree with you on that point. Abortion shouldn't be treated as a contraception but at least she's making it clear it should always be the woman's choice.

I don't always agree with her choice of words but I think it's refreshing that an 18 year old chart topping pop star is choosing to be an open die hard feminist.

How many abortions count as 'using abortions as contraception'? 3? 4? 5? Do you think a woman who has been repeatedly unable or unwilling to arrange contraception when she has sex is living in an environment where the 6th unwanted pregnancy will result in a cared for and nurtured child? Is forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy a punishment for being irresponsible? How do you think that will work out for the child?

I think you're twisting my words now.

It should ALWAYS be the woman's choice, regardless of how many times she has had or will have an abortion.

By using it as a means of contraception I was not talking about how many times but mindset.

But ultimately, it's nobody else's business.

The number of abortions a woman has is up to her. Roll on the day when women can access abortion on demand on the NHS, instead of having to have a couple of doctors decide if it's ok for her.

PunxutawneyPhil - the point is what right has she to EXPECT that society will pay for the cost of training and recruiting surgeons to perform as many abortions as she wants ? How is that exercising bodily autonomy and what right has she to demand that she be given an abortion ? Demanding that you can have an abortion whenever you see fit is IMO no more reasonable that denying women access to staff that can safely perform one. People forget that access to safe abortion is not something that you get for free, fortunately the society we live in will perform them safely and without judgement, that should be abused with the dangerous notion that there's no problem getting as many you need.

*should not be abused the last sentance is supposed to read.

You seemed to agree with the pp about how a woman shouldn't be able to access abortions unless they paid for it. And then used the phrase 'abortions shouldn't be treated as contraception', which was what I was challenging. Why shouldn't they be 'used as contraception'? How are you going to change/police that mindset?

itllallbefine the problem is the choice is not between a woman having an abortion paid for her by the state and a woman not being pregnant. The choice is between paying for the abortion and paying for the resultant pregnancy and birth and potential other societal problems that come from unwanted pregnancies coming to term. If you want to consider the costs involved it makes much more financial sense to allow women to have abortions on demand.

For a start, most abortions don't require a surgeon. They're either medical (ie pills), or a simple outpatient procedure (performed by someone qualified, but not a surgeon) for the first trimester at least (not an HCP - but I have read around the subject and I'm aware of my options should I ever need them)

Abortions requiring a surgeon are generally later term abortions, and the women having those are not using them as contraception.

Lots of people do lots of things that cost us money - rugby players, cyclists - should anyone pay for medical care required as a result of having fun or just women?

let me try this in simpler terms, it is not responsible behaviour to encourage (by the tone of her message) women that abortion is the same thing as contraception. You cannot demand an abortion anymore than I can demand a new hip.

gah - that didnt make sense, hopefully you get the gist.

She's not encouraging it! She says it's not the best option and that people should talk more about birth control and protecting themselves from pregnancy and stds.

p.s. don't think I didn't notice that attempt to swerve my points with the patronising 'let me try this in simpler terms'. Fancy addressing the fact that allowing abortion on demand makes financial sense?

personally I didn't read that she was encouraging it - I read that she was using an extreme example to demonstrate that it's not anyone else's business but the woman.

Fancy addressing the fact that allowing abortion on demand makes financial sense?

Your point, which assumes you have some magical insight that the majority of abortions, if not performed, would lead to an uncared for and unwanted child who would end up being a burden on society, is unqualified and pretty offensive.

My point was, for the most part, that paying to support a woman through pregnancy and birth is more expensive than paying for an abortion. Would you disagree with that?

My other point was that if a woman is living in a situation where she is repeatedly unable or unwilling to arrange contraception, to the extent that she is having multiple abortions, then perhaps her life is not the most stable environment to bring a child into. Would you disagree with that?

Saying that women should have the right to get access to medical professionals, who will terminate healthy foetuses on a monthly basis, if they "wanna" isn't cool. Do you think it is ?

At the end of a pregnancy you of course have a child, to say that the cost of producing a healthy child is higher than having an abortion is blatantly obvious.

The first one and third one contradicts each other.
First, dont have sex with lots of people, you ho.

Third, have sex with lots of people if you want.

What has 'cool' got to do with it? Your initial objection was that a woman should have to pay for her abortions, because of the costs involved in providing that abortion. I said I didn't understand your point, as the cost of a full-term pregnancy and birth are higher than the cost of an abortion, so why would you force a woman to go through a costly pregnancy when it's cheaper to allow her the abortion she wants?

It's totally fine if you have a moral objection to allowing abortions on demand (which I wouldn't agree with btw), but be upfront about that, rather than using specious arguments about cost.

I think the second and third pictures are her responses to the first Cocolepew

The second and third one are Zara's response to the first one.

To be clear, I wouldn't agree with your moral objection. I do agree with abortions on demand.

Oh. I see .