Abortion

15

123450

Nobody gets an abortion 'as a form of contraception' - regardless of what The Sun or Daily Mail say.

Well actually, yes, they do. You get women coming back for three or more, using it for exactly that reason. How am I aware of this? Not the Sun or Daily Fail, but by talking to doctors who've done them and seen similar faces.

Reply 1782

15

Why do people keep calling an embryo/a foetus a baby? They're not the same thing people and the terms shouldn't be used interchangably. It's misleading.

Reply 1783

123450

11

Kinkerz

Well actually, yes, they do. You get women coming back for three or more, using it for exactly that reason. How am I aware of this? Not the Sun or Daily Fail, but by talking to doctors who've done them and seen similar faces.

Then why don't they use other, far easier forms of contraception?

Reply 1784

15

123450

Then why don't they use other, far easier forms of contraception?

That's not a question for me to answer, and I'm sure your own suggestions would be as good as mine.

Laziness, the 'I'll sort it out tomorrow' attitude, 'my boyfriend doesn't like condoms', etc., etc.

Reply 1785

8

Kash:)

But it's they way they just casually say without a care in the world and what sounds like not much thought. It's a life we're talking about.

It's a clump of cells - and the way someone speaks about something doesn't necessarily have any relation to how much thought they've given to it. In fact, if someone is talking about a termination they've had, speaking about it in a detached way may be a coping strategy. Or maybe they just see it for what it is: a cluster of cells. You may see it as 'a life', and that's fine, but I don't see it as being more of a life form than any other small collection of cells (I don't put it on par with a fully developed human).

Care-Free

Rather than an abortion i'd say they should give it up for adoption or give the child a chance to have a good life.

This is a great idea. It's also very naive. Not all children who are put up for adoption actually get lucky enough to be adopted and I think about a quarter of all adoptions in the UK fail. Not to mention that pregnancy and birth carry an inherent risk for the mother which can be avoided if a termination is sought early enough.

Also, the argument for abortion being allowed in the case of rape - how would you prove rape? There are already people who make false rape accusations. Faced with unwanted pregnancies this would possibly increase substantially in desperate attempts to obtain an abortion.

Reply 1786

username91207

16

To all those that oppose abortion completely: not every woman who has an abortion because she doesn't want a child has neglected to use contraception. It can fail. Even using two methods of contraception (ie if the woman was on the pill and the man wore condoms) can't completely 100% guarantee protection against pregnancy. What then? The couple did everything within their power (bar abstaining) to prevent it. Is the woman still irresponsible? Should abortion still not be an option for her?

Reply 1787

madders94

18

I'm totally pro-choice. Up until the cut-off point for when abortions can be conducted, it is still a foetus, IMO - as in, not a baby yet. I don't agree with it being used as a form of contraception - however, I doubt it is used as a form of contraception, because everyone who talks in newspapers/magazines about having an abortion say it is the worst thing they have ever gone through.
Contraception can fail, you could conceive when raped, you might find out that the baby will have a serious disability or condition that means its life expectancy is no more than a few hours, or that its quality of life will be no more than an existence, not a life.
Do all of you who are pro-life suggest that a family go through any of this, because you disagree with abortion? Should it be allowed to put a family through this, making them wait to have a baby that will, and I'm sorry because I know how harsh this sounds, only live for a few days?
However, on the other side of this, there are mothers - such as mine - who are eternally grateful for the few days they got to spend with their babies when they were ill, and say in hindsight that not aborting the baby was a good thing. However, it is up to the individual - cases differ, circumstances differ, people differ. No-one has the right to tell anyone else what to do with their own body.

Reply 1788

17

snowyowl

To all those that oppose abortion completely: not every woman who has an abortion because she doesn't want a child has neglected to use contraception. It can fail. Even using two methods of contraception (ie if the woman was on the pill and the man wore condoms) can't completely 100% guarantee protection against pregnancy. What then? The couple did everything within their power (bar abstaining) to prevent it. Is the woman still irresponsible? Should abortion still not be an option for her?

Of course it shouldn't. When you have sex you accept the risk of pregnancy. Most know that contraception is not always effective, but still have sex. When you have sex, you take the responsibility, and if you really don't want a child you don't have sex.

Reply 1789

15

Well at least you're rational and realistic about things then.

Reply 1790

123450

11

There's also a risk with driving. You could go on a motorway and be hit by another driver - you could die.
Would you say that if you don't want the risk of dying, you shouldn't drive?

Reply 1791

jackthepumpkin

Louiise.

I do not agree with abortion.
A woman who doesn't want to have her own child should've thought about that before doing what she did. And even more: nowadays we've tons of protections in order to prevent these situations. So abortion is a wrong decision, because we're "playing" with our own child's life. It will have consequences for life.
And even if the baby has problems, who are we to decide for them? I'm sure if you ask them, when they're adults, if they want to die, they'll say "No, I don't".
However, if the life of the mother is at stake, this decision should be considered. But ONLY in that case.

yes but what if they child is born with problems so severe that they are without the capacity to think clearly for themselves. is it really fair to bring a child into the world knowing that it will suffer for as long as it lives... and yes you could argue that there are many disabled peopple in the world who cope fine and even enjoy their lives but i'm sure a lot of them wished they were physically/mentally "able" and surely if we knew beforehand that a child was going to be born with life altering problems it is just to have an abortion?

Reply 1792

username91207

16

Life is full of risks, so should we all simply stay indoors with the doors and windows locked and wrap ourselves in bubble wrap? Of course not. Most rational people accept that sex is also for pleasure and isn't simply a means to producing a child. This is why we have contraception in the first place. If said contraception fails (note I mentioned using two methods, so being as safe and protected as possible) I don't see how it can be anyone's fault if the woman does fall pregnant. Both the woman and her partner have accepted they don't want children and done everything they can to prevent that. If it fails, I see nothing wrong with abortion being used as a last resort.

As this person says:

123450

There's also a risk with driving. You could go on a motorway and be hit by another driver - you could die.
Would you say that if you don't want the risk of dying, you shouldn't drive?

Reply 1793

17

123450

There's also a risk with driving. You could go on a motorway and be hit by another driver - you could die.
Would you say that if you don't want the risk of dying, you shouldn't drive?

Yes. I thought it would be pretty obvious that if you don't want to die on a motorway you don't drive on one. You accept that when you do drive on one then you may crash and die.

Reply 1794

8

So say someone wants to travel somewhere by car [have sex]. That person takes all reasonable precautions to avoid getting into a crash where they may get hurt [pregnant] such as using the safety restraints and driving with due care and attention [correct use of contraceptives]. Bad stuff can happen to good people of course, and there's an inherent risk in everything. They find themselves in a crash [pregnant] and require immediate medical attention [termination].. but according to your logic they should not be entitled to treatment because they knowingly took the risk.

Reply 1795

17

el pollo diablo

So say someone wants to travel somewhere by car [have sex]. That person takes all reasonable precautions to avoid getting into a crash where they may get hurt [pregnant] such as using the safety restraints and driving with due care and attention [correct use of contraceptives]. Bad stuff can happen to good people of course, and there's an inherent risk in everything. They find themselves in a crash [pregnant] and require immediate medical attention [termination].. but according to your logic they should not be entitled to treatment because they knowingly took the risk.

See this is where the analogies differ - of course the car crash victim should get medical treatment, but the pregnant woman gets treatment that involves terminating a baby/foetus/whatever.

Reply 1796

8

What's that got to do with anything? Why should the car crash victim get medical treatment while the female who got pregnant (who also took all reasonable precaution) just has to forget her own life in favour of a mass of rapidly multiplying cells in her body? Would we say the same to a cancer patient (who has the very similar dilemma of having a group of rapidly multiplying cells within their body)?
Or maybe it's better to compare with someone who gets infected with a parasite then, since both involve removing a parasitic being from inside an individual. Apart from the fact that the foetus has the potential to become a human being several months down the road, they both behave in a similar way ('theft' of nutrients, growth, inhabiting the body of another being - potentially at a cost to the host's well-being).

Reply 1797

Melancholy

20

Lol, abortion.

The other analogy involves a violin, iirc.

There are a few good articles. Don Marquis makes the argument against abortion quite convincingly. People like Judith Jarvis Thompson make a good case in favour of abortion. I don't know if they're online.

Reply 1798

17

el pollo diablo

What's that got to do with anything? Why should the car crash victim get medical treatment while the female who got pregnant (who also took all reasonable precaution) just has to forget her own life in favour of a mass of rapidly multiplying cells in her body? Would we say the same to a cancer patient (who has the very similar dilemma of having a group of rapidly multiplying cells within their body)?
Or maybe it's better to compare with someone who gets infected with a parasite then, since both involve removing a parasitic being from inside an individual. Apart from the fact that the foetus has the potential to become a human being several months down the road, they both behave in a similar way ('theft' of nutrients, growth, inhabiting the body of another being - potentially at a cost to the host's well-being).

Why would I leave that out? That's like saying, "Should criminals be sent to prison, but forget the fact that they committed a crime." The pregnant woman's treatment comes at the expense of another life.

Reply 1799