Abortion? Allowed or not...?

[Spirit]

Well my view is that it should be allowed, but only in rare cases.

If a woman is raped and gets pregnant, how can she be expected to bring that child up with love?

Some people say it's murder, my belief is that it is only murder when the child reaches the point where it can think and feel for itself. As far as I know this is around 36 weeks. Before that it is not murder as you are not killing a life form, just a potential one - no different to killing a sperm or an egg.

It shouldnt, however, be another option along with the morning after pill. It should only be used in serious cases where the child will not be able to live a full and happy life for whatever reason. Any other time the mother and father should accept responsibility for what they have done, and do what they can to provide for the child.

Fire away

Edit: Doh @ the typo in the thread title

 

[Mughi]

The law on abortion in the UK at the moment allows it up till 24 weeks I *think* (may be slightly less) At that point most children can survive on their own outside the womb (incubators are fantastic things )

Also, I think there has to be some good reason for it, whether that is rape, or mental trauma etc. The problem comes in where "mental trauma" is classed as "not being able to get into a bikini when on holiday"

Personally, I would make a terrible mother, and I take all necessary precautions to avoid it. Up to and including serious consideration about being sterilised to prevent it happening.

I also have a terrible habit of calling babies "it" which never tends go down well with the parents

I more or less agree with you Spirit, dont see any problem as long as it is not seen as an alternative to "sensible precautions" or plain laziness.

Then again, I would heartily go for a "pill to let you get pregnant" idea, but i dont think it would *ever* be practical. And I get a sneaky suspicion that it would probably violate human rights somewhere, but the idea that contraception is in the water supply, or food chain somewhere and you go to the doctor to take a pill to over-ride its effects is great! There would never be an unwanted child, no need for abortion, no need to worry about getting pregnant. Of course, as I said, its not practical as you have allergies, the possibility of vetting who should be able to have children, financial implications and a whole host of other reasons why it wouldnt work. But for me, it would be fantastic

 

[Spirit]

Ah okies i thought it was 36, me bad

Some intersting ideas about contraception there - no-one else wanna debate this one?

 

[BBStr@nge]

I am pro-choice surprisingly.
Abortion should never be used as a lazy form of contraception though.

 

[Plonko]

Yep it should be allowed and the father should have as much right to demand it as the mother has.

 

[Spirit]

Interesting point Plonk, as the the father is committed to paying maintenance when the child is born.

Maybe the father should be given the option to request and abortion, and then the mother can either decide to have an abortion or continue with the pregnancy unsupported... Got a feeling this would leave a lot of very poor single mothers though

 

[Vince_Black]

most definately it should be allowed (only till a 24 weeks limit that is)

what if someonegets pregnant at an age of 18-20? she is in college or whatever and totally not ready for handling a baby...yes offcourse she's been stupid not using a condom or whatever, but letting a baby grow up with a very poor and incapable mummy? no.......!

 

[Vince_Black]

btw, abortion isnt a thing like "oops i forgot to use anything (ie condom), lets do an abortion!"
its no fun having an abortion!

 

[Plonko]

Nobody suggested an abortion is fun but neither is bringing up an unwanted child. And it's over a fook of a lot quicker.

 

[Spirit]

Originally posted by Vince_Black
what if someonegets pregnant at an age of 18-20? she is in college or whatever and totally not ready for handling a baby...

Some might say that she should not be having sex until she is in a position where she could deal with a child...

 

[Plonko]

If she does maybe she should be buried up to her middle and then stoned to death. Hmmmm.... what goes around....

 

[Apocalypse]

Sitting here having the debat with Vanessa, she believes that it's the right of the mother to deciede whether or not an abortion should be allowed. Whether or not the father wants one or not, but then again she did say that the father need not contribute and that a legal binding should be made to such.

I agree

 

[Ajax]

I dont think the father should have to pay mantance if he never wanted the baby, but also saying that maybe he should of put on a rubber also

 

[Apocalypse]

It sometimes doesn't matter how much protection you use

 

[Cutter]

Originally posted by Ajax
I dont think the father should have to pay mantance if he never wanted the baby, but also saying that maybe he should of put on a rubber also

Fact: Babies gestate inside the mother. No-one but the mother should have the decision as to whether to terminate or not.

BUT: No smoke without fire. Women don't get pregnant without a man (and his sperm). So, if the woman deceives the man by telling him she is still taking contraceptives when she is in fact not, the biological father should not be made financially responsible for a child he was not expecting.

Obviously, that then becomes a question of proving the woman deceived the man.

As Ajax says, to be on the safe side, all men should use condoms when having sex with women they are not married to. You can then stand up in court and say - I didn't want this child, I used a condom. If I had wanted a child I would not have bothered with a condom.

 

[Wintermute]

Why is it always the way that people can settle on a reasonable solution just by talking, yet our governments still dont get it? :sigh:

I would have to say:

It's the woman's body, her choice.

However, if the man does not wish to be a father, he should be able to sign a declaration to that effect, disowning the child.

seems perfectly reasonable to me..

The unpleasant situation where there is no happy solution, is where the *father* wishes to keep the child, and the mother gets an abortion simply to spite him.

 

[Mughi]

Originally posted by Wintermute
However, if the man does not wish to be a father, he should be able to sign a declaration to that effect, disowning the child.

Gotta be really careful about that though, make sure she knew before anything started what she would get into if a mistake happened. Also, her decision to carry full term may be different if she knew she was going to be left to look after it on her own, so if he is gonna disown it, it should be ASAP.

Originally posted by Wintermute
The unpleasant situation where there is no happy solution, is where the *father* wishes to keep the child, and the mother gets an abortion simply to spite him.

Its not quite as simple as that though. The female has to carry it for 9 months and go through the labour. She should have last call. Heartbreaking though it may be for the potential father, I can sympathise, but really the female has the risk to her life and so on, so it should be her to decide that. Someone that gets an abortion out of spite is a different matter

 

[BBStr@nge]

Originally posted by Wintermute


However, if the man does not wish to be a father, he should be able to sign a declaration to that effect, disowning the child.

seems perfectly reasonable to me..

What about the child itself? Children don't need their Fathers then?
Enough spineless blokes not looking after or paying any for the poor little bastards now:/

At what point would this decleration be signed?
Pre-coitus? At point of confirmed conception? When the child is born?

 

[Ezby]

Hmmmmz

I do agree Abortion is sadly necessary in some cases, and with the general belief that it shouldn't be used as a form of lazy contraception. Its a fairly traumatic thing to have to do in any case.. I totally agree until however many months it is it cannot think/feel etc for itself up until which abortion is justified, however the moment those two cells join, its the beginning of a life, and whatever stage you do it... you're ending a life. Not something to be taken lightly....

 

[Wintermute]

Still going on the UK legal definition BB:

It isn't considered a child until the point at which it could survive on it's own, which is (if I recall correctly) the reason also for the 24 week cut-off.

And there's a certain degree of assumption involved: that people actually discuss contraception, possibility of parenthood etc before settling down to the shagging...

Personally, it's something we discussed beforehand. I know most of my mates have similar outlooks.

One of my mates in my teenage years had his life fucked over.

His GF said she was on the pill, he kept using a condom. After a few months, he trusted her, and stopped. She was a paranoid delusional nutcase, and thought he was cheating on her (not the case) so she stopped taking the Pill, so he would have to stay with her.

When she anounced she was pregnant, he asked her to get an abortion. she refused. He dumped her.

When the kid was born, he offered to pay his share, as long as he got to see the kid (by this point, she had a new boyfriend) and she refused.

Then promptly got the CSA on his case.

Cue my mate, busting his sack, whilst GF, kid and new boyfriend use the cash for such essentials as.. holiday in the med, car insurance, paying for sky etc etc.

It's not all "spineless bastards" who want out of paying for a kid they didn't want.

As for when? if abortion can be done up till 24 weeks, I would say a father has to disown the child before 24 weeks... allowing the mother to decide whether to "go it alone" or not.