If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
It's also completely irrelevant to this discussion. As Blagsta says it can also not exist, what he didn't say is that the bond with the father can be strong too... so does that mean that father should have a say? Tough one.
As for the laws, as they stand at the moment they are an acceptable compromise and I wouldn't really like to see them changed either way. Too relaxed and we ru the risk of public opinion becoming hardened in a few years to the point where a total ban was popular.
Good point. If I were pregnant and planned on keeping the child, I would rub my bulge and call it my baby; if I were planning on aborting, I'd not refer to it at all probably, or restrict to 'cold' or medical terms.
That's what I meant before, in reference to stargalaxy's post about when a foetus becomes a baby. If you were planning to abort then you'd naturally be less inclined to call it a baby (whether or not scientifically it is one) and if you were planning a happy motherhood then you'd be inclined to call it your baby or similar (whether or not it scientifically is one). Of course rationalisation is involved, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, unless you're comparing it to a the rationalisations of the cold-blooded killer rationalising why his prey deserves to die. Or similar.
I agree on your first point, I'd never "force" (though it'd be good to have a definition of "force" just so's I know) a woman to have an abortion...I'd like people to stop trying (hypothetically) to stop me having an abortion if I so choose. That'll never happen, and so it goes.
Sorry to drop in so randomly, but just need to clarify the above.
This is a fair point, and ideally its only fair to quote the Bible Chapter and verse if ever used to make a point. I understand that, in this case, Walkindude has admitted that he should probably say exactly where it has come from and he has not pushed the point probably because of this factor - which is good. He has not absolutely insisted that you believe it or that it's true, and overall I'm pretty sure it's not what he has based his argument/standpoint on. For that reason I don't want to have a go at anyone. I just want to emphasise the fact that any theory from scripture should be backed up as a matter of fairness.
Thanks
Have any of you actually seen the pictures in the press over the last few months of a baby's development in the womb? Or if pictures aren't your thing, read about this report. Now somebody look me in the eye, and tell me that this isn't a baby you're talking about.
oh that right it doesn't. I don't HAVE to do anything.
And people don't HAVE to keep their babies either.
Not a living, breathing, feeling baby.
Such pcitures and emotive arguments serve no purpose in this debate.
Quite.
It's not "dehumanising" it if you don't consider it a human, for pity's sake.
Once again, though, this isn't a debate about whether it's a "human being" or a "foetus"...can anyone actually stick to the issue at hand. I think someone should start a (n utterly pointless, imo) Pro-Choice/Pro-Life thread if you want to continue discussing at what point a baby is a baby, because this is a women's rights issue, essentially.
Did you actually read the article GWST linked to? The issue of abortion being BANNED in South Dakota is a women's rights issue, to me it is an extremely worrying sign of the political climate and attitude to women's rights there and should be even to those of us who don't have the "extreme feminist agenda" that you assert I have.
When I said it's an issue of women's rights, I was referring to the very option of abortion being taken away, not to actual abortions.
I have to go to a lecture now; this was enlightening.
You say you believe otherwise. But you see, you are in the minority. Practically no-one at all considers a growing lump of cells 'a baby'. Therefore all arguments about 'what about the rights of the baby' or 'millions of babies killed every year' can be immediately dismissed.
The only person concerned, the only person to consider is the woman who is pregnant. And as such it is her decision, not anybody else's, what is to be done about her pregnancy.
Anyway, Mrs Booth often likes to go to countries like Saudi Arabia to lecture other countries about human rights. Not taking into account the very different political and social climates of both countries. Britain nowadays is a PC basketcase, with the Human Rights Act disgracefully inshrined (sp?) into British law, the Health and Safety Executive having a field day... Saudi Arabia is much different. Now, there's nothing wrong with telling Saudi Arabia it's wrong to cut off people's hands for thieving, or to order women to cover up and the like. But the two countries are very different currently. This is partly why, in the Middle East, there's so much resentment at the perception the Western World is trying to interfere in their business.
And I think you are a bit confused as to things, first you're saying that the government is getting rid of civil liberties, then bemoaning the EU Human Rights Act.
And, I should point out that the HSE only enforces the law, it has next to no part in making it, if anyone is to blame is Blair, not them. And of course the compensation culture much talked of in the tabloids doesnt exist.
Of course we can discuss it, this is a democracy, discussion about that can't be stopped or censored.
Its not really the place to debate it, but I will say that I work in the industry and I know a lot more about the law and the way its enforced than anyone who reads a 'compensation gone mad' story in the paper.
ETA: so they're babies now? not clusters of cells, not foetuses (is that really the plural?) but babies?
I am not changing tack at all. jUts syaing women have the right to an abortion. They dont hva to keep theri babies, cells, foetouses or whatever.
No I dont have to put a link up at all. I dont HAVE to do anything. Its not a rule its not a law and you can say I HAVE to do anything.
I choose to or not.
Why dont u read it again, I am sure its in there.
No you're right you don't HAVE to reference the Bible when quoting from it, it just makes sense for a debate when there are people who follow the Bible closely and are interested to see where your point of view is coming from.
Who is "in favour of abortion"?
Now I would say that a foetus doesn't count as a human being in the early stages.
But that is only an intuition (and one that may be born for my own convenience perhaps) as far as I know there is no way you can 'prove' that a foetus of such and such an age is a human where as a younger one isn't.
Basically that decision is entirely subjective, which is why this debate can't be resolved......
What I find interesting, is that you'd be lynched if you acted this way over a secular claim.
If the "baby" can't survive independently of the mother then its part of the mother and her choice. End of as far as I'm concerned.
Walkindude does this sort of thing all the time. Claims some bullshit as fact, gets challenged on it, then chucks his toys out of his pram, usually claiming he's "studied it". Its hilarious.