Not really sure abortion is much of issue in the UK.

Morality is also subjective.

Thats interesting. Any reason why? One possibility is the demographic tension betwen fertility and immigration. if a country has a high immigration rate, particularly of young/fertile people, it does not have t worry about its own ferility rate, including aspects like abortion.
Ausrtalians have some ingrained concerns about large scale immigration for many reasons; some good' some not so good. However, because we have not had recent large scale immigration, our fertility dropped below replacement level. Then abortion does become a concerm of societies rather than just of the people involved.

Several levels of morality are recognised. Some are seen as individual, others as national or cultural, but one is recognised as universal( it is not truly so because it is entirely humano centric, but it encopasses moral /ethical beliefs which basically are held by most humans. to apply to all human beings)
An innate right to human life is one of those universal ethical ideals or rights. Have a look at the UN charter for others, or the american constitution/bill of rights for some which may be arguably culturally/nationally based, or of a universal nature.

All of us can create our own ethical /moral code, but where it conflicts with the universal ethical code, or even national /cultural ones we may face some difficulties.
Western societies have allowed individuals considerable latitude in this area but as the nature of society changes this latitude to observe individulmoral codes, is by no means guaranteed.

I think it is mainly because Europe is generally less religious than the rest of the world.

Although some things are universally considered moral, many things are not. I have said before plenty of people consider sex immoral which is just plain daft.

by Mr. Walker:

I have a problem with these particular lines here. One, even if someone is keeping slaves, I don't think one has the ability, much say right to be able to get them to stop keeping slaves. Considering it's dealing with a person's civil right, the slaves, it's more than likely going against a law, and the best one can do, is report it.
Personally, keeping slaves, and abortion I find two different things. You may seem it as the same thing, but it will seem that many might not, and that might associate itself within the laws. Maybe an abortion can be reported, but the result might not be the same, considering how many, and the laws in some areas, view abortion and the life of the unborn (child).

But to say you have a right to say to any woman in a gendercentric way? May we also approach any man, like the father in this situation, and say the same thing. Why just center on the woman, because she's the pregnant one? Do you feel that you have a right to say what you feel you have to, to any woman, and just women?

If you going to say what you feel, then both genders please, considering, and I feel this the most, maybe a man who is part of the situation could take responsiblity for his actions too.

But the reality of this, I see, one should keep out of other people's business!


This is another thing that gets me, and I think it goes in hand from how I feel about your previous statement in this post. Gender specific, and it's getting out of hand. Not that I disagree about not smoking and drinking while pregnant, no you really shouldn't and I didn't. But how do you help a woman, who needs support, and the like, when she is pregnant? I do not see much of that? There was even a thing being pushed sometime back, that doctors are trying to encourage all women of childbearing age, no matter if you are married or not, in not doing these things all the time, and other stuff, that you normal do not do when you are not pregnant, like how you eat and take care of yourself. In a sense, it is going way over board in how you care of a child, who has not even be concieved. Yet, no one encourages the men, who have more years in fathering children, to take care of themselves, when I have read that what they intake and their age also has an effect to their future children!
It's all women, and it's all demands of what she has to do, because one is worried about the unborn, and yet this falls short, because no one pushes the men, when they effect the unborn too! If the unborn was that much of a worry, I should be seeing more things being pushed to get the men to act responsiblle to themselves and the women and unborn as well. So, to lecture any woman, and just the women, I will not justify as a thoughtful thing, until men are just as harassed. Until then, I cannot help that there are other agendas here in just talking to the women, and just the women themselves.

Personally, there should be more classes on responsibility on being a mother and father. If women are going to have lectures, so should the men, and another thing is that this pro-marriage and pro-family programs have got to stop! These programs are pushing people that it's an expected thing to do, when not all can do it. If women are the ones taking all the responsibility of childrearing, with no thanks and no support and are the ones supposed to do all the work before and after, then all women should be told they have a choice to not marry and have children and to have full capibilites in having children or not, and that also means if they want themselves sterilized.
My feeling, you want to lecture the mother of an unborn child? I think you are too late in acting on something that should have had other ways in dealing with it, before hand.

I sympathise with some of what you are saying watchful, and everytime this debate comes up i stick my neck out with a very non negotiable position and get howled down. I can only stick by what i know is right.

My point about slavery is that once it was seen just as abortion is now. It was completely legal, and few people thought it right to criticise, either the instituttion /practice of slavery, or the people who kept slaves.

That is largely the position of many people today (fundamentalist christians and ethical objectors to abortion being the exception.)

The basis for this belief was the same as the justification for abortion Neither black people nor unborn children being accepted as humans.

Only when you deny people humanity can you feel free to treat them as non humans. Hitler did exactly the same with the jews.

First priority, all must recognise the unborn as human beings, just as now all must recognise black people as humans. You know, they even used the same rationale. Blacks cant think, they dont feel pain, they are animalistic rather than human, they dont have souls etc.


Second, to your point about women. At present it is women who are claiming undisputed control over their bodies at all times, even when pregnant. I was pointing out that that control is not a natural human, or god given right . It is a right which has ebbed and flowed many times in human history, generally with negative effects for women. Women, in general, for many reasons including the nature of our society, have never possesed the individual freedoms they have now in western societies.

I was just pointing out to them that this freedom morally and ethically stops at the point where it results in the death of another human being. This is only applicable to women because only women carry a child physically attached as part of their own body, and so only they face the real ethical dilemmas resulting from this.

While they have the right to preserve their own health and life, they otherwise simply don't possess an inalienable right to end the life of another human being.

Physically men can only harm an unborn child indirectly, thus my comments were not directed so much at them, but of course they may contribute to passive smoking which can affect an unborn child, and they need to be responsible in such areas

yes one of the consequences of motherhood is that many responsibilites fall back solely on the mother, particularly until the child is born. But then so does much of the joy and wonder of motherhood,and the lifelong love and connection it can engender between mother and child.however if women abrogate/give up those responsibilities then they need to face the possibiity that society will step in and protect the childs life.

i cannot disagree with any of the points you make about the need for responsible parent hood after birth by both parents, and education classes for both , but i cant quite understand your comments about pro marriage and pro family programmes. Marriage and family, for any faults they may have, are still the biggest protection offered for children and essential, given present social structures for the formation of a viable unit to raise, nurture and educate children through to independent adulthood.

.We no longer have a village available to raise a child and a functional family unit is the absolute lowest denominator for doing this well and successfully (individuals may prove an exception to this , but constant observation of young people and their parents over 4 decades clearly indicates that, in general, children where there is a balance of time available for them, are happier, more socialised, and more successful than children where that time is not available.)

In present conditions, without a family unit, it is increasingly diffficult for parents to have that time available for their children,

Someone doesn't know the definition of irony.


If you want to say ethically it is difficult to refute your position, fine. But your ethics are only based on your opinions and standards. This is so because it is your opinion about when a child is a child. You really need to understand this, which unfortunately you have shown you don't. Logically though, your arguments are like a used kleenex.

Abortion is the killing of a human. There is no way around it.

To say a woman has a right to do it, is like saying a mother has a right to kill her children. In a pro-choice world would Susan Smith be free?

You can all try to say it is not a human but your just being blind. Period.

If a girl is old enough to make the choice to have sex she is old enough to use a rubber, birth control, or give the baby to one of the many couples who cannot concieve.

As for rape, these cases account for such a small section of the abortions in America today it is really not an excuse to keep it legal. But a baby does not deserve to be murdered for the sins of his father.

There is always ADOPTION!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PPamlX4HQ0...feature=related

Also if you say a woman has a right to abortion b/c it is her body, then we should all stand up for our rights. It is descrimination:

You should not have to wear a seatbelt, its your body,
Do all the crack you want to, it's your body,
Suiside bomber, okay it's your body,
Suiside, go ahead it is your body.
walk around naked, okay it is your body.

As far as I can find it's about 48 million children who are aborted each year. Add that to the number of kids already given up for adoption and you'll see how vastly the number of children put up for adoption is compared to the number who adopt. So it's easy to say adoption is always an option but it's a fantasy world you're living in if you think it would work.

Would Susan Smith be judged in a pro-choice world? Hehe look around and see that in the west we are a pro-choice world and she was...

All I know is two couples who are friends of mine have been on waiting list to adopt a baby for nearly a year. Alot of people sadly prefer babies to children when it comes to adoption. So an aborted baby has a good chance of having a good home if put up for adoption.

Susan Smith may not be in prison but she is in a mental hospital under lock and key. And you say the west is prochoice I live in Texas and I disagree. (Maybe it is just my area)

Want me to keep going? There are people who are not allowed to smoke in their own homes.... why? Cause someone decided "I want your business to be my business.. this isn't your life its mine. Put it out"

Dry countys. I live in one.. No hard liqure EVER and no beer on the weekends. Screw them all. I don't drink but WHY do they have a RIGHT to tell me I can't? Who gave them that power? My body, if I want to get wasted I will!

And it keeps going. Its my body.. and anyone who wants to tell me I can't do what I want to do with it.. is just going to get a black eye. Yeah.. you stick yer nose in my life, I stick my fist in yours. Lets see how you like that intervention.

Actually I do agree with you, I don't drink either. But not being able to buy on Sundays makes me want to go out and get some jackdaniels just to rebel (I know, grow up, right)

I kinda got up on my soapbox. I think you should be able to do what you want with your own body even if science says it is dangerous. I don't think you should do what you want with a babies body though.
An innocent child is involved when it comes to abortion.

Did you know that a fetus has it's own blood type? A baby with a mother that has AIDS is not gurananteed to have it as well. A fetus is as much a part of his dad as mom even in the womb. A child in the womb is a whole and compleat human. The mother provides enviroment and food, much like most do after they are born. Bottom line is the baby is not a leech or a parsite, or even a part of the mother, he is a comleat human by the time a woman knows she's pregnant.

Hmm.. My aunt just adopted 2 kids. Both American both local. Was no problem at all for her. She was on the waiting list like ALL adopters but thats because she was screened, but that always happens. Once she passed their inspection though, one after the other they dropped into her lap. They even offered her a 3rd. All new borns. Shes going for a 3rd but shes going to wait til these are older. Oh and you might be interested to know... the costs for adopting a child can go above $10,000.. want to go over seas? You're looking at twice that.

Maybe its the area I'm in? I grew up with kids from an orphonage. Went to school with 20 of them, maybe more, they where all pretty screwed up in the head.. there are NOT enough people to adopt them all! Not enough people willing to take on that responsibility. If I could aford another child, I would take one in a heartbeat but I can't, not with food and gas and taxes going up every other day.

But does that make it okay for a mother to kill her child?
There must be a better way. . .

And then we get back to the real issue.. when is it a baby and when is it a fetus.. just a bundle of cells that MIGHT become a baby. I agree with 1st trimester abortions. Its not formed yet, It is considered by scientific terms as a fetus. It has no thoughts, no feelings, no memory. So in my oppenion this is not a child, this is exactly what it is called, a fetus, for the first trimester.. the LEGAL time table for abortion in the US.. its a womans right to remove it. There ave been 20 week old babys survive outside the womb. thats 4 months. 2nd trimester. Unless the mother is in distress.. its illegal to remove at this time. The laws are in place.. have been in place for some years and thank whatever gods you want to that these laws are based on social and scientific standards and not religious ones.

I have to get hormone shots every other month (as I said I can't have kids), and do it at a reproductive clinic, one that does abortions. What I see isn't caring people who want a better life for someone elses unwanted child.. I see religious fanatics with there posters of late 2nd trimester abortions trying to scare young girls into having children they can't afford, can't care for. What about the mother? Do they even consider that this woman might one day cure cancer? No, its the child.. always the child. The mother IS a person. A function self reliant thinking feeling living breathing person and people forget this! So it comes down to intimidation and fear. And those people holding those signs.. mostly men, sad to say. Have they ever had to make those kinds of choices? I really doubt it.. they wouldn't use the scare tactics they do in that case. How many of you pro-lifers have ever been inside an abortion clinic? The one I go to gives safe sex education classes twice a weak, will hand out condoms to anyone who asks. Offers free consoling. Walk in off the street and you can talk to someone about anything you want. They give information and alternatives, and have a list of adoption firms hanging on the wall and printed up for anyone to take. All this information inside, and nothing but fear and hate outside. in TN you can't have an abortion under the age of 18 without a parents consent.. they work around that. Information is free to everyone, every age.. and the pro-lifers? What do they hand out? pamphlets for churches and fliers showing the process of abortion, how painful it is, what the fetus looks like.. this isn't information! This is fear! It doesn't teach anything! And it makes me HATE the people who would force this fear on girls who are already scared!

Keep telling the pro-choicer to find another way.. The pro-lifers need to find another way! Obviously yours isn't working.

Your right about the tactics of prolifers being horrible. I my self would never go outside a clinic and make a woman feal worse for an already hard choice.
My friend had an abortion b/c her husband was going to Iraq and she did not want to have a baby alone. Then she had another when her husband did not want to raised anothers mans child, then another for reasons I do not know. One woman three dead babies. all because the choice was there easy for her to make.
Another girl I know has abortions instead of using birth control because she says birthcontrol makes her gain weight.
It is an easy out.

When is a fetus a human? Well by the time a woman discovers she is pregnant, the fetus has a heart beat and brain cells. . .


I am on the fence on the day after pill. . . Is that not a viable alternative to killing an already formed fetus. The day after pill stops the egg and sperm from joining right? I don't know alot about it but it seems like an ok idea in comparison to abortion. Maybe like meeting in the middle of prolife and prochoice.
by saying 'yes you can take this pill if hav and accident or are raped, but don't kill the child once it has a heart beat."

So you are saying there is a point where its not a child. Where it is a grouping of cells? The heart forms at about 22 days.. nearly a full month after conception. Or are you just tossing an idea in the air?

22 Days a.k.a. 3 weeks, a woman does not typically know she is pregnant untill 4 weeks. By the time a girl knows she is pregnant she has a baby in her womb, not a mass of cells.

Even as a mass of cells imo it is a baby human, but I digress.

as for the morning after pill it stops the egg and sperm from coming together, before the baby is even formed.

The second the sperm hits the egg the cells start mutlypying and forming a person.

opps, I tried to edit and somehow reposted. . . sorry

Alright as soon as the egg and sperm meet. I'm sure you know how it works.. 2 cells then 4 cells then 8 cells.. are 8 cells a person? are 16 cells a person? 32 cells? So you can call 32 cells a person but your aged relatives that you too care of for so long.. those aren't people? Can I ask what you are? I'm starting to doubt your humanity.

When did I ever say my aged relitives are not people. No matter what age a person is they are a human. 1 week gestation or 110. Where did you get the idea that about my aged relitives? Maybe your confusing me with someone else. I don't think I ever mentioned my or anyone elses aged relitives.

If I did it would be to say that they deserve the same rights as anyone else.

Alright it was walker, not you. Sorry about that.

I think I'm done with this. Agree to disagree. Not worth any more of my time.

Mr. Walker:
First, I must conclude, that it is a very humane thing you are pointing out, don't get me wrong. The thing is, you do realize how everyone views pregnancy and the unborn. That will always be a big controversal debate for a long time. You wont have that humanity question when it comes to an actual independent person within slavery.

Are you saying men always had a right to control their bodies, but women never did and never should? Women should have the freedoms, all the time. We are the ones having the pregnancy! We may should all feel like never getting pregnant at all, if this is so much trouble. How would you feel, and what would you do, if all the women decided, that's it, we're not getting pregnant anymore. It's thankless, it's painful, and we can't handle it?!?! Shall we all do that? Put yourself in a woman's position and think about it!

I see your point, but it should be along with men being there taking that responsiblity too!! My point to you is, they should hold half the blame!! It's their fault too, they cause the grief on the poor women who see no choice! And because women carry the child, there should also be some compasion to them as well. Again, maybe we all should just stop getting pregnant and sterlize ourselves to avoid all the hassles and abortions?!

Only if they also bring the men responsible forward! If you want to stop this, get it at it's core!! I telling you, also fault the men!!! Women should not be getting the full force of this. If not, I do not have any sympathy to your cause. Stop taking it for granted, that it's all the woman's fault in such a 'man is the breadwinner, head of the household kind of world. Doesn't make sense!


No it's not! How can the institution itself protect them? I have seen single parents together raise and protect their kids, and I have seen plenty married parent neglect and abuse their kids, so I do not believe that stuff. Marriage does not get you jobs, feed you, and pay for college educations! Not everyone is capable of handling marriage and children, and I see that happening daily. How can marriage protect the unresponsible and the unsure, and the uncaring! Unless you have proof, which I doubt for what I have seen plenty, I do not believe that.


Prove it!

by gabolai:
If the boy is old enough to have sex, then he too should. What if he doesn't want to, when she asks? What about the boy?? It's takes two!! Until then, that is why women are asking full control, because no one is controlling the men!!


And I get on my soapbox, because believe it or not, it's not abortion I'm defending, I'm defending the women's right to not take all of the responsiblity.

People, you really want to limit abortion, start focusing on the guy too!!! It takes two to tango, and yet you play solitare with the result! You want to blame the woman, then you blame the men along with them. Stop looking at this with one blind eye. Please, open both of them and see both genders. You would think that women became pregnant asexually!! I mean, it really seems that way!!!

I'm telling you, get at the men, teach boys responsiblity in relationships and such, and I bet abortions would be less. It's been said by many, it's a man's world, well, than how can you expect the woman to take full responsibility?!

by KyrusRose:
Bingo!

No, because the children can be taken care of by someone else or may even survive on their own. A fetus is completely dependent on the mother for life. The fetus has no life outside the mother's body. This is a very, very special case. Unique even. The mother is not so much killing the fetus as removing herself from its care. She is saying "No, not now, not me." As a consequence the fetus perishes. Just as no one is legally bound to invite a starving man into one's home just because one has food in the fridge, neither should a mother be forced to give up her life for the developing fetus that would perish without recourse to her body.


Of course not. That's actually murder. Murder is a morally corrosive act. The person who gets away with murder is warped by it. Think of O.J. Simpson. Susan Smith was a warped individual. On the other hand, I've known several women who've had abortions and every one of them is a well adjusted, law abiding citizen.


Strictly speaking, I would agree with you that it is human, but it is not an individual. The fetus has no rights as an individual. I believe human individuals have the right to determine how they live.


Birth control fails, and forcing a woman to carry the baby to term is making her a hostage for 9 months--a slave to whomever has arrogated authority over her life. You and your ilk have no problem forcing a woman to carry a baby to term--by your lights she somehow signed away here free will when she had sex. You would force her unwillingly to risk her health--and in some cases even her life--because of the mere chance of pregnancy she faced when she had sex. How that is anything other than punishing her for being sexually active, I don't know. It is unjust and an outrage against the individual right of the mother to decide what she does with her life. Until the developing fetus is viable, it is a part of her body; it is not an individual, so it has no individual rights.

You are correct. I fail to see any irony in my statement. If you read the many words i wrote on this, you might have noticed that i pointed out i was arguing from an ethical principle, and the real world complicates things.

You might also have noted that while i said i had an ethical duty to point out to women that abortion is ethically and morally wrong, in most cases, that i would never do anything to interfere with the ability of a woman to have an abortion , and what ever her choice i would (and have) offer her financial, emotional and social support to make the most from her life And these were not women with whom i had any physical relationship, simply people i cared about.
If there is an irony here, try contrasting my point of view with that of a woman who simply says "Its my body i can do with it what i will including killing a foetus which will inevitably develop into another human being of equal value to myself.." Apart from being unethical, it is an incredibly selfish pov (unless modified by some of those many real world scenarios i mentioned). It is also a very modern pov.

She is denying physically the most basic of all human rights. I am merely pointing this out to her. Nothing else(perhaps you are understandably confusing me with more proactive anti abortionist)

Also you have a basic misunderstanding of ethics which i also went into detail on previously. Of course you wish to believe that ethical standards vary from person to person and that everyones standards are equal. Only by doing this can you establish an ethical defence for abortion. Unfortunately you are incorrect. Despite modern opinion that we all have an intrinsic freedom to do anything we want, that is not how societies work. There are ,what is known as, universal ethical standards, and they do apply to all humans. Just try taking the life of another human being in any case except abortion and see what happens to you in almost every society in the world. Murder is universally ethically unacceptable.

I can appreciate you disagree with me about when a child becomes human. ieven said that some peole disagree. I explained my definition of humanity. You are free to disagree with me. However it is difficult to argue with the logic that because every conceived embryo will in general develop into a mature human without any intervention in the process, then from the moment of conception a human being comes into existence. It is not a fully formed hu,an nor does it yet poses all the attributes of a fully developed human , but thaen neither does a human child up to about the age of 20 for girls and nearly 30 for boys when full brain function matures.

The only reason there is any argument for abortion is because one human is physically attached to another. Only once it is recognised that both those humans have at least potenially equal value, can we fairly weigh when it may be necessary to kill one in order to save the other (on rare occasions mothers have argued that if only one of them can be saved it should be the unborn child.)
If there is a failure to understand the reality of the situation, i fear it is on your part, And while i like your metaphorical (indicated by the word like) allusion to my logic being " like a used kleenex," i'm also afraid you'll have to provide some supporting arguments if iam to take it seriously.

Yes i am aware of that. Unfortunately in our society MOST PEOPLE are wrong. Plain and simple



No im saying that the physical reality is that only women get pregnant and thus only they can physically determine what will happen to an unborn child. fairness does not come into it. It's just life. As a matter of fact we were unable to have children despite wanting them very much. There were none available for us to adopt despite being professional middle class and able to provide a good home. instead we fostered and informally cared for quite a few children from newborns until adulthood. As aman i cant put myself in a womans position. I can say that, as a woman, my wife is even more absolutely opposed to abortion than I am, so its not just a gender based failure to understand.
Also i would have thought that for the first time in history access to modern contraception would be a solution to most of these concerns and a much better one all round than abortion.



Of course men should be responsible, although i can't see babies or pregnancy in terms like blame and grief and fault. . We should actually be educating peole to understand that sex, babies etc are perfectly natural and nothing to feel guilt or blame about. That would not help the people who financialy, or physically, cannot support the children they have, but it would remove many of the problems associated with, and which cause, abortions.

In australia there is a comprehensive child support system through the family law courts where men do have to take financial responsibility for their children and courts will take the money out of their pay packets to do so. In fact this sometimes goes too far the other way when a man who has fathered a child but then never seen it again for 15 years is forced to pay quite a percentage of his wage for the maintenance of that child . Custody, access and visiting rights do not affect the payments.



At the moment only women get a say in the abortion of a child. Thus despite the many failings of men (other than myself of course) it is women who will be held accountable for the life of their child. If you just read the posters on this site you will see that many reflect the view that abortion is no concern of the amn/men involved and purely a womans decision. I disagree but if that is the "feminist position" then they have to concede the corrollary, that only women are responsible for abortion and its effects.




There are plenty of exceptions and my views are largely based on personal observation and conclusion so your opinion is equally reasonable. My basic assumption here was a liitle old fashioned In an economic unit of marriage, there is one person to provide an income for the daily necessities of life. That leaves one other person to entertain, socialise, educate, and physically care for the children. This worked as a socio economic model for thousands of years. .

Personally i see a connection between the breakdown (for many reasons) of this model and many of the problems faced by modern societies, and in particular by our children. Im a professional educator, and we do our best, but because so many families are failing to look after their children, this responsibility is being thrown back on people like me, early childhood workers, health professionals and, for goodness sake, even sports trainers and other adults with whom children have regular contact.



I could, but not easily over the internet. I was a child counsellor for many years, dealing with all the issues raised here. I had to do a lot of reading on the issue. There exist historical and modern studies which clearly show that i am correct. But i dont expect you to take my word for it, and i am not in the position to provide you with the same knowledge i have gained over 35 years in my profession. As one example,there are many statistics which show the declining amount of time parents spend with children today compared with the past for example in books like "work and leisure" authors something like tomango/tomago

Mr. Walker, hypothetically speaking if there where lets say a woman who became pregnant and was unable to financially support a child and/or could not be a responsible parent and lets say she had a job that was physically dependent and she couldn't risk nine months off of work or she goes to one of those school's where they expel you if you get pregnant. Lets also say that her family is crazy and mean and would disown her if she became pregnant without being married. Would you find this an acceptable or at least justifiable case for an abortion?

Mr. Walker:
No, I'm sorry, I do not see it as plain and simple. I cannot say, that I can just say most people are wrong. I think that a lot of people are just not correct, but I just can't say there are wrong. I cannot come out and say you are wrong, but I can think that you are not correct in just saying just women are wrong. And you cannot prove that they are wrong or not. The thing is that is the point, is that you cannot even begin to prove that, no matter how you go about it. I have seen this unborn is alive or not controversy go on for ages without an conclusion, with both sides having their sources. It will never end with a conclusion.
I am not disputing your wife is also opposed to it, I believe it, like a lot of women are opposed to it. LIke I know, a lot of men are also for women's right to chose. I am trying to show you how I see you as being wrong for you to think that you can just lecture and blame women only. You're right fainess doesn't come into it, but it should. You should consider my point of the what if, if all women decided not to have children at all? It will not happen, I know, but if everyone women decided not to, scared from all the pain and the responsiblity, what would you think?
The contraception issue is not always there for everyone. There are a lot here in the states are trying to take it away from us, because of their issues, that doesn't make sense. You cannot take it for granted that contraception is always going to be there, so you cannot assume it will be.

Yes, we should be educating, but it's not happening. I wasn't also meaning educating on how to look at pregnancy, but how to take responsiblity. That is also what I meant, but I thought you would have understand that too. It's pro-responsiblity on both parties that I am talking about. I brought this up with a customer in Jersey, when we both were discussing this, and she loved it. She knew what I meant.

The states have the same thing, I believe, and you're right, sometimes the men do not have a right for a say at all, and I am also expressing this to stop as well. I think it's horrible, that some fathers have no idea about their children, until they're full grown, and the lives wasted that the father wished he had. This has to change, until then, please be fully aware of the feelings and sitatuions of them now.


Pretty much that they do, and I want you to understand that I am not fully on this, but the one sidedness of responsibltiy is what I consider wrong in this. I haven't been to the site you mentioned, but I believe you, it happens here. Much that you see that it's a "feminist position", to say an old adage, we still have a long way t go. There is still a lot of conservative feelings and ways still being pushed. Plus, I don't think women want to be responsiblle for abortion and it's effects, we are actually pushed into it, by situations, that a lot of times, are out of women's control. It's a wrong way for "feminnism" to take effect, but if women were responspected and had the freedoms a lot longer than we had, than maybe this debate would be a moot point.

Thank you, and I understand.
Which I believe, really didn't work. And that wasn't really around for as long as you think it was. I believe that was only during the early century, and pretty much the family unit's way of life depended on their environment. Farming families all did the work, husband, wife, and their children went out and worked, and did all the responsiblities in the home.

Granted, I see that here, and yes, that is a problem for you and your peers. I was pretty also expressing, that we shouldn't push everyone into the expectant marriage and children, before they have them, if they don't and cannot care for them. There are many conservative lobbies here, that I see, that are expressing pro-marriage and pro-family, to the single and childless, that shouldn't be done, shaming them into having families they are not ready for, blaming them for their self-centerness. So many of my friends have been almost pushed into marriage and family, and lot of them don't care in the way that people think they should about their families, because they really didn't want to marry and have kids. Even though in the end, I really wanted to get married and have kids, if I had made a choice to do neither, the backlash would be incredible all my life. There was even someone who looked at me, and asked my dad 'why didn't he marry me off yet!?' That happens a lot, and I do believe a lot of the problems stems of so many pushing the lives of others. To much involvment in one thing, that does harm in the end, and not enough involvment in the things, that matter.
Granted, I won't dispute what you know, but I cannot fully believe it if you don't have proof. I also have seen sooo much, it's sickening, in my twenty years of working in retail in various states and companies. Living on various military bases, where there is a whole cultural mix in itself, I have seen things that nearly drove me to drink. I have even heard a man beat his wife, on the other side of my bedroom in the housing we lived in. I have seen very young children wonder around in only a diaper, in the early cold morning, because their parents were not aware and functional to know they left the house. Too many times, mothers have killed their children, while their husbands were deployed. How can one say marriage will protect these people, when it hasn't? It's not marriage, it's how the law views marriage and the people in it. Let's just stop getting into the privacy of marriage and help the people themselves instead. That would make sense!
There is no fairness in this, but I'm sorry, there should be!

Hypothetically, no. You canrt justify abortion, any more than you can justify the murder of any other innocent human, particularly when they have no say in the matter. Hypothetically i'd do something about one or more of the factors you include, so that the abortion was not necessary. (and again, in my real life, that is precisely what i have done)

In real life (and i thought id made this clear numerous times) it may be necessary to permit the abortion as the lesser of two evils. Personally i dont think losing a job or getting expelled from a school is sufficient reason to get an abortion, but thats my value judgement. Women in other cultures actually risk death by having an illegitimate child. Thats a good enough reason. Getting kicked out of your home might be too, but personally if that was my situation, id leave that home and never return, if i was treated that way, just as soon as I was physically able to.

Abortion is rarely, if ever, ethically correct. The problem with creating hypothetical excuses for it, is that it lowers the bar, in evaluating what is an acceptable reason. For example in some places abortion is simply a woman's right without any medical, psychological or social reason. It is just established as one of the rights a woman has over her own body.

Some people undoubtedly see nothing wrong with that. In general, public opinion moves slowly and incrementally, . I do not accept, based on ethical values rather than any religious ones, that a woman does have an absolute right over an unborn child.

I will always continue to argue that point, loudly and firmly, while in practice offering any support i can to help women either keep their child or to get through an abortion safely and without too much emotional trauma

(I cant force my beliefs on another person only argue them) and my ethics and morality dont only not let me attach any blame to the woman but actually "force me" to offer all the help i can. Thats what a system of ethics and morality does to a person who lives by them.
I am in favour of both full sexual and social education including the teaching of responsibilities which watchful advocates. Not only theoretically in favour of it but for many years taught health education to teenagers including relationships including the validity of homosexual relationships, sex education, responsible use of alcohol the physical effects of drugs and so forth. As a teacher i know that knowledge in any subject offers not only power but protection. Ill let you imagine some of the lessons i had with 13 to 15 year olds where I idemonsrated using a condom on a banana. The funny thing is, given my own lifestyle choices, i had never bought one or used one personally, so i had to educate myself before i could educate the kids.

I dont personally approve of abortion un*spam filter*, homosexuality, or the taking of drugs and alcohol, but given that young people will almost universally experiment with such things, part of my responsibility as an adult ,and particularly as an educator, is to present the facts ,the joys, and the dangers of all these things, and then let the young people use their own best judgement.If i have done my job well, they will have a higher chance of both survival, and a healthy and happy life.

Hope this image (of me, the banana, a condom and 25 hysterical teenagers) sticks in some readers' minds and does a little to balance that of a pompous old ********* which i apparently created in at least one reader's mind, through my tone and written style. Im lucky to work in an education system which has a sensible and rational approach to all these issues. As a result it is many years since i ever encountered a teenage pregnancy, and then the young children with the support of family commuity and government, brought up wonderful children of their own, whom i am now teaching all over again (so it was at least 15 years ago)

Watchful i hope the previous post of mine addresses some of the issues and concerns you raised. I dont even want to argue with you personally,(on a personal level) because i have never walked in your shoes, or experienced the things you have.

I have had my own experiences previously described and i have a philosophical ethical position on abortion. But, in person, I would treat you as i try to treat every one. Non judgementally, with compassion, and an offer of what ever help I could provide. Its because i care so much, especially for kids, that i cannot ever accept seeing them killed, without the very best of reasons for it.

I watched a prog through the week on BBC 2 (if I recall correctly), it was a documentary interviewing approx 6 girls/women who'd been through abortion in the past few years... 1 woman had had 4 abortions in the past 10 yrs... ummm hello... birth control?? Another young lady, she was the one who most shocked me... she had to actually give birth in order to terminate her pregnancy... she was 23wks 6 days preggo...

At 23 weeks, most women feel the baby moving etc... but to go through the birth process in order to "get rid" of the pregnancy... I have no idea how she could have done so. I'm all for everyone making the choice that is right for them, but personally, I disagree with abortion unless in certain cases (rape/health issues).

Just to weigh in... I do not feel that there is ever a time that abortion is the "right" thing to do. We can justify it in all kinds of ways, but justification does not make a thing right.

As Mother Theresa said:

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy!"

I too will take any child that is in danger if abortion, regardless of the circumstances of it's conception.
Within my family I have lost 6 neices and nephews to abortion, and I had no chance of saving them. These are children I would have cherished, and they would have been cousins to my son, who is still the only grandchild. THese children were aborted not because of rape, or incest, they were aborted because of selfishness and the inability of people to control themselves and make wise choices.
I feel terrible for the men and women who experience abortion themselves, and I want them to find peace concerning their decisions. However, to do so, they must learn from their mistakes and not repeat them. Using abortion as birth control is the ultimate crime against God and man.

Lord forgive us all for the blood of these children.

From our many debates with each other, I know you have compassion, and I understand where you stand on abortion. You shouldn't change that, and I wouldn't want you to push me. I believe you on the things you like and do offer. I believe you on your experiences, as I hope you believe me about my experiences. The thing is, in the process of treating me equal, as I do believe you would, if I was pregnant and it's a situation that I am suffereing in, please do not just put the blame on me, like I have full control of the situation. Why don't you get a name of the father, and go talk to him and sway him to take his responsiblity? I think it's irresponsible just to lecture the women. I think it's understandable to do so, but I don't think it's right until you talk to the perspective father's as well. I stand by my feelings and points, and will not sway when women still get full responsiblity and the blame and the suffering, when they are only half the party in the situation of a pregnancy. Do you still feel the same way in lecturing a raped victim on her way of getting an abortion? I'm not talking about feeling bad about her and angry about the rapist, I mean really knowing how to help her, and finding ways of dealing with the crime of rape. I'm thinking, until full responsiblity is on all that is involved, I don't think you can help one ounce in the long run, by just putting the guilt on women only, mostly so when they are probably had lack of controlling the situation in certain circumstances.
As I see also in your debate with someone else, what you feel about the unborn, is not the same as others, and what you may feel, will not be a given in the long run. If there was a definate way of proving it, I am sure it would have been proven right now. you want to help the unborn, help the mom, not hinder and blame her, and start doing some real work. Look at the reality of all the situations behind it, and find and lecture the father. Until then, I think it's wrong and irresponsible to just blame the women, and only the women. That is unfair, wrong, and not helping. Bottomline!

Well, from my understanding, that seems to be pretty much most of the cases. There are some women who do use it as birth control, but not a lot. Yes, that is wrong. I just think that many people who think most women feel that way, is way off base.
I don't think abortion should be the first solution, only the last. My personal stance, is a big change in the laws, and how we look upon responsibility on both men and women, and stop the programs that push expectations on everyone, when it's not for everyone. These programs make people feel shamed into getting into situations, that adds to this situations, when the best thing is, if they feel what is best for their life, meaning staying single and childless, then they should be cheered for it. More responsiblity and realistic reasoning to push on boys and girls, men and women, and not expect everyone is going to stick to one path of life. That doesn't breed responsiblity, but dependancy on something that wont work for some. More pro-responsiblity for all, and less one sided arguing.

Watch full ive been examining myself and my attitudes to try and see why you feel i "blame" only the woman. I dont see it that way, but perhaps I do feel that, largely, only women have control over abortion. In all the events prior to abortion and after birth then yes men must take their form of responsibilty.

I think perhaps my views might be influenced a little by the young ladies i have worked with. Some of these honestly didnt know who the father was, due to multiple sexual partners (in the days also before dna testing could easily establish that) Others knew, alright, but absolutely refused to have anything to do with the father, or have him come anywhere near them or the child.

This was perhaps understandable, but made it difficult to involve the father in any mutual responsibility for the child. In the cases of abortion, the girls did not want the fathers to know that they were pregnant and i was thus legally unable to inform the fathers or thus involve them in any share of responsibility.

Looking at your comments, I can see that my particular experiences might have coloured my general attitude towards shared resonsibility for birth or abortion.

If that is so, I apologise for any hurt i have done you. I have already said that all young people, men and women need to be educated in sex and sexuality. I also acknowledge that both genders are responsible for, and need to be taught that they are responsible for, both their sexual activities and any results which might come from those activities This includes std,s, pregnancy, birth, and abortion., but also the emotional entanglements and stresses which a sexual relationship brings, particularly between two young people.

I too think, that with you and I living in seperate countries and our various career fields, I should take into account that you will get people, most of them in these situations. I'm glad you see that it's not the overall cases, and yes I appreciate your response. I just wish a majority of the people saw this and thought of a better way of intergrating this into the public. (I didn't realize you couldn't contact the father), and I think things need to change. Thank you although, and no, you didn't hurt me, just had me perplexed on how this is being seen, when I think it shouldn't be. I'm more upset at what I have witnessed in my job, and mostly what I witnessed on the base that I lived on. Way too much of expectations on the wives and women, and less helping them, in which in the end, ended up hurting. I too, have been lied to to my face, but yet I was expected to act like a military wife and not be helped in doing so. One tends to get a more 'seasoned' and harsh attitude after that, toward others who conservitevly view women's roles and how they are treated, . *shrugs*

I'd rather abortions not take place and would more often then not recommend against them but I where I live teen pregnancy is common. When I was in high school I'd say at least one out of every twenty girls were pregnant or at one time where. I have also seen instances where the foster care system fails.

I cannot fully pick one side to the abortion debate because both sides seem wrong to me, either you kill an unborn baby or force a woman into pregnancy. As cold as this may sound I am also unsure as to how much value I place on an unborn life. If it ever came down to a vote I probly just wouldn't vote at all.

Sex Education is incredibly important and your banana story isn't as embarrassing as me trying to use a condom the first time without anybody have showing me the banana thing.

Also if abortions are done they should never be aloud to be done this late.

Agreed. I thought the woman would need some sort of medical reason (the pregnancy is risking the womans life, the baby is gravely deformed and wont survive after birth) to make an abortion that late.

Ironic because you are challenging the woman's rights. It is pretty simple. Would you sign an anit-abortion bill? I suspect yes, therefore you are clearly impinging on another's rights, and I have a duty to object. BTW, we are discussing the real world, so things are complicated.


It all goes back to the matter of when is it just a bunch of cells and when is it a human. And we disagree. I can never justify for someone else who wants an abortion that they should do everything they can and have the child. Whether or not I agree with abortion is irrelevant. I just believe the woman should be able to decide for herself.


I assure you I understand ethics. And of course there is a universal ethical code of conduct that says to not murder. But there is NO universally accepted code about whether or not an early developing fetus is human and capable of being murdered. And like I said, my personal view about abortion being morally or ethically wrong is just completely irrelevant. I should and don't have any right to let my opinion on the issue, take away a right of free choice to any woman.


Logically your argument just doesn't stand. Logically for THE INDIVIDUAL WOMAN who actually has to make these very real, very life changing decisions from HER POINT OF VIEW-

Would it make sense for a young woman to drop out of school and get a low paying dead end job? No.
Would it make sense for her to constantly regret the child and always be thinking "what if?" No. Would that be fair to the child? No.
Would it make sense for her to never have enough money and be able to provide for the child because she was forced to get a lousy job to support the child? No.
Would it make sense for her to raise the child in a fatherless home or with many different father figures with no semblance of stability? No.
Would it make sense for her to be shunned by friends and family and be left on her own and kicked out of the house with no means to support a child? No.
Would it make sense for her to go through something so painful and all consuming as child birth, only to see it given up for adoption, and two years later decide she wants it now? No.
etc.
etc.

You see, try putting yourself in a woman's shoes who actually has to make the decision. A decision that would be hard enough as it is. And then getting all the more complicated by people telling her she has no right to get an abortion or she has no values or morals. I don't care how ethical or moral you want to make this debate. We can argue over that forever. But nobody should be able to take away the womans right to choose. It is that simple.

Unles you think that killing Babies is No