[Sam Walters]

A question for the pro-lifers.

Is it not wrong for a child to be bought into the world where they arnt supported and nurtured as they should be? If a woman or couple dont want a baby for whatever reason are they in a position to support and nurture that child?

Is that even remotely fair?

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by AlmostChicGeek)
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!

30 weeks is before 7 months.

And I know far more about Obstetrics that you do. Sorry to be arrogant about it.

[Iron Lady]

(Original post by Holz888)
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.

Firstly, what about the unborn child's right to life?

Also, is it not convenient that she agrees with pre-marital or underage sex, but not taking responsibility for her actions?

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by thecrimsonidol)
Because a child is a developed, independent (biologically speaking) human being.

A newly born baby, born at 9 months is not developed. It's cardiac system is still immature, and will be weeks before it resembled a fully developed cardiac system. It's gastrointestinal system had months and months of development to go. And the nervous system has years if not a decade of further development to go.

And the baby is not independent, and won't be biologically independent for many years ago come.

(Original post by thecrimsonidol)
A foetus is not, it is just a part of the mother's body.

There is little biological difference actually.

[AlmostChicGeek]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Reasonable to you. That's the point. Choice is about the individual making a choice, free of other people's ideas of reasonableness of that choice.



And neither is aborting a child because it would be inconvenient, stressful or distracting for you to have it.



Randomness is pretty irrelevant. It's pretty random what genetic conditions a child would get, but I presume you think it's okay to abort a child because it will be disabled in some way.

Shouldn't we strengthen the guidelines, as reasonable people know that the whole gender, eye colour thing is stupid.

Presume all you like - but I don't unless it wouldn't survive it's first birthday. Thanks very much.

[sanaindaclub]

Both. I'm pro choice up to the point where, if the child was born, it wouldnt survive anyway. After that I'm pro life!

[hyakushiki1234]

(Original post by Sam Walters)
A question for the pro-lifers.

Is it not wrong for a child to be bought into the world where they arnt supported and nurtured as they should be? If a woman or couple dont want a baby for whatever reason are they in a position to support and nurture that child?

Is that even remotely fair?

It is wrong, but there's also the chance that (as I'm sure happens in most cases) the parents will do their best to raise the child and give it the unconditional love that other parents would. What's more, even people who start out wanting a child can end up being neglectful. It's just a sad fact of life and it has little to do with the abortion debate, IMO. The child can still make something of itself as many people have today.

Saying otherwise is almost suggesting that only people deemed 'worthy' should have access to children.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by hyakushiki1234)
The period isn't optional, though. Having an abortion is - and the eggs have still not been fertilised while a fetus has. The eggs aren't going to become life unless you've made the choice to have sex, while a fetus is always going to become life eventually barring complications in the pregnancy. That's the difference here - the life has already been created in a fetus while it hasn't in an egg.

That hardly matters, though. Does it? A fertilised egg is the same as an unfertilised egg with a bit of different biochemistry going on. I can understand being against abortion past the period where the foetus has the possibility to survive outside the womb, but a zygote at the moment of conception is somehow 'more alive', and thus has more of a right to life, than an unfertilised egg? Nah bro.

[AlmostChicGeek]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
30 weeks is before 7 months.

And I know far more about Obstetrics that you do. Sorry to be arrogant about it.

Do you how is that then? And okay check this out then:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/23...t-32-34-weeks/

Children, who are born at around 32 weeks, weigh between 2 and 5 pounds, if you are less than 4 they put you in the neo natal unit.

Can you give me some evidence to back up your claims? And how about not being arrogant instead of being sorry about it?

[Iron Lady]

(Original post by Sam Walters)
A question for the pro-lifers.

Is it not wrong for a child to be bought into the world where they arnt supported and nurtured as they should be? If a woman or couple dont want a baby for whatever reason are they in a position to support and nurture that child?

Is that even remotely fair?

No, it's not fair; therefore I am pro-life, but moderate depending on the circumstances, so I am a mix of option 2 and 3 in the poll.

However I believe in personal responsibility. If this couple know that they are unable to provide for a child, they should reconsider whether they should have sex. If a question for them is "what if I become pregnant" knowing any emotional or financial implications, it is only fair that they refrain. Also, what if they're teenagers? I am against underage and casual sex - so I feel annoyed hearing about an irresponsible teenage girl having an abortion when it could have been avoided.

Although you are right in suggesting that they may not be in a position to support the child. I am a fiscal conservative and I dislike the idea of the state funding an "unwanted" child that could be subjected to a difficult life from poorly thought out actions.

It is a difficult question, however the idea of killing a potential life makes me uneasy, especially as some females tend to be very irresponsible.

[concubine]

Like all sane people not brainwashed by absurd religious nonsense, pro choice up to a point.

[Spaz Man]

Moderately pro-life. Abortions should be allowed in particular situations (e.g when it threatens the health of the mother).

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Old School)
Current abortion laws are fine as is wrt to how late it can be done. Don't think I suggested changing them in my post so I'm not too sure why you brought it up.

You said you were strongly pro-choice. I wanted confirmation. And it seems you are about restricting a woman's "right" to choose to only the first 24 months gestation. Doesn't sound very pro-choice to me. In Canada, women have this "right" to choose at any stage in their pregnancy. So you are not "strongly pro-choice" at all, so am glad I clarified that.

(Original post by Old School)
As for the other stuff, it's down to the morals of the individual making that decision. I don't see how it affects you or anyone else (bar the fetus but that isn't self aware). Every case is different and as a result the whole idea of anti-abortion legislation is retarded. Hence why I'm so strongly pro-choice.

It is a life that is being terminated, so it affects me in the same way a person on the bus stop getting murdered. It is about society, and the state's responsibility to protect people from harm.

And you raised the issue of the foetus not being self aware, and hence it's okay to kill it. Is it okay to kill people who are not self aware (such as severely mentally disabled, or people under anaesthesis)?

[Alexandra's Box]

People do not have legal abortions based on eye colour. Why is this being repeated over and over again? Nor are abortions based on gender legally allowed in this country.
Very few women take the decision lightly and the abuse some pressure groups elsewhere give them is revolting.
Also, when a baby is said to be independent of the mother, it means that it could survive without her, not that it could survive without anyone or that it is 100% fully formed.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
Strongly pro-choice. I hate the "at fertilisation it's a potential life" argument. Every gamete is a potential life. I don't see you bitching about a potential life dying every time you have your period.
Most arguments for pro-life come from a conflated view of the zygote.

So abortion right up until 38 weeks gestation?

Abortion on demand based on gender and skin colour of foetus?

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by thecrimsonidol)
Because I don't feel a foetus is a child (for the reasons I gave), it only has the potential to become a child. Having the potential to be a child does not make it a child at that point. As it is part of the body of the mother, it is her right to do with it as she wants.

So life only begins at birth?

[RowingGoose]

Pro choice. I have an issue with pro-life voters who look down abortion because it's killing/ruining a potential life. But if a mother has no/little income, no home for a child and frankly isn't mature enough or doesn't want the child then a child's welfare comes into question. It's going to have a worse upbringing than if the mother aborted, and waited until she was ready.

[thecrimsonidol]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
So life only begins at birth?

Yes. And ends at death.

[Iron Lady]

(Original post by RowingGoose)
Pro choice. I have an issue with pro-life voters who look down abortion because it's killing/ruining a potential life. But if a mother has no/little income, no home for a child and frankly isn't mature enough or doesn't want the child then a child's welfare comes into question. It's going to have a worse upbringing than if the mother aborted, and waited until she was ready.

Why can't she take those implications into account?

[Holz888]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
The replacability of what somebody is claiming sovereignty over is not really relevant to the ethical argument here.
If a man was particularly poor, he would not be able to get a new house, so by your logic, a poor man can do what he wants to those in his house, but a rich man can't, all because the rich man can replace his house. Hence why the replacibility is irrelevant.
Pain of labour, the inconvenience of parenthood, and possible psychological trauma of those involved is simply not good enough reasons to justify killing a life. Killing a life is a serious issue, and not to be taken lightly.
And there are many many parents desperate to adopt, but they want to adopt a baby, not a 3 year old child taken off a family by social services.
And regarding IVF, it's true, and I do believe IVF should not be available for free on the NHS.

What I mean by that is that a house is material. Your own body is not. When a women houses a child, she must consider everything she puts to her lips, every activity she does, whether she works or not. In my opinion, all of this should allow the woman a choice over whether she decides to continue with this, just as a man housing his family can ask them to leave if he likes.
How would you, as a child, like to be brought up in the belief that you were an "inconvenience"? I believe that the pain suffered and sacrifices a woman makes means it is more than just an inconvenience. I also believe that psychological trauma is an issue that should not be taken lightly.
In my opinion, true life starts with birth, whether this is on its due date or 30 weeks earlier.