English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://www.newstatesman.com/200710260007

2007-11-01 04:07:06 · 21 answers · asked by merz 3 in News & Events Current Events

21 answers

It doesn't change my opinion in anyway. I have always thought that it is the choice of the mother to be and no one else. They are the person that has to live with the consequence either way. If single mothers who are on benefits continue to have children because of abortion restrictions then it will mess up society in a big way. There is the moral stance of taking life but at the same time there is a conflicting economic problem with having children at the wrong time. I say make protection mandatory before marriage and try and make people more aware of the consequences of unprotected sex. Hell, give the 14 year old kids protection if they want it. It's better than them having an abortion or a child before they even gain an education.

2007-11-01 19:37:13 · answer #1 · answered by SR13 6 · 0 2

I don't need to read your link however, my views are this

Pro Choice. However, if the feotus has developed beyond 12 weeks , and is healthy along with the mother, then abortion should be illegal. It is snuffing out a life after all & that baby did not ask to be created. Plenty of people in the UK are unable to conceive and there is a severe shortage of babies up for adoption. People who are infertile would rather adopt a new baby, and not a 6 or 7 yr old. Girls should be offered alternatives to abortion. ALL abortions should be NHS governed only and NOT FOR PROFIT.

If it is the case of rape, then perhaps up to 18 weeks gestastion, depending on the circumstances .(is the rape proven in court or not , or is she just saying it was rape!)

2007-11-01 05:21:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No it was a classic left wing immoral article asking for a greater right to have unborn babies killed for convenience i agreed with the two comments though. It was typically anti male feminism which i thought was going out of fashion Andrea Dworkin would be proud of it . The argument comes from a infantile part of secular liberal culture which focuses on the i factor " it is my right " " i want it now" " it is not fair" which is like " i want that toy" or more sweets etc . In this case it is " i want to have sex and if i get pregnant the right to dispose of any annoying complications like a life. The question really is why are we allowing infantile amoral idiots dictate our moral culture for so long ?

2007-11-01 04:37:31 · answer #3 · answered by jack lewis 6 · 2 1

As a civilised society we have to accept it is a womans choice whether or not to have a baby.
Ideally if a baby is unwanted it is not conceived but htis is not an ideal world and we must allow women to make the choice whether they can commit to having the responsibility of a child for the rest of their lives obviously if they cannot then it is surely better to terminate at an early stage than bring the child into the world unwanted.
We also have a responsibility as a civilised society to allow this choice to be made whether it is what we personally believe is right or not.
It is never a decision taken lightly and we must support and show understanding towards women faced with this choice!

2007-11-01 05:24:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

That article only sickens me further,where abortion is concerned. The section about the need for late-term abortions for women who didn't show pregnancy symptoms is appalling. These are human lives we're talking about, not kidney stones. Women have many choices to make in their lives: Whether or not to have sex before marriage, whether to use birth control, what kind of birth control to use, etc. All of these choices have consequences. If through poor choices, or failure of a chosen method of birth control, a woman finds herself pregnant, she has more choices to make. She can raise the child with it's father, or without, or she can allow another family to raise the child as it's own. Why should murder be a part of this?

2007-11-01 04:39:02 · answer #5 · answered by Tiss 6 · 2 2

i'm no longer an atheist yet i'm going to permit you already know my opinion... each decision comes with a result, in spite of the fact that if that be sturdy or undesirable. maximum human beings get an abortion by way of fact they have been given pregnant on accident. now to no longer be impolite or harsh, yet once you probably did no longer desire a toddler, you mustn't have performed what it takes to get one in the 1st place... in case you already know what i advise.... So transforming into pregnant is a result that an harmless toddler shouldn't could pay for. some effects are irreversible, and it is definitely one of them. and assorted women that have had abortions even say that it fairly is stressful to stay with themselves by way of fact of it... so because it rather is my opinion... wish it enables!

2016-10-03 02:25:36 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I wholly believe it is the woman's right to decide. I agree that it should not be used as a means of contraception and am uncomfortable with the very late abortions that take place but can see that even they may be necessary at times. The two signature thing is usually a formality and I have not heard of anyone being turned down.

2007-11-01 04:25:08 · answer #7 · answered by susie03 6 · 2 2

I´ve always been very pro abortion, but when it becomes a possible family matter my views changed. You see things from a different perception.
Abortion is a private matter for individuals and should remain so, but I still have an opinion.

2007-11-01 04:17:40 · answer #8 · answered by soñador 7 · 5 1

I'm a fence-sitter on the abortion issue. It seems morally wrong to be able to legally kill a baby, but I understand that in real life there are circumstances where it would be draconian (even fatal) to force a woman to carry the baby to term.

2007-11-01 04:13:32 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 1 0

Abortion is nothing less than the murder of innocent children who have no means of self-defense, seeing as how the one person that should be protecting them is the person committing the murder.

The only circumstances that an abortion should be permitted is for the health of the mother (NOT the convenience!), and in cases of rape or incest where the pregnancy is not the result of the mother's choice of action. Also, in another direction, the father of the unwanted child should have a say in the matter, since HE may want the child and be able to raise it on his own, without the help of the "mother."

The purpose of sex is reproduction. Seeing as how sex is also pleasurable, if a person does not want to undergo the consequences of pregnancy, there are a multitude of ways to prevent the pregancy from happening in the first place.

Children should be taught about the consequences of unprotected sex from the time that they begin puberty so that unwanted pregnancies are the rarity rather than the rule.

There is nothing wrong with abstaining from sex until marriage, and it is the BEST way to stop unwanted pregnancy. Nothing works better than the boy keeping his zipper up and a girl keeping her knees together, but in today's society this seems to be anathema to those who set the trends for young people.

Those who promote abortion fail to also report the consequences of abortion. Acute depression, disease, and even some fatalities. Abortions have also been linked to breast and cervical cancer.

There are many people in the world, unable to conceive their own children, who would be more than glad to adopt an unwanted baby, but organizations like Planned Parenthood, the world's most prolific abortion mill, fails to promote this alternative to pregnant women seeking to end their responsibilities to their unborn children.

2007-11-01 04:27:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6 5

fedest.com, questions and answers