|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 9, 2011 20:39:58 GMT
Isn't that a bit contradictory. If you try to stop someone from having repeat abortions you are telling them that they are wrong. yep, because, ipso facto, they ARE
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 9, 2011 20:42:20 GMT
Isn't that a bit contradictory. If you try to stop someone from having repeat abortions you are telling them that they are wrong. Well, Octopus, I do think that abortion is morally wrong. Sorry if that offends you. On the other hand if the woman's life is in danger or if her pregnancy came about as the result of rape or incest I'm willing to take the view that it's the lesser of two evils. Yes, some women who've been raped DO keep the child and DO love it in spite of how it was conceived. I'm not sure if I could do that but fortunately I haven't been through that experience. As someone who HAS a child with genetic defects and who WAS advised by my doctor to have an abortion but said no I realise how hard a burden it is caring for a son with special needs. I love Lou to bits but I do feel sometimes like I've landed myself with a lifetime sentence. Anyway, aside from all that, even if you allowed ALL abortions for the FIRST time I'd STILL feel that having repeat abortions was being cruel and a lazy excuse for not using contraception. That's just how I feel; I know most of my members disagree with me but that's life. What's the point of a discussion forum where everyone agrees? you are a thousand percent correct though. any abortion is bad, but abortions for the sake of having abortions is reprehensible, period
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Apr 9, 2011 22:16:48 GMT
Thanks for the kind words Jumbo. Sadly, there is never going to be a 'cure' for my grandson. As I said, it's not my place to go into details, but I can say with 100% certainty that the multiple and severe nature of the disability means it is not going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Apr 12, 2011 20:33:44 GMT
I think that anything can be a political matter, in a democracy. The only things that should be off the table are things that would harm the democracy. eg a move to stop a minority from voting, or alternatively moves to impinge on free speech.
But when it comes to life and death matters, ie party A wants to take the life of party B,I don't think that it can ever be absolutely a sole matter for party A to arbitrate on. By that I don't mean that any individual who wants an abortion has to get it OKed first, what I mean is that the overall legality of it and other issues such as the death penalty or euthanasia, is for society to decide. I think it is right that society has decided to be pro-choice, however.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2011 7:21:09 GMT
What is worrying me is how this compulsory counselling will conducted. Will it be done to some political agenda. It seems that some anti abortionists are uneasy about the guidelines, so will they ever be able to produce a set that pleases everyone?
But if women are having to have their operations delayed because they are in some queue, then it is bad. Allow them the dignity of a speedy abortion once they have made up their mind, or you may force them into the position of continuing with the preganancy because it has gone beyond a stage where they feel comfortable with termination. That of course may be what this political move is really about.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Apr 13, 2011 9:30:22 GMT
yep, because, ipso facto, they ARE Just dressing it up in Latin doesn't mean your argument isn't ridiculously circular.
|
|