[Language_student]

(Original post by LenaLights)
That unwanted child could go to a loving couple who can't have children!!

Indeed it could. But unfortunately the adoption process is often prolonged and held up by red-tape bureaucracy which means that there are often considerable barriers in place which keep children on adoption lists when there are actually loving, suitable homes available for them. The system, from what I have read, is screwed up.

[hyakushiki1234]

I'm moderately Pro-Life. While I do find the idea of abortion somewhat distasteful, at the end of the day it is the woman's right to choose although I'm of the belief that it should be avoided if necessary. At the end of the day, there are ways for the mother to have the child but not keep it if that is in the child's best interests (ie through adoption), Believe it or not, it was actually an argument from Martin Sheen of all people that brought me around. It was a story about how his wife was brought into the world through a rape and had she been aborted, he'd have never had his family. It definitely struck a chord, that one, and it really makes you think about the life that the aborted child could have potentially led.

Still, if I were a politician then this would be an issue I'd avoid - as much as I may dislike the idea personally I don't think it's anyone's place to tell a person that they don't have the option, unlike, say, some of the more vocal pressure groups in America.

[thecrimsonidol]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
So abortion right up until 9 months is fine for you?



Are you sure that the "unwanted" nature of pregnancy is so extreme that is warrants pre-emptive killing of that life (a life that you have not consulted as to whether it wants to be killed or not).

There is always adoption.

The timing thing is quite a grey area, and it's hard to set a real 'cut off' point. I do see your argument on that point, but I still want to say yes. In reality, a 7 (or so) month period should perhaps be the latest. I don't really know enough about the biological stages of growth to say with any conviction. Objectively speaking though, the child is still reliant on the mother's body to survive.

As for the second point, yes I do. I don't think it's a full "life" of its own until it is fully free from the mother (going back to my above point). For that reason, it's the decision of the mother.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Stacey-)
Strongly pro-choice.

So abortion right up until 9 months is fine? And abortion by choice because she want's a boy, not a girl, or a child with blue eyes, not one with brown eyes?

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Woman's body=woman's choice; so she can so what she likes to whoever is in her body? A bit like the patriarchal argument Man's house=man's choice, as an excuse for him to do whatever he wants to whoever is in his house.

'no one' is in her body? its nothing more than a bag of cells. What has that, i hesitate to call it a comparison, got to do with this in the slightest?

[Old School]

Strongly pro choice. For the same reasons cited above by other pro-choicers.

[LenaLights]

(Original post by Language_student)
Indeed it could. But unfortunately the adoption process is often prolonged and held up by red-tape bureaucracy which means that there are often considerable barriers in place which keep children on adoption lists when there are actually loving, suitable homes available for them. The system, from what I have read, is screwed up.

The system is completely wrong then.
But is it right to say *oh, the child won't be loved, so lets get an abortion*
Surely that potential life has a right to live?
That child could be the cure for cancer, could be the person to find a cure for MS.

Unless *extreme* circumstances in my opinion, everyone deserves to live.

[Language_student]

(Original post by thecrimsonidol)
In reality, a 7 (or so) month period should perhaps be the latest.

.

I agree with you about the timing being somewhat of a grey area but personally, seven months is far too late if we're talking about a cut-off point. A seven month old fetus is very biologically developed and many pre-term babies are born at seven months and survive, after special hospital care during the first few weeks or months of life.

[Iron Lady]

(Original post by cl_steele)
'no one' is in her body? its nothing more than a bag of cells. What has that, i hesitate to call it a comparison, got to do with this in the slightest?

That 'bag of cells', as you put it, is living and growing and has the potential to grow into a human being.

How would you feel if your mother said that about you in her first few weeks of pregnancy?

[Stacey-]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
So abortion right up until 9 months is fine? And abortion by choice because she want's a boy, not a girl, or a child with blue eyes, not one with brown eyes?

Absolutely. It's exactly the person's choice who is carrying the baby what they choose to do with it, nobody else's.

[LenaLights]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
So abortion right up until 9 months is fine? And abortion by choice because she want's a boy, not a girl, or a child with blue eyes, not one with brown eyes?

I think we are literally only the two people on here who are Pro-Life.
I completely agree with you.
The child has a RIGHT to live, grow, learn and love, irrespective of gender, eye colour, of anything!

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by thecrimsonidol)
The timing thing is quite a grey area, and it's hard to set a real 'cut off' point. I do see your argument on that point, but I still want to say yes. In reality, a 7 (or so) month period should perhaps be the latest. I don't really know enough about the biological stages of growth to say with any conviction. Objectively speaking though, the child is still reliant on the mother's body to survive.

After birth, the child is reliant on humans to survive, so it isn't really a valid argument of the child's dependency reducing it's right to life.

At 7 months, indeed at 5 months, a child can survive outside the mother's womb, so not quite sure why you put the cut off point at 7 months.

Why is the biological stage important?

(Original post by thecrimsonidol)
As for the second point, yes I do. I don't think it's a full "life" of its own until it is fully free from the mother (going back to my above point). For that reason, it's the decision of the mother.

A 2 week old baby (even a 12 week old baby, indeed even a 2 year old toddler) is not remotely free from it's mother. So we can terminate the lives of these children at will?

[thecrimsonidol]

(Original post by Iron Lady)
That 'bag of cells', as you put it, is living and growing and has the potential to grow into a human being.

How would you feel if your mother said that about you in her first few weeks of pregnancy?

This is the point, it has *the potential* to be one. That doesn't mean it is.

Maybe every woman should be constantly pregnant, to stop any eggs her body produces each month which could *potentially* be people from being wasted, by your logic?

[AlmostChicGeek]

Pro-Choice. Although there has to be a reasonable reason not - oh its a boy I don't want it etc.

[Language_student]

(Original post by LenaLights)
The system is completely wrong then.
But is it right to say *oh, the child won't be loved, so lets get an abortion*
Surely that potential life has a right to live?
That child could be the cure for cancer, could be the person to find a cure for MS.

Unless *extreme* circumstances in my opinion, everyone deserves to live.

Yes, the system is wrong. I'm not pointing that out as support for abortion but as a means of saying that nothing is black and white. There are a lot of controversial viewpoints on this topic and my views are not fully formed. I agree that every fetus deserves a life. However, in a scenario where a baby would be born into household who didn't want it, suffering severe physical abuse, unhappiness and torment, with abusive parents, would abortion (at an early embryonic stage) be preferable? That is the controversial question!

[LenaLights]

For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by cl_steele)
'no one' is in her body? its nothing more than a bag of cells. What has that, i hesitate to call it a comparison, got to do with this in the slightest?

Really? Aren't we all "bags of cells"? Are you aware of the process of embryonic and foetal development?

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Old School)
Strongly pro choice. For the same reasons cited above by other pro-choicers.

So abortion a foetus based on gender, skin colour, colour of eyes is fine?

Abortion up to 9 months is fine?

[Language_student]

(Original post by LenaLights)
I think we are literally only the two people on here who are Pro-Life.
I completely agree with you.
The child has a RIGHT to live, grow, learn and love, irrespective of gender, eye colour, of anything!

I didn't say I wasn't pro-life. I just think there are many viewpoints to be taken into account before we pass strict judgement on others and although maybe I'm not as strongly vocal about my views as some, I voted 'moderately pro-life'.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Language_student)
I agree with you about the timing being somewhat of a grey area but personally, seven months is far too late if we're talking about a cut-off point. A seven month old fetus is very biologically developed and many pre-term babies are born at seven months and survive, after special hospital care during the first few weeks or months of life.

Actually, a child born at 7 months is unlikely to need much specialist hospital care. A child at 5 months would need a lot.