bhaexpress
New member
Anyone remember the case a few years ago when a man in Scotland (I think) tried to get an injunction against his former girlfriend to prevent her from having a termination ?
He lost by the way.
He lost by the way.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Abortion?
- Thread starter looney
- Start date
Shegull
New member
I am totally and utterly against abortion myself but I do believe that at the end of the day it is up to the person involved but just one thing puzzles me. If people claim that they are only aborting a group of cells then why is that you hear of so many girls going into the depths of depression and suffering from guilt trips after having abortions. Why so much guilt afterwards and and not before.
bhaexpress
New member
caz99 said:
I was going to say that but I as I'm not female I didn't feel it was my place to say so. I know this much, if my ex-wife's parrents had known about it they would have gone mad. My mother, who did know was an absolute heroine about it though and helped my ex a lot.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I'd have thought that its a natural reaction - it must be a horrendous ordeal for a woman to go through. And forget what "society" says is wrong or right - the sadness, I would have thought, comes from within, not through guilt because of what other people say you should and should not do.Shegull said:
Any woman who is capable of just shrugging off having an abortion like having a tooth out probably wouldn't have made a particularly good mother anyway.
Garry Nelson's Left Foot
Well-known member
Easy 10 said:
Which just goes to show how murky/unclear/emotive a subject it is. It's not something, I don't think, that can be defined in simple terms of black and white.
Personally I am not in favour of abortion, but in extreme cases (Rape, endangering the mothers life etc)I cannot justify not giving a person the right of abortion. From a strictly moral/ethical viewpoint maybe an argument could be made. However, we do not live in the clinical, septic world that that argument would need if it were to be argued succesfully. Life is coloured by far too many unavoidable issues that make it impossible to stand by such a viewpoint. So, I guess I'm 'pro-choice'.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
The only issue that merits the sort of debate that Michael Howard wants is the extent to which the state should intervene in laying down the law.
This is one of those things where there are clearly many, many different views and conflicting opinions that cannot be reconciled into a consensus.
I have no problem with the Catholic Church's teaching that abortion is morally wrong. A Church is entitled to provide moral guidance for its members (who are equally entitled to set it aside, should circumstances and conscience require).
What I don't like to see is the legal framework determined by religious dogma, when it is quite obvious that very many people do not accept the basis of that dogma.
Undoubtedly, there are cases of women feeling pressurised to have abortions against their own, considered, personal choice. That is the human condition - life is difficult.
Equally, there are women who are are pressurised by family, friends and churches not to have abortions. That, again, is the human condition. But the state shouldn't join in by removing the rights of women to safe abortions. All the pre-1967 evidence is that laws against abortion create conditions of appalling danger to vulnerable women that the state should not connive at.
By all means debate 22 weeks, 24 weeks, 18 weeks or whatever. That argument is complicated - and will never be settled by photographs of foetuses. But don't forget that the vast majority of abortions take place very much earlier in pregnancy than these dates. The real argument for lawmakers is only about where to draw the line in complicated cases. On that one, put me down as a "Don't Know".
This is one of those things where there are clearly many, many different views and conflicting opinions that cannot be reconciled into a consensus.
I have no problem with the Catholic Church's teaching that abortion is morally wrong. A Church is entitled to provide moral guidance for its members (who are equally entitled to set it aside, should circumstances and conscience require).
What I don't like to see is the legal framework determined by religious dogma, when it is quite obvious that very many people do not accept the basis of that dogma.
Undoubtedly, there are cases of women feeling pressurised to have abortions against their own, considered, personal choice. That is the human condition - life is difficult.
Equally, there are women who are are pressurised by family, friends and churches not to have abortions. That, again, is the human condition. But the state shouldn't join in by removing the rights of women to safe abortions. All the pre-1967 evidence is that laws against abortion create conditions of appalling danger to vulnerable women that the state should not connive at.
By all means debate 22 weeks, 24 weeks, 18 weeks or whatever. That argument is complicated - and will never be settled by photographs of foetuses. But don't forget that the vast majority of abortions take place very much earlier in pregnancy than these dates. The real argument for lawmakers is only about where to draw the line in complicated cases. On that one, put me down as a "Don't Know".
Emily's Mum
New member
The whole issue is very difficult & I think you can only understand the whole issue if you've been there yourself. It's not just the woman's physical health that has to be considered, it's her mental health as well.
Having read this thread, I am appalled at the patronising attitude of a few contributors regarding contraception. The vast majority of contraception available is between 97 & 99% reliable. Those figures would indicate that at some point an unwanted pregnancy is going to occur, no matter how careful you are.
On the time limit issue, I think it needs to kept as it is. Not all methods of contraception give rise to a monthly period, therefore it can be a lot longer than the normal 5-6 weeks before suspecting you are pregnant.
Having read this thread, I am appalled at the patronising attitude of a few contributors regarding contraception. The vast majority of contraception available is between 97 & 99% reliable. Those figures would indicate that at some point an unwanted pregnancy is going to occur, no matter how careful you are.
On the time limit issue, I think it needs to kept as it is. Not all methods of contraception give rise to a monthly period, therefore it can be a lot longer than the normal 5-6 weeks before suspecting you are pregnant.
My church has a Pregnancy advisory service where any female can go for help & advice.
As abortion is so freely available now, many women/girls feel pressure to have an abortion from their families, boyfriends etc when there are other options available. There is a listening ear and the woman is given all the facts so that she can make an informed choice. She is not told that she mustn't have an abortion.
(Unsurprisingly, I am pro life.)
As abortion is so freely available now, many women/girls feel pressure to have an abortion from their families, boyfriends etc when there are other options available. There is a listening ear and the woman is given all the facts so that she can make an informed choice. She is not told that she mustn't have an abortion.
(Unsurprisingly, I am pro life.)