We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
delicate subject - abortion
Comments
-
PolkaDotsAndLace wrote: »I'm also not sure WHY people want unwanted children born into this world - the parents not wanting them doesn't make for a happy childhood.
Indeed....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-19546855
Accept your past without regret, handle your present with confidence and face your future without fear0 -
It was debated in Parliament and a law was passed. That's how civilised societies work - or would you rather have a dictatorship?
It's difficult to discuss any point with someone who constantly refers to 'we' but doesn't seem able to explain who this 'we' might be.
The religious group he/she belongs to? Thats why I asked the question earlier, if somebodys viewpoint on this subject arises from the result of religious convictions, it becomes a pointless debate as there is rarely logic involved.0 -
heretolearn wrote: »'many people pregnant with children with disabilities etc have been dissuaded from carrying a pregnancy to term'
this I don't think is true really, who is 'dissuading them'? It's no skin off the doctor's noses if a family wishes to raise a disabled child. If it's family pressure etc, well people need to stick up for themselves really. It's their baby, their decision.
I think that in the past where the future for so many types of disabled people was pretty grim, then yes, parents were advised to have an abortion. But now attitudes have changed, and medical advances can help a lot, there's less 'stigma' or 'problems' associated with many disabilities. And from the numbers of disabled children around, plenty of parents go on to have them.
but sometimes it simply isn't the best course of action for anyone, the parents or the baby. A relative last year, on medical advice, had an abortion after a scan which showed the baby had very severe deformities and problems with brain development, to the extent that the baby would not have survived for long. It was a hard and painful decision for her and she very much put a huge value on that baby's life. The abortion was awful enough for her and her partner. It would have been even worse to have continued carrying a baby knowing it was going to quickly die, and also the baby would have suffered. Does anyone really think they should have the right as a stranger to 'step in' and try to persuade them to have 'kept the baby' as all life is valuable? That life was valuable to her too...
How do you know it would have been worse, my mum had a baby died as she was very ill and once born they knew she would not live, and now says that the time she had with my sister was priceless, and even if she had know she would not have aborted her.
It was a genetic condition that caused this, and when my mum was pregnant again, she was advised by doctors to get an amnioscentitious test to check if the child had the conditon - my mums answer was no she didn't want the test, as the outcome would not make any difference (and the test carries with it a risk of miscarriage).
I think it most be a very heartbreaking decision to make to abort a much wanted child, however if abortion was not freely available no-one would have to make this decision.
Who are we to decide what life is valuable and what isn't?Weight loss challenge, lose 15lb in 6 weeks before Christmas.0 -
The religious group he/she belongs to? Thats why I asked the question earlier, if somebodys viewpoint on this subject arises from the result of religious convictions, it becomes a pointless debate as there is rarely logic involved.
My viewpoint does not come from religious convictions, it is nothing to do with the soul entering the body at the moment of conception. It is simply because life is formed at the moment of conception.
The we refers to anyone with the same viewpoint and was in respone to person-ones comment "The same courtesy in return is all we ask".Weight loss challenge, lose 15lb in 6 weeks before Christmas.0 -
The fact that abortion is freely available, means that those who are pro-choice won the debate a long time ago and their views were forced upon society.
For people who believe that a child is a valued life from the moment of conception we believe that the embryo has a right to life. So to say that we should not try and dissuade people from abortion is for us the same as saying we should not step in if someone is neglecting a a young baby etc, as both are human life need the actions of someone else to keep them alive.
As you've proven in your own post, it is the other way around.
The options to choose from referred to in the term pro-choice are keeping the baby, abortion or adoption. The very term pro-choice means the mother should have the choice between the three. And only the mother. No-one else has the right to choose for her. Obviously if she's in a stable relationship with the father, he should be allowed a say, but the final decision is the mother's.
It is the anti-abortion side who are trying to force their choice upon women's bodies. No-one has the right to dissuade anyone from an abortion, no-one has the right to dissuade anyone from keeping their baby, no-one has the right to dissuade anyone from having their baby adopted.
No-one.Public appearances now involve clothing. Sorry, it's part of my bail conditions.0 -
so? No offence but just because your mum now thinks she would have preferred to have the baby than an abortion, it should be forced on all others as well?
Also she didn't know about the problems, so it's impossible to say for sure what she would have decided if she did. It's easy to say 'oh I would have done this anyway' but I think it's one of those situations where you can't tell until you are in it yourself.
"if abortion was not freely available no-one would have to make this decision." No, if abortion were not available, no one would be able to make this decision. That's seriously not doing anyone any favours.
My relative was upset that her baby died, which would have happened anyway, she wasn't upset about the abortion itself. The outcome was the same for her , so whether it happened earlier on to avoid the suffering for the baby and mental anguish for her during the pregnancy, or later after giving birth first, everyone had less pain this way. So in a sad situation, the abortion was a positive thing for her, if you see what I mean.Cash not ash from January 2nd 2011: £2565.:j
OU student: A103 , A215 , A316 all done. Currently A230 all leading to an English Literature degree.
Any advice given is as an individual, not as a representative of my firm.0 -
Who are we to decide what life is valuable and what isn't?
Indeed................................I'm smiling because I have no idea what's going on ...:)
0 -
Saturnalia wrote: »As you've proven in your own post, it is the other way around.
The options to choose from referred to in the term pro-choice are keeping the baby, abortion or adoption. The very term pro-choice means the mother should have the choice between the three. And only the mother. No-one else has the right to choose for her. Obviously if she's in a stable relationship with the father, he should be allowed a say, but the final decision is the mother's.
It is the anti-abortion side who are trying to force their choice upon women's bodies. No-one has the right to dissuade anyone from an abortion, no-one has the right to dissuade anyone from keeping their baby, no-one has the right to dissuade anyone from having their baby adopted.
No-one.
I totally agree here. The woman is the one who makes the decision on how to proceed.Lost my soulmate so life is empty.
I can bear pain myself, he said softly, but I couldna bear yours. That would take more strength than I have -
Diana Gabaldon, Outlander0 -
-
Saturnalia wrote: »As you've proven in your own post, it is the other way around.
The options to choose from referred to in the term pro-choice are keeping the baby, abortion or adoption. The very term pro-choice means the mother should have the choice between the three. And only the mother. No-one else has the right to choose for her. Obviously if she's in a stable relationship with the father, he should be allowed a say, but the final decision is the mother's.
It is the anti-abortion side who are trying to force their choice upon women's bodies. No-one has the right to dissuade anyone from an abortion, no-one has the right to dissuade anyone from keeping their baby, no-one has the right to dissuade anyone from having their baby adopted.
No-one.
The anti-abortion side believe the child is equally as important as the mother though, and that abortion is ending the life of a child, so therefore should no be allow. The pro-choice side force their choices on the unborn child.
In a ideal world, there would be no unwanted pregnanies and no need for abortion, but we do not live in an ideal world.
I will leave the debate now thoughWeight loss challenge, lose 15lb in 6 weeks before Christmas.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards