Anti-abortion acitvists do rather represent the worst of human beings,don't they?

[SolidGoldBrass]

Dishonest, ignorant, supersitious, woman-hating and sexually dysfunctional. What's not to despise?

If you don't approve of abortion, don't have one yourself. it's fair enough not to like abortion. It's not fair enough to actively involve yourself in removing other people's human rights for your own stupid malevolent faulty reasoning.

(Yes I am posting this and going to bed. I will be back tomorrow...)

NotTelling...

You contradict yourself though. First you say comparing abortion to infanticide is bizarre. Then you say a 39 week foetus is undisputedly a baby.

Does that mean that abortion at 39 weeks is comparable to infanticide?

I'm not arguing for or against abortion and I certainly don't suggest all people who support the choice for abortion are baby killers. I'm arguing with the central premise that it's a woman's body and therefore a woman's choice.

At what point ISN'T that baby part of the woman's body? Surely if your argument is the woman's body, woman's choice, then you are forced to support abortion up until the foetus is no longer part of the woman's body (birth/40 weeks).

If you don't agree with that, you need to find a more solid argument.

The argument could be, at the point at which the baby can feel pain and suffering, it has the human right for someone not to be allowed to decide to cause pain and suffering to it maybe? Isn't this what they are saying at the moment - that, that point is 24 weeks?

I personally do support the right to abortion up to birth. Birth is when the foetus becomes a person.
I support this right for women in the full knowledge that it is incredibly incredibly rare for a woman to 'choose' to terminate a pregnancy beyond 24 weeks, and nearly all late terminations are for serious abnormalities incompatible with life. The idea that there are loads of stupid, selfish, vicious women who will get to, say, 26 weeks PG and then suddenly decide to abort so that they can go to a party is classic antichoice bullshit - and very revealing of the antichoicers woman hating agenda.
But even if one woman in 5 million did make such a choice, her making that choice does not justify removing the choices of all the other women out there. It isn;t the business of a lot of selfrighteous superstitious wankers to decide whether a woman they don't know has a 'good enough' reason for ending a pregnancy. It's up to her.

"At what point ISN'T that baby part of the woman's body? Surely if your argument is the woman's body, woman's choice, then you are forced to support abortion up until the foetus is no longer part of the woman's body (birth/40 weeks)."

How do you not understand the concept of whether a foetus is able to survive outside of the woman's body or not?

How can you say on the one hand, that "I certainly don't suggest all people who support the choice for abortion are baby killers" but on the other hand, "Surely if your argument is the woman's body, woman's choice, then you are forced to support abortion up until the foetus is no longer part of the woman's body (birth/40 weeks)."

You are setting up things that are nonsense.

A person can support the laws in this country pertaining to abortion, without this meaning that automatically they can see nothing wrong with what used to happen in China when women had to undergo forced abortions up until term.

Pregnancy is a process during which the foetus grows and changes. I do not know anyone who supports the abortion laws in this country who would say that a foetus at 1 day old is exactly the same as a foetus at term. Obviously that is nonsense. To claim that people must believe otherwise is exactly the sort of thing people get pissed off about TBH.

I always want to know - what are the practica solutions is abortion is banned? In an ideal world, women would all only have planned pregnancys, or if they got pregnant when it was not planned, would suddenly realise that they were overjoyed with the situation. There would be no risk to womens lives and no babies with conditions incompatable with life and no pregnancies as a result of rape.

But in the real world, peoples situations are messy, their lives are complicated, contraception fails.

What in teh real world, with no abortions? Back to the backstreet clinics and unwanted children and people comitting suicide and children having babies and women not being able to fulfil their potentials because of a mistake at age 16? What is so great about that?

The fact is that women who want to terminate their pregnancies want to do so as soon as is humanly possible. The vast amount of abortions in the UK are carried out early, and the earlier the better for everyone involved. At the moment the delays are on the part of the process through the medical system, not on the part of the women.

The idea that women want to skip around having late terminations is a bizarre way to view your fellow women.

A foetus is a foetus until it's born, then it's a baby.

I'd certainly support a women's right to have a foetus removed from her body at any point. At some point the foetus would survive the process.

Even if abortion was legal up til term, how many women would actually decide to abort at 39 weeks?

The reason that people who are anti-abortion go on about very late terminations is because then you're killing babies and of course that is not an easy position to defend. And in fact not a position that many people even want to defend.

Extrapolating that to say that a termination at 10 weeks is exactly the same as a termination at 39 weeks is ludicrous in the extreme.

"woman hating"

"superstitious wankers"

"fuckwitted waste of oxygen"

just listen to yourself solid gold madamez; your comments are obnoxious, bigoted and absolutely consumed by hatred. Poor you. You sound like a fully paid up member of the Taleban in your extremism except in reverse. I don't know why you expect to be taken seriously tbh.

When religious authorities say that little girls who have been raped are not allowed to have terminations, I will perfectly happily apply all of the phrases that you have extracted, donnie. And some more.

Telling... but it's not nonsense, that's exactly what SGB has just argued. She believes that it should be the woman's choice up until 40 weeks.

I think most of us are somewhere in between the extremists who see life beginning at conception and won't even allow hormonal contraception because it can cause abortion in early weeks and the extremists like SGB who want to allow a woman's right to abortion up until 40 weeks.

So we're effectively arguing shades of grey. I completely agree with you that a 1 day foetus is not the same as a 40 week one and that women's circumstances are extremely diverse.

(I'm also not convinced that a baby's ability to live is a deciding factor... it's only time before a foetus can practically be grown in a test tube)

All I am saying is that you cannot just flat out say it's a woman's body and therefore a woman's choice unless you are prepared to accept the possibility of a 39 week abortion for ANY reason. It's not nonsense. It's a very important point - you need to know exactly what you are arguing for.

Telling... I didn't say women all wanted late term abortions or that it would be commonplace. Of course it won't be.

I just said that if you accept it's entirely a woman's choice, then you must accept any possible choice they might make which might mean a 39 week abortion.

If you are not happy with that, then you have to start defining exactly when the baby is not part of the woman's body and when women don't get a choice and that's where it all becomes much more complicated...

Carmen: And that's what I'm saying - IMO it is entirely the woman's choice and I don't have a problem with that.
Laws should be based on allowing the best possible outcome for the greatest number of people, and if that means that sometimes someone makes a choice other people might consider 'wrong' but is within the law, well so fucking what?

It is already defined, carmen, it is defined in the laws of this country, at what stage a foetus has a right to life that outweighs the right of a woman to abort (expect in the case of severe disability/risk to the womans life).

You keep saying "oooh yuo have to define it that's tricky isn't it" - well no, someone's already done it. The time limit handily ties in with the number of weeks at which a foetus might be viable outside the womb, and the recent research about pain. And the current limit is rehularly reviewed when new information is available.

Do you want to change the law?

SGB, I understand your viewpoint. I don't agree with it though. For me, the 'so fucking what' is that if having an abortion at 39 weeks is a legal option, then it allows for the possibility for even one healthy baby to have its heart stopped in utero. I personally could never support that.

Telling.. Oh well, that's ok. I'm glad someone's made the decision for us - saves us all that unpleasant thinking. Fair enough, argue for 24 weeks as an ideal time limit. It probably is a good compromise. But recognise it for what it is - an artificial, arbitrary time limit which has been set primarily for political convenience.

In an ideal world, yes, I probably would change the law, but I don't particularly agree with one large government making decisions for all its citizens anyway.

Telling, I wonder why you are arguing with me when I'm not really opposed to what you say. SGB on the other hand has quite clearly said she does support abortion at 40 weeks and would like to change the law to support that.

Carmen the abortion time limit is a highly controversial subject on which politicians generally have a free vote, it is debated regularly, it has moved over the years.

Because someone agrees with the current legislation, thinking that it seems about right, a sensible time limit on what I see as a thing which is undesirable but necessary - does not mean that they have abdicated all of their mental faculties in favour of blindly agreeing with whatever the govt says.

You do like to make these statements about what other people think don't you.

The reason that I posted initially was to take issue with the idea that a person who supports termination as per the current laws necessarily supports abortion by choice up to term.

Totally agree with carmen.

What does carmen actually want though?

What (if any) changes to the current laws do you want carmen?

I agree with Missus84

You're verging into personal attacks now, Telling.

I'm not sure where I have told anyone what to think.

I also think you're arguing with something I've never said. If your argument is 'woman's choice up until the limit set by law' then that is a reasonable argument. But then that accepts that it is no longer a woman's choice after 24 weeks.

Why?

In my understanding, the current limit of 24 weeks is set at that because that is the point at which a foetus may be viable outside the womb. I don't think that's entirely unreasonable though I do still support the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy up until birth. But I think it is stil possible for a PG to be terminated later than that if there are really massive health concerns (ie imminent maternal death or indeed a foetus having some abnormality that is not only incompatible with its survival but which poses a threat to the mother's survival if the PG continues).

I agree with the law as it stands. Terminations are allowed later if conditions that are incompatible with life are identified. Otherwise you do get into incredibly blurred legal scenarios whereby if I abort my child at term it's fine but if it were born two days later and I killed it, it would be infanticide.

I don't think it's fair to ask the medical profession to perform term abortions either. But before 24 weeks, I cannot see any good reason to change the law. As is evidenced by the large number of women who come to the UK from other parts of the EU to have terminations.

"though I do still support the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy up until birth"

me too, though I think very few women would.

"nearly all late terminations are for serious abnormalities incompatible with life."

Actually I'm not sure that's true. "serious" has never been defined in law and you can certainly have late terminations for conditions entirely compatible with life. For moderate learning disabilities for example.

I'm certainly not anti-abortion, but would like to see the same limits applied to all - whatever their condition. Because I would like to see foetuses with disabilities given the same 'protection' as those apparently without disabilities.

The simplest way to do this would probably be to allow termination for all up to birth.

I also think there should be more counselling available before and post termination. I know some people who made absolutely the right choice for them and don't remotely regret their termination. I know others who regret it hugely and who have struggled to come to terms with their 'choice' (perhaps because sometimes it wasn't their choice, it was the choice of those around them). Having a chance to talk or at the offer of counselling would be beneficial.

Oh god that makes me sad - a baby is a baby after it is born, so killing it would be infanticide, but killing it one day earlier wouldn't be????!!!!!!

I agree with the law as it stands until/unless further research shows that a foetus under 24 weeks can suffer pain by being aborted.