eBay

fallen-archie · ‎30-11-2015

I refer to todays ruling in the High court which said that the Abortion Laws in the Northern Ireland was in breach of human rights. To the fury of pro life groups, Marie Stopes and the Catholic Church who will now challenge the ruling.

I find it sad that this subject is kicked around like a football (It's the same in parts of the US) If your Daughter were raped or subject to the abuse of an incestuous relative, or the foetus was not viable Surely it is humane and reasonable for the victim to have the right to choose termination. It is important for a compassionate society to protect abuse of the unborn but really should not common sense prevail?

jd.linklater · ‎02-12-2015

Same here

upthecreekyetagain · ‎02-12-2015

Harry - I feel for your daughter and family and understand what you are saying at a personal level - I really do.

On a personal level it is very hard and totally understandable why you would be in favour of allowing, even advocating for, an abortion where it is known a child will be born disabled.

At society level it is a different matter - using the future potential of a child, in health, gender or mental terms to determine whether a pregnancy can be terminated is a 'dangerous' step - even more so if at the same time declaring that the abortion of a healthy foetus should/is not permissible.

It used to be the case that an abortion was only allowable if continuing with the pregnancy would put the life of the mother in real and immediate danger.

I can support reverting to that situation but prefer the position where every woman has the right to decide, for whatever reason, not to continue with a pregnancy. What I don't support is the totally illogical situation where an abortion is only allowed based on the attributes of the foetus

Deno thread on FHG

Anonymous · ‎03-12-2015

There are many reasons why people chose abortion and unless you know all the circumstances you can't judge in my opinion.

Would it be ok if a young woman in her early twenties who is not in a serious relationship and gets pregnant by accident. Has no way to support a child properly and doesn't want the child to grow up without the father present.

Would it be ok if a woman nearing 40 got pregnant by accident, with two children already and a husband in mid 40, but living on the breadline and suffering from (diagnosed) stress. A third child making their situation even more difficult.

Would people agree with a woman who has already 4 kids and a husband, but suffers from a heart condition to keep her 5th baby against the recommendations of her heart specialist to abort. Taking the risk that her other children could end up motherless and leaving the father to deal with it all.

Would it be ok if a couple where the father has a genetic condition that will cause any baby boy to go blind in later life to have selective abortion so they can still have a baby girl or should they go for IVF treatment.

I haven't made these examples up. I have witnessed all four of them.

The first two aborted, the third took the risk and thank god everything went well, the fourth went for IVF and now has a little boy with kindney problems which came from the donor as this was not disclosed at the time of the treatment.

What would you have done in those situations? Nothing is black and white.

An abortion just because you prefer a different gender is even a step too far for me though.

jd.linklater · ‎03-12-2015

@Anonymous wrote:
There are many reasons why people chose abortion and unless you know all the circumstances you can't judge in my opinion.

Would it be ok if a young woman in her early twenties who is not in a serious relationship and gets pregnant by accident. Has no way to support a child properly and doesn't want the child to grow up without the father present.

Would it be ok if a woman nearing 40 got pregnant by accident, with two children already and a husband in mid 40, but living on the breadline and suffering from (diagnosed) stress. A third child making their situation even more difficult.

Would people agree with a woman who has already 4 kids and a husband, but suffers from a heart condition to keep her 5th baby against the recommendations of her heart specialist to abort. Taking the risk that her other children could end up motherless and leaving the father to deal with it all.

Would it be ok if a couple where the father has a genetic condition that will cause any baby boy to go blind in later life to have selective abortion so they can still have a baby girl or should they go for IVF treatment.

I haven't made these examples up. I have witnessed all four of them.
The first two aborted, the third took the risk and thank god everything went well, the fourth went for IVF and now has a little boy with kindney problems which came from the donor as this was not disclosed at the time of the treatment.

What would you have done in those situations? Nothing is black and white.

An abortion just because you prefer a different gender is even a step too far for me though.

I'm sorry Harry but I can't agree with you on any of those cases you outlined. Abortion shouldn't be a catch all situation for reckless behaviour. The first two had abortions purely for economic reasons, shouldn't they both have thought of the consequences before getting pregnant? This is the 21st century, how much sex education do people need for God's sake?

When my wife had to stop taking the pill in later life we had two options, for her to have a hysterectomy or me have a vasectomy. In our case we chose the latter because it was such a straightforward procedure, we wouldn't have dreamed of risking her getting pregnant again at that age.

Any woman with four kids and a heart condition really shouldn't entertain the idea of getting pregnant again, very selfish behaviour in my opinion.

And as for the last one, I've never agreed with IVF treatment. If people can't have children they should accept the situation and move on. If they have IVF the resulting child will never be 'theirs' as a couple, all they are doing is perpetuating someone else's genes which in terms of humanity as a whole is a complete nonsense. They could have got the same result by adopting one of the countless thousands of children seeking a family life, most of them as a result of similar wreckless behaviour. People with genetic conditions that could endanger the lives of any prospective children should not breed in my opinion.

evoman3957 · ‎03-12-2015

I agree about the birth control, you've only got to look at some of the most religious Countries in the World; that have the most rampant birthrates & highest infant mortality rates. Boy when these people's God says "Suffer little Children to come unto me"; he really means it doesn't he, by taking them as fast as he can get the producers to give them life............real progress.........NOT !!

upthecreekyetagain · ‎03-12-2015

Harry

Not sure if your question was directed at me but if it was then my answer is simple - it's not my decision to take it should be the mother's choice - what right do I have to tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their own bodies?

Deno thread on FHG

lightblueberet · ‎03-12-2015

Ditto...and I'll go further...150% !

___________________

"Non Recuso Laborem"

astrologica · ‎03-12-2015

Never in the history of mankind has it been so easy to have a sexual relationship and avoid unwanted pregnancy. IMO no-one becomes pregnant by accident....only by being irresponsible. If a woman doesn't want to become pregnant....don't have sex.

There are some instances where an abortion should be available...as a result of ra*e, incest, or when the child has a life threatening condition, or the mother's life is at risk. There are many women who use abortion as birth control, and have several terminations. This should definitely not be allowed. It is just another symptom of the disgusting moral decline of our 'human'race.

Anonymous · ‎04-12-2015

No Creeky, it was not especially for you. Just one to throw into the discussion.

Anonymous · ‎04-12-2015

Contraception is not always 100% guaranteed and real accidents can happen. Women who use the pill can still find themselves pregnant. Condoms can fail without being noticed. Some women don't even realise they are pregnant for months as they still have periods.

I agree that abortions should indeed not be used as a form of contraception. Anyone who ever had one will not be so willing to keep doing that, so I don't think it has become such a common practice.

In the case of the IVF couple, the man didn't want adoption, although the woman was fine with it. He still wanted the baby to be at least partly their own. She was desperate to have a baby. They now have a boy and a girl.

In the case of the older couple there were many problems with contraception and yes the option could have been sterilisation or a vasectomy. The man already had his done once and reversed later and didn't want to repeat it again. If their financial and mental situation would have been different they would have kept the baby for sure. The woman was 37 at the time, so not too old to have a baby.

A hysterectomy at that age would have meant that the woman would have started the menopause very early. Not really an option a woman takes lightly.

In the case of the woman with the four kids, the husband came from a different culture and he was desperate for another boy. He had one son and 3 daughters. Selfish as that may be, the woman was willing to take the risk. She was anti abortion. She had to come off the pill temporarily when they sorted her heart medication out, as her condition was only just discovered after having a heart attack. She got caught in the month she went without the pill. She had to come off her meds to continue the pregnancy. She had another girl and then opted for sterilisation as he would never agree to a vasectomy.