Welcome to Gilead

[NotAllThere]

You are now openly admitting you don't care about women with mental health issues or learning disabilities.

I don't think so. He's saying the vast majority of abortions do not happen to women who are at physical risk, nor to those who have mental health issues or physicals learning disabilities.

Anyway the fundamental point you are missing is that you cannot force a person to use their body to keep someone or something else alive.

Here is the nub of the argument. Not everyone agrees. I might as well say, you're missing the fundamental point that that you can't kill someone just because they happen to be being kept alive by someone else at no risk to their mental or physical well-being.

These two positions are utterly irreconcilable.

[NotAllThere]

Men have no right to have an opinion about abortion.

Two issues with this. Anyone has a right to have an opinion on anything. Whether that opinion has any validity is another issue.

But even if it were true, that would mean that there can be no discussion by women about men having vasectomies. For example.

[Gibbon]

I don't think so. He's saying the vast majority of abortions do not happen to women who are at physical risk, nor to those who have mental health issues or physicals learning disabilities.

Here is the nub of the argument. Not everyone agrees. I might as well say, you're missing the fundamental point that that you can't kill someone just because they happen to be being kept alive by someone else at no risk to their mental or physical well-being.

These two positions are utterly irreconcilable.

Childbirth always has risk, both physical and mental.

Document1 (rcpe.ac.uk)

(Disclaimer:- I am not entering the argument for/against)

[DealorNoDeal]

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.

And, no, men should not be able to veto whether a woman terminates a pregnancy or not.

Ironically, if you did give men a veto, there'd probably be even fewer child births.

[vetran]

I'm making tulip up having not read your post.

FTFY

I said it needs looking at and that we should avoid using abortion as primary contraception.

I assume you would be offended if your husband as the major breadwinner found a new house and moved everyone there without your consent or even consultation?

all this other stuff is in your mind.

[vetran]

I don't think so. He's saying the vast majority of abortions do not happen to women who are at physical risk, nor to those who have mental health issues or physicals learning disabilities.

Here is the nub of the argument. Not everyone agrees. I might as well say, you're missing the fundamental point that that you can't kill someone just because they happen to be being kept alive by someone else at no risk to their mental or physical well-being.

These two positions are utterly irreconcilable.

They are not irreconcilable if you realise that the current situation is the easy path mandated by militant females, if we actually work to make abortions less likely via education and contraception, the rights of both parents to have input (not veto as it seems many assume) we may kill a few less as one poster argues "not human" potential babies.

[NotAllThere]

(Disclaimer:- I am not entering the argument for/against)

I'm trying very hard not to.

I was looking at the evolution of abortion law in the US. For a long time (also in much of Europe) it was considered acceptable, up until the point of "quickening". I.e. when the woman feels the baby move. The idea of protection from conception is relatively new. Even in the Bible, it is recognised there is a difference between a child in the womb and one that's been born. (Exodus 21:22-25 says if two men are fighting and a pregnant women is struck by them and miscarries but no further harm happens to her, then there is a punishment to the men. However, if she dies, then they must die too) - this is not something the more fervent religionists are happy hearing!

I'm definitely in favour of improving the right to keep a baby (at the moment the right to choose seems largely the right to have an abortion - but keeping the baby is often somewhat more difficult, practically), and reducing abortions through education. Instead of imposing abortion bans from conception, or allowing abortion on demand up until 9 months. Maybe society would benefit.

[SueEllen]

FTFY

I said it needs looking at and that we should avoid using abortion as primary contraception.

I assume you would be offended if your husband as the major breadwinner found a new house and moved everyone there without your consent or even consultation?

all this other stuff is in your mind.

You are accusing me of making stuff up and you come up out with some more rubbish.

[SueEllen]

I don't think so. He's saying the vast majority of abortions do not happen to women who are at physical risk, nor to those who have mental health issues or physicals learning disabilities.

Here is the nub of the argument. Not everyone agrees. I might as well say, you're missing the fundamental point that that you can't kill someone just because they happen to be being kept alive by someone else at no risk to their mental or physical well-being.

These two positions are utterly irreconcilable.

Sorry I couldn't answer you but Gibbon has.

Pregnancy and child birth themselves put women at risk of and actually causes death and serious mental and/or physical injury. If you talk to GPs (and other doctors but it depends on their specialism) they will have lots of patients whose social and physical problems put them at risk of mental health issues.

So that's why my point is simply:
"you cannot force a person to use their body to keep someone or something else alive"

[vetran]

Sorry I couldn't answer you but Gibbon has.

Pregnancy and child birth themselves put women at risk of and actually causes death and serious mental and/or physical injury. If you talk to GPs (and other doctors but it depends on their specialism) they will have lots of patients whose social and physical problems put them at risk of mental health issues.

So that's why my point is simply:
"you cannot force a person to use their body to keep someone or something else alive"

as I said making tulip up, that is not what I am proposing. You are just too obsessed about your genders right to kill little foetuses to listen.

Your assertion that every women who gets an unwanted pregnancy is borderline insane isn't helping your argument.