[AlmostChicGeek]

(Original post by 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And if that fails?

It isn't 100% effective...

[Cybele]

Strongly pro-choice.

[Parthenon93]

(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.

Or the child could live the glorious *cough* life of foster homes (if adopted), could be sold for prostitution (because of lack of supervision) or could end up being a serial killer (referring to Criminal Minds s07e22 - also mind you, Hitler's mother wanted to abort him).

You should also consider the most common feeling "unwanted" children feel (even the ones who get adopted) - self-loathing. No one likes thinking their biological parents hated them. It mostly leaves a deeply negative psychological impact - and that is considering the child grew up with a nice life in a nice foster home.

Oh and for those screaming contraception and how adults should be aware of their shortcomings - refraining from/reducing sex? Lol. I am seeing an exponential rise in failed marriages, rapes and prostitution.

[thecrimsonidol]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
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?



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?

I'm talking in the sense that when it is still in the womb, the foetus is still just a part of the mother, it is not a full 'life' of its own until it is 'born'. In my opinion, anyway.

[Iron Lady]

(Original post by thecrimsonidol)
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?

No, please don't twist my words. My point was that aborting a child because "it's just a bag of cells" is irresponsible and ignores the development.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Stacey-)
Absolutely. It's exactly the person's choice who is carrying the baby what they choose to do with it, nobody else's.

Pretty gruesome ethics you have then. Killing because of a person's eye colour being okay, because of the whim of the mother.

[AlmostChicGeek]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Actually, a child born at 7 months is unlikely to need much specialist hospital care. A child at 5 months would need a lot.

I was born at 7 months, actually less than that. I was kept in hospital for over two months, in the ICU, had a lot of specialist care...

Edit: I nearly died.

[TheHansa]

I don't know

Life certainly does begin at conception.

[squeakypop]

I'm a Christian and I'm moderately pro-choice.
In my opinion it's far preferable to abort the baby than to have it growing up in an environment where its not wanted, which will most likely lead to psychological, behavioural, or emotional issues.

Having said that, I think if the mother is emotionally 'strong' enough, she should consider keeping the baby and giving it to a less fortunate couple when it's born.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by AlmostChicGeek)
Pro-Choice. Although there has to be a reasonable reason not - oh its a boy I don't want it etc.

So you're not really pro-choice then. If it's her choice, surely she should be allowed to choose the gender of the future child she wants to raise.

[Language_student]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Actually, a child born at 7 months is unlikely to need much specialist hospital care. A child at 5 months would need a lot.

Actually, babies who are born around 32 weeks gestation (7 months-ish) may not be able to eat or breathe on their own. So they do need quite a bit of specialist hospital care as they have, after all, been born two months before the norm.

Yes, of course, a 5 month old child would need a lot more.

[Holz888]

(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.

You cannot make a comparison between the two. Women only get one body. If your house is damaged, you can get a new house. If a women is mentally/physically damaged from pregnancy or motherhood, she cannot replace that.

A woman giving birth will feel pain, and will be tied to her child for the rest of her life. This may be in neither the woman's, the father's or the unborn child's best interests. No life is better than a life of struggling and the psychological turmoil of having an unwanted child to provide for. Adoption isn't the answer: there are lots of children and not many loving families. Wannabe parents are increasingly turning to IVF rather than adoption. Plus, a women will still go through the 9 months of pregnancy, changing her body forever. Giving up a child will be the most painful thing she has ever done, and she will never forget it.

I don't think I could abort a child, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't, or that it would not be appropriate in some situations.

[squeakypop]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
So abortion a foetus based on gender, skin colour, colour of eyes is fine?

Abortion up to 9 months is fine?

I'm pretty sure you can't tell a baby's eye-colour before it's born (nor the skin colour unless you know both the parents)?

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Language_student)
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!

But how do you know at the point of pregnancy that there is going to be future physical abuse?

[thecrimsonidol]

(Original post by Iron Lady)
No, please don't twist my words. My point was that aborting a child because "it's just a bag of cells" is irresponsible and ignores the development.

That comes down to a question of when you consider it to be/become a 'child', rather than just a 'foetus'.

A bag of cells to me is not a child.

[AlmostChicGeek]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
So you're not really pro-choice then. If it's her choice, surely she should be allowed to choose the gender of the future child she wants to raise.

I am pro-choice, where reasonable. That isn't reasonable, and you know that. It is completely random about which gender you get, and that is an irresponsible reason to abort a child.

[AlmostChicGeek]

(Original post by Language_student)
Actually, babies who are born around 32 weeks gestation (7 months-ish) may not be able to eat or breathe on their own. So they do need quite a bit of specialist hospital care as they have, after all, been born two months before the norm.

Yes, of course, a 5 month old child would need a lot more.

Thank you! I was born at 30 weeks. I could not breathe, eat and nearly died. He doesn't know what he is talking about!

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Cybele)
Strongly pro-choice.

So abortion up to 9 months. Abortion on demand because the foetus has been shown to be the "wrong" colour, gender, etc?

[Iron Lady]

(Original post by thecrimsonidol)
That comes down to a question of when you consider it to be/become a 'child', rather than just a 'foetus'.

A bag of cells to me is not a child.

To me, the irresponsible abortion of a potential life is murder - note the use of the word "irresponsible". I do take into account other circumstances and that it may not always be ideal. I just took offence to cl_steele's belief that it is a mere "bag of cells" that a woman can do as she likes to.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by thecrimsonidol)
That comes down to a question of when you consider it to be/become a 'child', rather than just a 'foetus'.

A bag of cells to me is not a child.

Why should a foetus have less rights than a child?

An infant is not a child.