Category: Let's talk
Well, yesterday the leader of the conservative party came out and said that abortions were "too readily available" in this country. Also he said that the legal limit to have an abortion should be lowered from 24 weeks gestation, to 20 weeks. My question is this, should the woman have a right to choose to have a termination? and if your general answer is no, as in, that life is precious, are there any reasons, in your view, that an abortion should be allowed, such as in a case where a woman is the victim of rape, or the fetus is suffering from a severe disability. please no references to people who have abortions as murderers or anything like that, please bear in mind that there are some on this site who might have gone through the experience and I think we need to respect that.
I wish to say that Michael Howard is quite right. I have given a lot of thought to this and will duplicate my draft Abortion Act beneath this topic shortly. It would set out the grouns whereunder I would deem abortion acceptable. but Mr Howard is right in that at the moment, we lack responsibilisation in our laws on abortion.
Well abortion as a kind of post-intercourse preventitive I think should not be availible, then again, to bring up another part of the issue, how will a child be happy coming into this world without a family structure and into an environment where he/she isn't wanted and no one wants to deal with that child .. still .. I know I have not defined the idea of post-intercourse preventitive in this post and I'm rather waiting on the LawLord to post his draft to see how his ideas play out in this context.
Abortion in pregnancies resulting from sexual abuse, absolutely should be legal, also where they could imapir the woman's health.
Cheers
-B
Okay, a draft legislative proposal will follow later tonight.
ok, well let's broaden the topic slightly. if a woman goes into labour at 24 weeks and it results in the premature birth of the baby, the doctors will do everything in their power to ensure the survival of that child. Yet the current abortion legislation in this country allows for abortion up to 24 weeks, so, how can it be right to terminate the life of a child who, if they were born as a result of complications at the same age, would have had the chance to survive.
Because chance of survival and right to abort must to a great degree be treated as separate questions. The corollary of your argument is that if a baby dies after going full-term during child-birth, this should operate as a reason to abort right up to full-term. So in my submission, your broadening the topic loses sight of the central question which is: when, and in what circumstances, should abortion be allowed? This question is contentious enough on its own so I don't believe broadening the topic helps answer it.
Yes the woman should have the right to choose and no, Michael Howard is not right (again)...Frey.
ok, should it be the woman's choice alone? or should the father of that child have a say in the matter. after all, it is the woman who has to carry the child, give birth to it . etc.
It is interesting that you ask about the father. I have often wondered why the father doesn't get a say in the matter. If the mother doesn't have any complacations, and carring the baby isn't affecting her health, and the father wants to have the care for the baby I think the father should be intitled to a say. I hear people say that only the mother should have the say because it is her body, however in the grand sceme of theings what is nine months compaired to a lifetime?
I think that their should be absolutely no restrictions on abbortion. Afterall, it's the woman's body and if she doesn't want a developing baby inside it then as it's her body she should be able to have that developing baby removed from it. It is always helpful if the boy who shagged her to create that faetus agrees but even if ehe doesn't, it's not his body so primarily it shouldn't be his decision. O.k by having an abbortion the woman is taking away a life, but if the baby was brought into the world by someone who didn't want to give birth to it then unless that person changed their attitude, it wouldn't be brought up properly. Anyone against abbortion because they don't like lifeloss should bare in mind that we kill spiders and flies which are doing no harm to us, and the world is overpopulated anyway, we need to bring population levels under control, and banning abbortion or restricting it doesn't entirely sort out the overpopulation problem.
well I guess the level of guilt is greater perhaps if the woman decides to carry the baby and then give it up, say to the father, or to give it up for adoption. After all, if the pregnancy is terminated, then the baby is not there any more, whereas if you carry that baby to term, and let's not forget that pregnancy is a very intense experience, you feel the baby growing, and moving inside you, childbirth is a very painful, but also a very emotional experience, and to go through all that and then hand over a crying baby must be one of the hardest things any woman must ever have to do. And then that woman would have to remember for the rest of her life that she has a child out there, that she, effectively, didn't want.
The problem I have with your posts on this topic, Sugarbaby is this: you pose the questions, quite rightly, and then you only look at the woman's point of view. for instance, you say 'should the woman have the right to choose or should the father have a say? After all, the woman has to go through the pain of child-birth and that' but then you leave it at that. I wouldn't have a problem with this if you'd not put the question, but to my mind what you are doing at the moment is putting the question, and then for one reason or another taking a very one-sided view. so let me balance the equasion: of course the father should have a say. Whislst the father would not be able to force a woman to have a child, it would be a legitimate consideration as to whether an abortion should be granted after all. If a father expresses his willingness and demonstrates his ability to provide a substantial amount of support for the unborn child, this to my mind would be a compelling reason against granting an abortion. I will, shortly, set out my full draft legislative proposal.
I am speaking as the Mom of a daughter, 22 years old and a son 18. I am pro choice, that doesnot mean tha tI'm pro abortion. I've always told my kids, when you star having sex, You must conder that the cance of pregnancy is always ther. You have three choices. 1. Have an abortion.
2. Have it and keep it.
3. Have it and give it up for adoption. Any of these three choices will stay with you for the rest of your life. These choices apply to male or femaale. So why not be pro education? If we start talking to our kids, or better yet, start listening;; we open the door to educate our kids about just more than sex and pregnancy, and sexually transmitted decieses. If we start letting somone make the choices that affect our bodies and our futures, where does it stop? Smoking, drinking, over weight? Not to mention several others. I do think abortion is the right choice in some cases, but not as a form of birth control....Education and Information is the answer.
I have to agree with Texas Red. Education is the answer to helping a lot of this. However, as to the main question, I personally would never! have an abortion unless the child is determined to be severely mentally or physically handicapped, and then I would have a hard time making the decission. No, I would not abort because of rape because the sperm did not tell it's carrier to rape me, so, how can it be the child's fault, nor would I abort do to my own life being in danger. The odds aren't always right, and I personally would feel if I brought one child into this world for my husband, who thinks on things as I do, to raise then I have added one more person who to me will most likely be a good person to this world of madness. Having said that I also have to say that I hold nothing against those who opt for abortion for health reasons or rape. However, I do feel strongly against those who have aborted as a means of birth control. This to me is a waste of medical skill and so on. However, that doesn't mean I would walk up to someone and call them a child murderer. I'm not the person to judge, and I would never presume to.
I think the emerging consensus is that we all disagree with abortion as a form of birth control. Education goes part of the way to answering the problem, but to fully answer it we need to remodel the law so that it reflects this concern. My legislation is currently in the process of being drafted and will appear here shortly.
I think you’re partly right in that the answer lies in education, however, interestingly enough, it is not the teenage population who have the most terminations, but the 25 to 35 age bracket. Now technically that could just be because more 25-35 year olds fall pregnant, and so subsequently more of them have terminations. (just thought I’d point that out before lawlord does). I do have a theory though. A lot of women are choosing to have babies later in life now because of their desire to persue a career before embarking on motherhood. And also, because of the advances in reproductive medicine, if a woman leaves it too late to get pregnant she can be assisted to have a baby. Well that’s the theory anyway, in practice it doesn’t always work like that. But anyway, bearing that in mind, a woman who falls pregnant just as she’s about to gain that all important promotion, or is just advancing in her job, or perhaps isn’t married can have a termination because it’s “not the right time”. Whilst I believe that terminations should not be used as a form of birth control, I do not think that any woman should be forced to carry, or give birth to, a child which she clearly does not want. However, as consequence of this, I believe that a woman who has a termination because it is “not convenient”, should be prevented from having children in the future. A baby is not something which you can have when it is convenient to you. Some people try for years to have a baby, and never succeed, and spend their entire lives childless, for a woman to put her career before the life of that innocent child is, In my view, very selfish, and such women do not deserve the chance to have a child at their convenience. I feel however that this scenario is different for someone who is perhaps much younger, perhaps has a lot of emotional problems, or perhaps is in an abusive relationship, not necessarily that the child is a product of that abuce, but that perhaps to bring a child into that relationship would not be benefitial to either the child or the mother. I believe that, in most instances, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is not one which is taken lightly. And I think that in most instances, women who do decide to terminate their pregnancies should be given support, not ridiculed and treated as child murderers.
I think in the instance of rape, no woman should ever be denied the right to terminate a pregnancy. In fact I’d go so far as to say that in the instance of rape a woman should be encouraged to terminate a pregnancy. Whilst I would be the first to say that a child is the most precious thing on earth, and the child conceived out of such an act did not ask t be there, I believe there could potentially be all sorts of issues arising from such a pregnancy, and subsequent birth and continued life of such a child. For one,how could any woman look at her child and not be constantly reminded of the act that caused that child to be there, and how do you explain to a child that he/she is actually the product of rape. I think that could lay that shild open to a lot of emotional/psychological issues in the future.
I think however, that in the case of severe disability, it is a totally different matter. Usually severe disabilities are not picked up until 19/20 weeks when the mother has an anomaly scan to determine whether all is well with her unborn child. Now it would be fair to say that if a pregnancy has progressed to 20 weeks, that pregnancy was planned, or if not planned, still wanted, and that the birth of a healthy happy baby is anticipated. So to be told at 20 weeks, by which time btw it is likely you will have felt your baby move for the first time, that there is something seriously wrong with your unborn baby, and that it is recommended that you seriously consider terminating the pregnancy, I don’t think any of us can even imagine the devastating effect that must have. Now let’s bear in mind that most terminations, i.e. those mentioned in the first two scenarios, happen before 12 weeks gestation. At this point the baby is not fully formed and the procedure is a surgical one, usually carried out under a general anesthetic, and the fetus is removed surgically. However, at 20 weeks, or should I say up to 24 weeks which is currently the legal limit for terminations in this country, a substance is injected into the fetus which stops its heart from beating. Labour is induced, and the woman then has to give birth to a fully formed, dead baby. I think that anyone who has had to make the decision to go through with such a procedure and has then been through it, should only ever be treated with the utmost sympathy. And I don’t think anyone has the right to judge anyone who has been through such an experience.
There should, in my opinion, not be a system such as that which Sugarbaby advocates. A fetus may not be a human, and that is why I don't equate abortion to murder as some people do, but they do have rights of their own to a great degree. I also know many women in commercial positions and I'm bound to say that I've never come across that as a reason for termination, but if it is then it is not a valid one in my view. There are all sorts of alternatives to termination, adoption being just one of them. anyway, the promised legislation will be posted after my drafting exam, tomorrow.
so ll, at what point do you consider that a human life has rights? after all, there are some who would argue that human life begins at the point of fertilisation of an egg. so, would you therefore legislate against the destruction of frozen embrios that had been created for the purposes of IVF? I think that to force a woman to cary a child and then give it up for adoption is wrong because, firstly, while carrying that child, the woman in question might feel that she is unable to give the baby up, even though her circumstances may not be such that she is able to keep the baby. Also, if she gives up the baby for adoption, there is that constant knowledge that she has a child out there, who, in 18 years time, could come knocking on her door and ask why he/she had been given up for adoption. I personally know two women who have had terminations. The first has actually had two terminations, one when she was 17, and one when she was 21. both because she didn't feel she wanted a baby at the time. she now has fertility problems incurred by the scarring suffered as a result of her procedures, and is unable to have any more children. the second person I know had a blind child, and felt that she did not want to have any more children for fear they might be blind as well, so, when she fell pregnant, she had that pregnancy terminated, and was subsequently sterilized, a procedure which, in my view, should have been carried out before she allowed herself to get pregnant!.
Well Sugarbaby you raise some valid arguments, and I can well understand why a woman would not want to give up a baby, as well as the problems that might arise further down the line. But these problems relating to the institution of adoption are quite separate, in fact, from abortion. You will find, if you read the adoption and children act 2002, that it contemplates the exact scenario you put forward by providing, for instance, for the possibility of contact with the biological parent. To put it another way, the so-called 'transplant model of adoption' is very much the exception rather than the rule. AS for embryos, I wouldn't legislate against their destruction because like everything, the balancing exercise must be conducted when considering competing interests. You shall have to see my legislative proposal and look at it carefully to discover exactly how I would approach the matters you have raised.
I believe that if a fetus develops within the body of a rape victim, it is in the interests of that fetus and the woman that she has an abbortion or, she gives it up for adoption. Imagine how the woman would feel when the cfhild asks "Where is daddy"? I also believe that if a scan reveals that the fetus inside the womans body is going to be so severely disabled that it will be unable to make a valid contribution to society, then it must be compulsary that she has an abbortion and she must be prevented from refusing.
valid contribution to society? Who's to know what kind of contrabution a person is going to make before it leaves it's mother's woomb?
D-
Ps law lord I know about the question marks.
Wainderful Wangel always has to take the extreme view doesn't he? The extreme view in this case amounts to eugenics and I very much doubt that such a view would be acceptable anywhere except in the fascist regimes of yore, a bit like most of his other views in that respect.
hmmm ... so, what would be considered to be a "valuable contribution to society"? Is it someone who works for a living and therefore contributes to the financial income of his/her country? If that be the case ww, you, and the rest of the unemployed (those who choose to be unemployed that is) should have been drowned at birth.
You seem to think that all women who are raped would look at their child as simply a product of that rape. However, myself, and I do know others, who see the child simply as a blessing. No, I do not have children, however, I have been raped, and I do know the emotional consequences. So, I do feel that I can speak firmly on this issue. I have 2 situations that immediately come to mind. One is a 13 year old girl who got raped and pregnant. She opted to keep the child, and last I saw them she loved them, and they her. I did ask how she planned on explaining things, and she said it like this. "When my boys are old enough I'll simply tell them the truth, and that despite the hell I had to go through I wouldn't take it back for the world." I think that personally is very honest and a solution to the problem of explaining it to the child/children. In the second issue she was older and had an abortion after being raped. She had some valid concerns for bringing the child into the world, and I never did judge her. I think it depends on the woman, how she feels about the unborn, and, what she is willing/able to do in her circumstance. If abortion ever becomes compulsary for rape victums, I'd never go to the hospital after such an experience. It isn't the right of the law in my opinion to tell me what is best for me and my unborn and much wanted child.
I do not think any woman should be forced to have an abortion. and in actual fact that would never happen in any civilised country. Whilst I admire any woman who could carry, give birth to, and bring up the child of a rapest, I do feel that there are major implications to doing so. I do not believe that any woman, however strong she was, would not sometimes be reminded of the manner in which that child was conceived. And what happens when that child begins to ask about his/her father, there is no easy way to tell a child he was the product of rape, and let's face it, kids ask questions early on, 4, 5, 6 years, that is not something which you can explain to a child of that age, no matter how honest your intentions are. And knowing that he/she is not the product of a loving relationship, not even the product of a one night stand, but the product of a violent act like that could, I think, have serious emotional consequences for a child. And what happens when that child grows up and develops trates which the mother perhaps does not like? Is it not possible that the mother would start to have bad feelings towards that child, liken the bad bits to his/her father? and what happens when that child becomes sexually active, if it's a boy, it would be possible that he could have inherited the genetic makeup of his father in that sense - after all, a lot of men who beat their wives have abusive fathers, so by the same token does that not also apply to rapests? It's a very tough one to call, the initial feeling is that the baby is innocent, and did not ask to be conceived which, of course, is the case. however that baby will not be an innocent baby for ever, and then he/she will also have to live with the consequences of what the mother had to go through.
oh and, before anyone thinks I'm suggesting the child could grow up to be a rapest, I'm not, I'm merely suggesting that as the mother of the child of a rapest, it would be something that would concern me as soon as he became sexually active
Sugarbaby the efficacy of that preventitive utilitarian philosophy depends on a number of assumptions for which I fear that the only evidence is your subjective inclination, natural though such an inclination would be. The research actually seems to suggest that children, if told early enough, will accept more than we bargain for. I'm afraid that were we to take your argument to its logical conclusion, a fetus could be aborted up to full term on the basis of your utilitarian reasoning, for surely you couldn't say that a fetus of 20 weeks would be harmed any less than one of 28, 30, whatever number of weeks you may choose, by the secret of his conception. whilst I'm here, a brief update on the legislation: I shall post it here tomorrow.
People who can make a valid contribution to society like myself eventually will when we have finisheed studdying. People with very severe disabilities are never going to be able to make a valid contribution to society because of the severe extent of their disability. If it is established that this is the case for a fetus developing in a womans body, that woman should have to have an abbortion and should not be given a choice!
hmmmm well if in your view a child who is not able to make a valid contribution to society should be terminated, I think that a zoner who is not able to make a valid contribution to a board post should be beheaded. all those in favour say aye. off with the quangle wangle's head! ... aye
In all seriousness though, no civilized country would force a woman to have an abortion purely because her child was disabled. We do not live in Hitler’s world, where the disabled are sterilized and prevented from reproducing, and where deformed babies are drowned at birth because they will not fit into society. There are lots of perfectly able people who do not make a valuable contribution to society, people who sit on their backsides day in, day out and the government provides for them financially. No one has the right to decide for someone else whether they should be allowed to bring an unborn child into this world, whether that child is disabled or not. If people were told that they had to go for a scan at 20 weeks to determine whether their baby was healthy, and thus to determine whether they would be allowed to continue with their pregnancy, women would simply not go for the scans, and that would take away a lovely part of a pregnancy, the bit where a woman gets to see her unborn baby for the first time, and would lead to anxiety for lots of women who would spend their entire pregnancies wondering if their baby was alright.
Abortion to me is a gray area... If a woman is raped, it is her choice. If a woman has sex and doesn't want to pay the price, I'd rather she carry that child to term and put that child up for adoption than kill it.. But her decision.
And Wanderful Wangel, or whatever your name is, you make me very upset. Who are you to say what a good contribution to society is? Heaven help us if you had to decide, because very few would live I fear. My thoughts alone, though, probably. However, I know a girl who is blind as are so many of us. Over time, she has had seizures and to the best of my knowledge did not take medication, and therefore over twenty or so years she has gone from a healthy happy person that you could converse with, to one who if she is still alive, which last i knew she was, can no longer speak or care for herself. Doesn't mean she didn't make a valuable contribution to those who knew her.
And what if you knew that a child was going to contract say a fatal heart disease at the age of say twelve? Would you want them aborted just because they won't live long enough to contribute to society in say a financial way??? Well, let me say this. I had a friend who had such a disease type thing and lived five years longer than they said he would. I met him, and thought/still think he was, awesome. He died of a heart attack at seventeen and a half to the day,the day after Thanksgiving in 1999.
My other thoughts are these. It's a woman's choice, but I think if she has unprotected sex and doesn't want the child she should carry it and give it up for adoption. In rape, it is again the woman's choice... Very gray area
And as far as the twenty-four weeks thing. I was born fifteen weeks early. So let's do math... fourty minus fifteen, equals what? Twenty-five very good. And i am a person with a life, a family, a God whom I love and who loves me, plans for the future. So what if I had been aborted at twenty-four weeks???
Gray area... Woman's choice but in most circumstances in my eyes, it's wrong. And valuable contributions to society??? Your call.
In Him,
Shanda
If you knew a child was going to die at the age of 12 or not be able to live long enough to contribute to society then the child shouldn't live at all and it should be aborted. People should have to contribute to society when they have completed education unless they have a good enough reason not to, like they've got to look after their children. of they've justt been made redundent.
so ww, a life is only worth something if that person has made a valuable contribution to society? so if you went out tomorrow, and were hit by a truck and died, would it be ok to say at your funeral, we come here to bury the waynderful wangel. But this is not a celebration of his life, because actually, he never contributed anything to society, so his life, in actual fact, was not worth living, it would have, in fact, been better if he'd never been born.
so every person who dies before they were able to get a job, lived a needless life, every innocent child who dies through illness or accident or misadventure or whatever never made a contribution to society so their life was worthless. what a load of utter rubbish.
If someone died as a result of an accident like they were hit by a car that is accidental. It is unfair to say that they shouldn't have been born because they may have lived a long time if it wasn't for that accident. It would be fair to say they were prevented from contributing to society as a result of the accident which killed them though, and that it is very likely that they would have made a valuable contribution to society if the accident didn't occur.
There is a story I heard once, and I believe it fits here. *smile* There was once a young woman who became pregnant, and the doctors wished to abort because he/she would be a bastard, and most likely a burden rather then a contributing member of society. However, the young woman chose to keep her bastard and raise him to the best of her ability without teaching him what was expected, and see what come of him. It is reported that this child was Albert Ienstien; or some good productive member of our history like this. On the other hand, there was a woman who was happily married and got pregnant. She wished to abort, but the doctors refused because according to the definitions of the time he could be a productive member of society. This child grew up to be Adolf Hitler. Doesn't that just go to show that you never know what a child will be. So, why should you try to end a life before its had a chance to start? Who are you to judge what child will be productive and which ones won't? This sounds like Hitler's BS to me. Now, I should also say that I was leaning towards aborting a child who was severely handicapped, however do to 2 occurances I've changed my mind. The first is the attitude of the Wonderful Wangels...Hope I spelled that right, Jaws isn't working right now correctly. I will not be part of a group who believes in such a manner as to see only people that meet their standards as fit to live. Second is a comment my husband made to me the other day. He said, "you know? There are many sighted who would see that any person who is blind can never be a contributing member of society; there for should be aborted." That hit home. I don't want other people judging me on the basis of my disadvantage, so, I will not judge others. I thought I was choosing what was best for my child, society, and yes, myself, but now I realize I'm taking a life that is not my right to decide the fate of. Yes, a part of my body, however, it is an existance that I will not decide the fate of. Mother Nature will have her way in the end, and none of us can tell the future or what will be available...
Hi all,
Witchcraft, thanks for your examples. I am ahving JFW issues so I am sorry for mistakes.
my friend died but it was not his fought that he had a heart disease and for you Wanderful Wangel or whoever, to say he should not have lived is unfair. This is getting into the Aryan race, or seems like you want it to, and that's your deal. But everyone ahs a chance to live and be what they can be, or at lest they should. Witchcraft, go you!
In Him,
Dixie
well in actual fact this has gone way off the original topic, the original topic was more about whether someone should have the right to choose to have an abortion, not whether someone has the right to live based on whether or not someone thinks they make an active contribution to society. WW your contribution to this topic is based more on your own personal prejudices than a balanced argument. Most people who make a decision to terminate a pregnancy on the basis of severe disability would most likely do so not because of that child's ability to contribute in later life, but because of the potential amount of pain and suffering that child potentially would have to go through, and anyone with feelings for any other human being would take those factors into account. If you think that making a decision like that is easy, then you are wrong, very wrong, but I actually believe, that based on previous posts made by yourself, you come across as someone who is totally unable to feel any empathy for any other human being. And I will also say this, if you think you can go through life saying whatever you want, to whoever you want, and that you will be absolved of all responsibility for what you say, you'd better not count on being able to make a valuable contribution to society any time soon. This is a harsh world, and with that attitude, no self respecting employer would give you a job. I wouldn't mind being on the interview pannel though .. good luck, you'll need it.