Welcome to Gilead

[WTFH]

I am absolutely against for sex selection (unless for medical reasons) see what that has done to China and the south asian population.

I think if we understand the reasons for unwanted pregnancy we can prevent it happening in many cases making abortion unnecessary as other countries do.

If we are going to supply it on demand we need to follow the rules and review to see if they can be improved.

How about castrating all males (it can be reversed) until they can prove they are sensible & capable enough to be a father?

Last time I checked, the number of medical abortions following artificial insemination was very low.

And if you thing male castration is interfering too much in someone else's body, then the father should be made to contribute significantly to the child's upbringing until it has finished education. Why punish the person with the womb for an act that involved someone else as well?

[d000hg]

Nice to see you equate abortion to paedophilia.

I'm not, I'm making the point that "you're not a woman your view isn't valid" is self-evidently nonsense.

Although that said, which has the most detrimental effect on a child's life, being killed in the womb or being sexually abused?

[d000hg]

Women should be able to do what they want with their bodies. They have to go through pregnancy and child birth, and they usually end up with most of the burden of child rearing.

Their bodies and their child are different things, is the point. Can a lady breast-feeding take loads of drugs and booze or is that child abuse?

[vetran]

How about castrating all males (it can be reversed) until they can prove they are sensible & capable enough to be a father?

Last time I checked, the number of medical abortions following artificial insemination was very low.

And if you thing male castration is interfering too much in someone else's body, then the father should be made to contribute significantly to the child's upbringing until it has finished education. Why punish the person with the womb for an act that involved someone else as well?

Why are you punishing someone for an act that both consenting adults undertook and had a known risk of pregnancy?

If the Father is willing then let them bring up the child.

If the father is named even if he didn't want a child then he will be responsible for child maintenance until the child is no longer dependant that is standard already.

Lets sterilise all women who don't want children so they don't suffer pregnancy and inconvenience fathers? see it just sounds silly.

Why not look at the causes and try to fix them rather than being aggressive.

[WTFH]

Why are you punishing someone for an act that both consenting adults undertook and had a known risk of pregnancy?

If the Father is willing then let them bring up the child.

If the father is named even if he didn't want a child then he will be responsible for child maintenance until the child is no longer dependant that is standard already.

Lets sterilise all women who don't want children so they don't suffer pregnancy and inconvenience fathers? see it just sounds silly.

Why not look at the causes and try to fix them rather than being aggressive.

It's really not that silly, although a vasectomy would be an easier one to reverse, so maybe go with that rather than castration.

And given how overpopulated the world is, having males taking a bit more responsibility for their actions might be a good idea, rather than them blaming women for it.

Where did I say I was punishing anyone?
I've looked at the cause of unwanted pregnancy and come to the conclusion that 50% of the cause is not the woman, but you are advocating that 100% of the solution must be borne by her, and suggesting I am being aggressive for suggesting that is a tad biased.

[vetran]

It's really not that silly, although a vasectomy would be an easier one to reverse, so maybe go with that rather than castration.

And given how overpopulated the world is, having males taking a bit more responsibility for their actions might be a good idea, rather than them blaming women for it.

Where did I say I was punishing anyone?
I've looked at the cause of unwanted pregnancy and come to the conclusion that 50% of the cause is not the woman, but you are advocating that 100% of the solution must be borne by her, and suggesting I am being aggressive for suggesting that is a tad biased.

Where did I say anything had to be borne by women?

I suggested we:
1. Apply the law as it is, no forged consent.
2. Research causes and try to prevent them by education. For instance It takes two to conceive and two can use contraception. THis might even save money and distress.
3. Consider Fathers rights - so far it seems they are castration and abuse from pro abortion nuts.
4. Consider the suffering of foetuses now we know they do, currently death row inmates get treated better before the lethal injection.

You like some others on this thread seem to have created some fantasy in your head that I want to restrict abortion to make women suffer. Please attack the argument not some cobblers you made up.

[SueEllen]

Their bodies and their child are different things, is the point.

When a fetus is inside the womb they aren't different things.

Until you are born you are reliant on the law to recognise when you have a separate body.

In the UK this doesn't happen until you are 23 weeks and 6 days if you don't have an abnormality, or until birth if you do.

Can a lady breast-feeding take loads of drugs and booze or is that child abuse?

At that point the child is a separate entity.

[ladymuck]

Their bodies and their child are different things, is the point. Can a lady breast-feeding take loads of drugs and booze or is that child abuse?

This is a very interesting read, and I'd say yes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK501469/

[vetran]

This is a very interesting read, and I'd say yes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK501469/

yes drinking significant amounts of alcohol will affect the baby or yes its technically possible but unwise?

[d000hg]

When a fetus is inside the womb they aren't different things.

Until you are born you are reliant on the law to recognise when you have a separate body.

In the UK this doesn't happen until you are 23 weeks and 6 days if you don't have an abnormality, or until birth if you do.

So when it pops out it magically transforms from a blob of cells to a human being? I thought I was the one who believed crazy things.
Do we think UK law defines when someone is a person? Or only determines when they are granted legal status? If the law changes from 24 to 22 or 20 weeks, does this represent some fundamental change in truth... clearly not.

Are you saying that an abortion performed once you were already in labour would not be killing a baby? Or during the act of birth itself when it's half in half out? You're saying there's a magical transition point so can you say precisely when that is?