Abortion: Right or Wrong? And what limits?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Abortion: Right or Wrong? And what limits?


http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4207628.ece/alternates/s615/PAY-Emily-Caines.jpg

Last week, a picture of 24-week old Adelaide being delievered was released by her grieving parents. Sadly, Adelaide died from complications from being born so early although other babies have survived at such an age and are regarded as well formed. The photo (above) has prompted some, again, to question the abortion limit or even abortion entirely as to what constitutes a child and the fact that babies have survived at the 24-week legal abortion week suggestions are rife that this limit is far too high.

The ins and outs of abortion are well known, so I will not go too deeply into them.... the broad sweep being that ultimately a termination is the choice of the woman who is carrying the child within legal time limits, and that the point at which a foetus becomes a child is a grey area...... whilst others contend that life begins at fertilisation and that any form of abortion, unless to save the life of a mother, is morally wrong and constitutes murder.

But where do you stand? And what legal limit would you have?


There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum. Positive contributions towards official debates will sometimes be rewarded with a month's VIP subscription in a colour of your choice as part of the Top Contributor award. As well as this, reputation will be awarded throughout the debate to those who make valid and constructive posts. Those who make the best contributions within a month win the Debater of the Month award and wins themselves a month's worth of forum VIP and 10 reputation points. Finally, those who create debate topics that generate a lot of buzz and engaging discussion will receive 20 reputation points.

The debate is open to you.

[Empired]

I'm strongly pro abortion. I think (although I can't be sure obviously) that if I were ever in a situation where I had an unwanted pregnancy I would end up aborting. Might not be easy, but I'd do it.

Always believed abortion should be treated on a case-by-case basis. However, even if the woman wants to abort for a stupid reason like she wants a boy and it's a girl, the baby should be aborted. Life is miserable when you're not wanted. And you can argue for adoption all you like but adoption ******* sucks. I would never want to put a child through that. Fair enough, some babies get adopted pretty quickly and live happily with their new parents from an early age. But generally they are the exception to the rule.

Also believe that it should continue to be the woman's choice alone. It's the woman who normally has to go through nine months of morning sickness, back pain and terrible mood swings. It's the woman who has to go through up to 48 hours of pushing a watermelon out of a considerably smaller hole. And then it's the woman who often is expected to stay at home and look after this child for the next 16 - 18 years. (Note I say often plz!)

Anyway, banning abortion will not stop it. It will just make women put themselves and the baby in danger by getting it done illegally. Much better the abortion is done legally and safely than in the back room of some creepy house with two needles and a towel.

Idk I think I'd want to bring the age down a bit though. (Age of a foetus? Is that the right word?) 24 weeks is too long IMO. Don't most other countries have considerably less time? Bring it down to 18 or 20.

[Kardan]

I'm also pro-abortion. I do think the 24-week limit is somewhat out of date now, our medical technology is making it more common that babies born at 6 months will actually survive now. I think perhaps 20 weeks is a sensible limit - for now. If technology improves even further, I wouldn't have an issue with that time limit coming down further.

Of course, the time limit goes out of the window if doctors have a genuine reason to be concerned with the health of the mother. The mother should ALWAYS be prioritised over the baby.

[Aiden]

i think abortion should be legal and up to the woman and man who the baby would be born to

[Shar]

Can you tell us more about the story above or give a link please as it'd quite vague what the circumstances were and if it was actually an abortion as it appears that she had a caesarean and I'd quite like to know the indicators and why the baby didn't survive because there must have been contributing factors. Not all 24 weekers would die and actuallly the survival rate is better these days due to the care that can be provided especially in western countries and developed countries.

[Jssy]

Can you tell us more about the story above or give a link please as it'd quite vague what the circumstances were and if it was actually an abortion as it appears that she had a caesarean and I'd quite like to know the indicators and why the baby didn't survive because there must have been contributing factors. Not all 24 weekers would die and actuallly the survival rate is better these days due to the care that can be provided especially in western countries and developed countries.
It wasn't an abortion, the baby was just born early so her parents released the photo to show how well formed a baby is that is still aborted within this time limit.


I myself am against abortion, but think its ok in certain circumstances. I was shocked watching a documentary at a woman who had had 10 abortions and said she didn't use contraception. You can only have an abortion if 2 doctors agree and it either would put the mothers physical life in danger, affect her mental health or affect the quality of life for others. What constitutes as mental health? There is a wide range of things, so it is pretty easy to get an abortion. Obviously if a mother has been raped or the baby will be severely disabled then abortion is probably the best option. I just don't agree with using an abortion as a means to contraception, but I wouldn't judge anyone for their choices really, as its a choice women have, they'd be the one carrying the baby. I do think the abortion limit should be lowered.

Where I live the ward where abortions take place is on the same floor as the neo natal unit saving babies born at 24 weeks just down the corridor which makes me feel a bit weird that whilst babies are intentionally having their life ended, they're saving babies born early just down the corridor.

- - - Updated - - -


I'm also pro-abortion. I do think the 24-week limit is somewhat out of date now, our medical technology is making it more common that babies born at 6 months will actually survive now. I think perhaps 20 weeks is a sensible limit - for now. If technology improves even further, I wouldn't have an issue with that time limit coming down further.

Of course, the time limit goes out of the window if doctors have a genuine reason to be concerned with the health of the mother. The mother should ALWAYS be prioritised over the baby.

An abortion can take place up to 9 months pregnant if the woman is in genuine danger, so the limit being lowered to 20 weeks wouldn't be a bad thing, because doctors can always intervene if necessary

[Empired]

Jssy; omg what! People use abortion as contraception? Would find that unacceptable. That just sounds like you're mocking the doctors and the system.

[Jssy]

@Jssy (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=59399); omg what! People use abortion as contraception? Would find that unacceptable. That just sounds like you're mocking the doctors and the system.
There have been cases, yeah, especially where I saw that woman having her 10th abortion in 4 or 5 years, I thought surely the doctors giving it the go ahead should say something?

[Empired]

There have been cases, yeah, especially where I saw that woman having her 10th abortion in 4 or 5 years, I thought surely the doctors giving it the go ahead should say something?
Is she paying? If so then they'd probably just be glad to be rolling in the money. Or are abortions free? I don't know these things.

Still, not right. But what can you do?

[ToxicMint]

im only for abortions in such as rape situations. im very much in favor that the woman shouldn't have to have a constant reminder of what happened. however when a couple are just being lazy not using protection or they use the baby as a weapon then they should have to face the consequences of there actions and if they cannot cope with a baby should put it up for adoption but not destroy a life.

[Empired]

im only for abortions in such as rape situations. im very much in favor that the woman shouldn't have to have a constant reminder of what happened. however when a couple are just being lazy not using protection or they use the baby as a weapon then they should have to face the consequences of there actions and if they cannot cope with a baby should put it up for adoption but not destroy a life.
Putting a baby up for adoption often does ruin a life. Getting passed from family to family for years is not fun. And it's made even worse if your mother/family is difficult about it just for the sake of being difficult.

[Shar]

It wasn't an abortion, the baby was just born early so her parents released the photo to show how well formed a baby is that is still aborted within this time limit.


I myself am against abortion, but think its ok in certain circumstances. I was shocked watching a documentary at a woman who had had 10 abortions and said she didn't use contraception. You can only have an abortion if 2 doctors agree and it either would put the mothers physical life in danger, affect her mental health or affect the quality of life for others. What constitutes as mental health? There is a wide range of things, so it is pretty easy to get an abortion. Obviously if a mother has been raped or the baby will be severely disabled then abortion is probably the best option. I just don't agree with using an abortion as a means to contraception, but I wouldn't judge anyone for their choices really, as its a choice women have, they'd be the one carrying the baby. I do think the abortion limit should be lowered.

Where I live the ward where abortions take place is on the same floor as the neo natal unit saving babies born at 24 weeks just down the corridor which makes me feel a bit weird that whilst babies are intentionally having their life ended, they're saving babies born early just down the corridor.

- - - Updated - - -



An abortion can take place up to 9 months pregnant if the woman is in genuine danger, so the limit being lowered to 20 weeks wouldn't be a bad thing, because doctors can always intervene if necessary
oh right

I think the limit should be lowered because of the advancement of technology and the care that can be provided to preterm babies. I support medical abortions in some cases but I haven't really given a thought to it as a whole it's a difficult subject.

[MKR&*42]

I fully support abortion in pretty much every instance, but the upper limit needs to be lowered as it's astoundingly high in the UK compared to most of Europe (most of Europe is around the 12 weeks mark I think?).

[ToxicMint]

Putting a baby up for adoption often does ruin a life. Getting passed from family to family for years is not fun. And it's made even worse if your mother/family is difficult about it just for the sake of being difficult.

id still prefer to have a life than to lose it. or Give a life than take it.

[Lewis]

I think it's wrong because whether or not it is currently self-conscious and alive or whatever, in the future it would become that. It's still murder whether it's a life yet or not--because it will become that in the not so far away future.

However, I can understand some cases such as: the mother could die, the baby having something terribly wrong with it (e.g. both blindness and deafness or whatever), and so on. I can understand getting an abortion in those cases and similar ones.

I do think that the current amount of weeks you can still get an abortion at should certainly be lowered by a lot more, but either way it's just as wrong without good reason--whether or not it's yet to form into what you can actually call a life, IT WOULD become one eventually.

Now, you could reply to me saying that then it must be murder if you don't get pregnant every time that's possible? (Or at least someone strangely said that to me before when there was last a debate on this lmao?) Of course it isn't. You've now become pregnant and a living thing is actually going to exist within you and the world one day, and then you're just taking that away!

Anyway, in short: I do not agree with it unless it has a good reason, such as the mother could end up dying or the baby will just suffer with problems when it's born.

[Kardan]

I think it's wrong because whether or not it is currently self-conscious and alive or whatever, in the future it would become that. It's still murder whether it's a life yet or not--because it will become that in the not so far away future.

However, I can understand some cases such as: the mother could die, the baby having something terribly wrong with it (e.g. both blindness and deafness or whatever), and so on. I can understand getting an abortion in those cases and similar ones.

I do think that the current amount of weeks you can still get an abortion at should certainly be lowered by a lot more, but either way it's just as wrong without good reason--whether or not it's yet to form into what you can actually call a life, IT WOULD become one eventually.

Now, you could reply to me saying that then it must be murder if you don't get pregnant every time that's possible? (Or at least someone strangely said that to me before when there was last a debate on this lmao?) Of course it isn't. You've now become pregnant and a living thing is actually going to exist within you and the world one day, and then you're just taking that away!

Anyway, in short: I do not agree with it unless it has a good reason, such as the mother could end up dying or the baby will just suffer with problems when it's born.

So... What about sperm and eggs?

[Lewis]

So... What about sperm and eggs?

I sort of mentioned something similar / have the same answer for that downwards in my post below the bolded. Fact is in this case it is becoming a someone and there's no way to stop that other than by abortion, whereas in that case it's not actually began to become a someone and you don't need to do anything such as an abortion to stop it.

[Collegno]

I sort of mentioned something similar / have the same answer for that downwards in my post below the bolded. Fact is in this case it is becoming a someone and there's no way to stop that other than by abortion, whereas in that case it's not actually began to become a someone and you don't need to do anything such as an abortion to stop it.

I think the point that Kardan was making was that your argument could just as easily be applied to sperms and eggs. Sperms and eggs have the potential every month (for females) to be impregnated by a sperm and thus become a human life, in potentia. Now, personally, I do think that at the point that a foetus is capable of independent life outside of the womb, it should be afforded the same rights as any other post-birth human. It does seem a bit of an inequality that there are now foetus' being terminated that would be capable of surviving birth, so the limit should, really, be lowered.

On a slightly branching topic, am I the only person who thinks that the father should get some legal choice in the matter? It seems slightly unfair that, theoretically, a woman could give birth to a child unwanted by the father and then hold him to paying CSA every month for eighteen (or is it sixteen?) years. Obviously this could lead to some issues, but at least then there'd be some form of fairness.

[Lewis]

I think the point that Kardan was making was that your argument could just as easily be applied to sperms and eggs. Sperms and eggs have the potential every month (for females) to be impregnated by a sperm and thus become a human life, in potentia. Now, personally, I do think that at the point that a foetus is capable of independent life outside of the womb, it should be afforded the same rights as any other post-birth human. It does seem a bit of an inequality that there are now foetus' being terminated that would be capable of surviving birth, so the limit should, really, be lowered.

On a slightly branching topic, am I the only person who thinks that the father should get some legal choice in the matter? It seems slightly unfair that, theoretically, a woman could give birth to a child unwanted by the father and then hold him to paying CSA every month for eighteen (or is it sixteen?) years. Obviously this could lead to some issues, but at least then there'd be some form of fairness.

Oh I completely agree with that, whether you're against abortion or not, surely people can't disagree that the father should get equal say? I'm not currently aware about the say the father gets currently though.

If one agrees and one disagrees, the baby should be kept. If both agree to whatever option, that option should be done.

And to those women who reply 'it's my body, my choice', well that's too bad, two people are responsible for it, not just you.

[Jssy]

I think the point that Kardan was making was that your argument could just as easily be applied to sperms and eggs. Sperms and eggs have the potential every month (for females) to be impregnated by a sperm and thus become a human life, in potentia. Now, personally, I do think that at the point that a foetus is capable of independent life outside of the womb, it should be afforded the same rights as any other post-birth human. It does seem a bit of an inequality that there are now foetus' being terminated that would be capable of surviving birth, so the limit should, really, be lowered.

On a slightly branching topic, am I the only person who thinks that the father should get some legal choice in the matter? It seems slightly unfair that, theoretically, a woman could give birth to a child unwanted by the father and then hold him to paying CSA every month for eighteen (or is it sixteen?) years. Obviously this could lead to some issues, but at least then there'd be some form of fairness.
But then I think if he doesn't want it why isn't he wearing a condom? But then I guess if they were just using the pill the woman could easily stop taking the pill to get pregnant, but sex between a man and woman always carries the risk of pregnancy, so its something that could potentially happen and those are the consequences to deal with.

[OldLoveSong]

I believe that life begins when a heartbeat starts because death is pronounced when a heartbeat stops. I dont believe that its up to the government to decide when a fetus 'becomes a baby'. Ideally i dont support abortion but in certain circumstances i can understand why some people would get it say if they were raped or whatnot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kyle]

It's not murder. Not morally and not legally. It's still wrong tho.


~~from phone

[Collegno]

But then I think if he doesn't want it why isn't he wearing a condom? But then I guess if they were just using the pill the woman could easily stop taking the pill to get pregnant, but sex between a man and woman always carries the risk of pregnancy, so its something that could potentially happen and those are the consequences to deal with.


I don't think saying ''Well, you've just got to live with it'' is a good thing when it comes to the child's emotional development. Many women who carry to full term would feel rather ashamed to be putting their children up for adoption (largely by their family) and feel pressured into keeping a child that they did not want. I can't imagine what it'd be like to be told that you weren't wanted, but I do not imagine that it is pleasant.

[Rachel]

If it was a rape then maybe it would be a different story for abortion even though I am fully against abortion.
On the other hand if it was not a rape but just didn't bother using protection and the girl goes for abortion is wrong. The child didn't ask to come to this world and it is I called it a murder. I do not like abortions and even if it was a rape, if you didn't want the child, just put it as an adoption for crying out loud.

[Empired]

Oh I completely agree with that, whether you're against abortion or not, surely people can't disagree that the father should get equal say? I'm not currently aware about the say the father gets currently though.

If one agrees and one disagrees, the baby should be kept. If both agree to whatever option, that option should be done.

And to those women who reply 'it's my body, my choice', well that's too bad, two people are responsible for it, not just you.
Because the father does not have to carry a baby in his womb for nine months. Because the father will not have to suffer morning sickness or the crazy hormonal swings or the aches you get all the time. Because a father is not possibly putting his and/or the baby's life in danger as the due date gets nearer. Because a father then doesn't have to go through a labour that could be up to 48 hours where he's pushing a watermelon-sized object out of a lemon-sized hole.

If the father decides he wants to support the mother + child, I believe the woman should take his views into account. But that's a "should" not a "must". It's her body that will go through everything. So it's her decision.

[Lewis]

Because the father does not have to carry a baby in his womb for nine months. Because the father will not have to suffer morning sickness or the crazy hormonal swings or the aches you get all the time. Because a father is not possibly putting his and/or the baby's life in danger as the due date gets nearer. Because a father then doesn't have to go through a labour that could be up to 48 hours where he's pushing a watermelon-sized object out of a lemon-sized hole.

If the father decides he wants to support the mother + child, I believe the woman should take his views into account. But that's a "should" not a "must". It's her body that will go through everything. So it's her decision.

Don't be ridiculous. Yes it's growing in the woman's body and more than likely going to cause a lot of problems (and pain upon birth), but it is as rightfully the father's baby as it is the woman's baby.

Fathers should not just have a say under the woman's decision, they should have a complete equal say. If you were a male and found out that your girlfriend was having a baby, even if it was accidental, and you wanted that child and wanted to love it, then the girlfriend says I'm getting an abortion...

I doubt you'd agree with that or believe that the woman should have the final say.

[Empired]

Don't be ridiculous. Yes it's growing in the woman's body and more than likely going to cause a lot of problems (and pain upon birth), but it is as rightfully the father's as it is the woman's.

Fathers should not just have a say, they should have a complete equal say as the woman does.
I'm not being ridiculous, it's obvious: their work towards growing that child is not equal, therefore they should not get an equal say.

[Lewis]

I'm not being ridiculous, it's obvious: their work towards growing that child is not equal, therefore they should not get an equal say.

The man cannot choose whether or not he is the one giving birth to the child, it's not possible (obviously). It is still rightfully and equally the mothers and fathers. They should both get equal say.

[Kyle]

It's not equal until the child is born lol


~~from phone

[Empired]

The man cannot choose whether or not he is the one giving birth to the child, it's not possible (obviously). It is still rightfully and equally the mothers and fathers. They should both get equal say.
No it's not. That's like doing a massive group project and you do nothing except come up with a title. And then you expect them to share the credit equally with you.

[Lewis]

No it's not. That's like doing a massive group project and you do nothing except come up with a title. And then you expect them to share the credit equally with you.

It takes two to create the baby, they're both aware that getting pregnant is a possible outcome. And so they're both responsible for the baby.

And I think what you're forgetting in your 'group project' example is that having the baby is just one step to a giant 'group project'. You can't expect everyone to do everything in one huge group project, it's shared between the people. If only one person does the introduction paragraph and no one else, that doesn't mean no one else is going to contribute with what's further to come in this project?

So with that comment, you're backing up my point :P.

[Empired]

It takes two to create the baby, they're both aware that getting pregnant is a possible outcome. And so they're both responsible for the baby.

And I think you're forgetting in your 'group project' example is that having the baby is just one step to a giant 'group project'. You can't expect everyone to do everything in one huge group project, it's shared between the people. If only one person does the title and no one else, that doesn't mean no one else is going to contribute?

So with that comment, you're backing up my point :P.
No.. I'm saying the father comes up with the title and then sits back. The woman then has to do the entire thing. I suppose you could call that sharing but she'd be pretty pissed if you did lol.

[Lewis]

No.. I'm saying the father comes up with the title and then sits back. The woman then has to do the entire thing. I suppose you could call that sharing but she'd be pretty pissed if you did lol.

That's being a bit stereotypical. A lot of fathers may not help to raise the children as much as the mother, but a lot still certainly do. Plus men usually provide for the entire family (although that has completely changed in this day and age)

There's actually quite a few single fathers in my area as well.

oh and I edited my post a little before you quoted, don't know if it was anything important Empired; but ya

[Empired]

That's being a bit stereotypical. A lot of fathers may not help to raise the children as much as the mother, but a lot still certainly do. Plus men usually provide for the entire family (although that has completely changed in this day and age)

There's actually quite a few single fathers in my area as well.
I was talking about the 9 months of pregnancy and labour........

If you're going to use an outdated piece of information to argue men usually provide for the entire family then you cannot argue that men do anything much at all to nurture their children (as that is also outdated now).

[Lewis]

I was talking about the 9 months of pregnancy and labour........

If you're going to use an outdated piece of information to argue men usually provide for the entire family then you cannot argue that men do anything much at all to nurture their children (as that is also outdated now).

Well my previous post before the one you quoted pretty much covered all of that & beyond. @Empired (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=80588); - whether my reply to you was what you meant exactly, it still covers everything :P

It takes two to create the baby, they're both aware that getting pregnant is a possible outcome. And so they're both responsible for the baby.

And I think you're forgetting in your 'group project' example is that having the baby is just one step to a giant 'group project'. You can't expect everyone to do everything in one huge group project, it's shared between the people. If only one person does the title and no one else, that doesn't mean no one else is going to contribute?

So with that comment, you're backing up my point http://www.habboxforum.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif.

That wasn't my argument, that was extra information. My argument is that you're being stereotypical, not every man is the same.

[Empired]

That wasn't my argument, that was extra information. My argument is that you're being stereotypical, not every man is the same.
I told you in my last post that I was talking about the pregnancy.

[The Don]

That's being a bit stereotypical. A lot of fathers may not help to raise the children as much as the mother, but a lot still certainly do. Plus men usually provide for the entire family (although that has completely changed in this day and age)

There's actually quite a few single fathers in my area as well.

oh and I edited my post a little before you quoted, don't know if it was anything important Empired; but ya

That's all irrelevant until the baby is born...

[Lewis]

That's all irrelevant until the baby is born...

It is relevant. It may not be possible at the time, but it's still relevant as to what's to come. And that will come, if the father's a decent person and the same goes for the woman. It is both their baby to love and raise them, but that cannot happen if an abortion happens. The man should certainly have a say in my opinion.

A man can't go to the pregnant woman and say "would you like me to be pregnant for a change this week" lmao

In no way do I see a ten year old child being more rightfully the woman's child than the father's child. And I think no different from when it's yet to be born.

[Empired]

A man can't go to the pregnant woman and say "would you like me to be pregnant for a change this week" lmao
yes and, because of this, he should not get a final say

[Lewis]

yes and, because of this, he should not get a final say

Why? They both know about the possibilities for pregnancy and they both realise it's the woman that could get pregnant. It's equally both their child and so, since the woman certainly does know the possibilities, the man should get an equal say.

[The Don]

It is relevant. It may not be possible at the time, but it's still relevant as to what's to come. And that will come, if the father's a decent person and the same goes for the woman. It is both their baby to love and raise them, but that cannot happen if an abortion happens. The man should certainly have a say in my opinion.

A man can't go to the pregnant woman and say "would you like me to be pregnant for a change this week" lmao

In no way do I see a ten year old child being more rightfully the woman's child than the father's child. And I think no different from when it's yet to be born.

You're talking about future work the father could potentially put in. Up until the baby is born, the mother is the one with ultimately the final decision. That's like me arguing to my boss that I should get a higher salary at my job because in the future I could potentially be the manager. Obviously morally the father should have some say in it, but legally the decision should remain with the person who has to carry the child for almost a year.

[Lewis]

Why? They both know about the possibilities for pregnancy and they both realise it's the woman that could get pregnant. It's equally both their child and so, since the woman certainly does know the possibilities, the man should get an equal say.
@Empired (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=80588);

alongside this, a woman getting an abortion is just like a woman refusing a father to see her ten year old son when he's done nothing wrong.

(I won't compare it to murdering a ten year old, because that's completely different and not comparable, but I do certainly think that abortion is a form of murder.)

- - - Updated - - -


You're talking about future work the father could potentially put in. Up until the baby is born, the mother is the one with ultimately the final decision. That's like me arguing to my boss that I should get a higher salary at my job because in the future I could potentially be the manager. Obviously morally the father should have some say in it, but legally the decision should remain with the person who has to carry the child for almost a year.

Well, if it's only the father that actually wants the baby and refuses an abortion, it sounds to me as if the man is more likely to be the more hard-working parent. (although that's my personal opinion and certainly not true in all cases)

I disagree with your example of a pay rise. We're talking about a life here that over time will develop into a someone, not money. Sure what the father is wanting may not end up resulting in him being a good parent or whatever, but it's still their child. The same can happen with the woman, just because it's in their body for nine months or however long doesn't mean that they'll end up being a good parent or stick around with their child. Woman can dump their children with their father just as the father can do the opposite.

[The Don]

@Empired (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=80588);

alongside this, a woman getting an abortion is just like a woman refusing a father to see her ten year old son when he's done nothing wrong.

(I won't compare it to murdering a ten year old, because that's completely different and not comparable, but I do certainly think that abortion is a form of murder.)

- - - Updated - - -



Well, if it's only the father that actually wants the baby and refuses an abortion, it sounds to me as if the man is more likely to be the more hard-working parent. (ALTHOUGH THAT CERTAINLY ISN'T TRUE IN ALL CASES)

I disagree with your example of a pay rise. We're talking about a life here that over time will develop into a someone, not money. Sure what the father is wanting may not end up resulting in him being a good parent or whatever, but it's still their child. The same can happen with the woman, just because it's in their body for nine months or however long doesn't mean that they'll end up being a good parent or stick around with their child.

So because the man wants a child the woman should be forced to give birth to a child she doesn't want? Don't be so ridiculous.

[Lewis]

So because the man wants a child the woman should be forced to give birth to a child she doesn't want? Don't be so ridiculous.

Also, if men don't even get a say in whether or not their unborn baby should live, why should they have to take a role in raising the child or be forced to give money to the mother for the child, etc?

[The Don]

Also...



If men don't get a say in whether or not their unborn baby should live, why should they have to take a role in raising the child or give child benefits, etc?

Because (and I can't believe i'm having to point this out to you) unless you want to start forcing women through abortions or making them give birth to children they don't want there isn't a solution. Yes, it might seem unfair to men, but there are enough precautions that prevent us from getting women pregnant that there's really no excuse. I don't particularly want to live in a society where we force people to do something they don't want to. Due to the fact that women are the ones that give birth it is obvious that they (whether you believe it's fair or not is irrelevant) should have more say in the matter until the child is born.

[Lewis]

Because (and I can't believe i'm having to point this out to you) unless you want to start forcing women through abortions or making them give birth to children they don't want there isn't a solution. Yes, it might seem unfair to men, but there are enough precautions that prevent us from getting women pregnant that there's really no excuse. I don't particularly want to live in a society where we force people to do something they don't want to. Due to the fact that women are the ones that give birth it is obvious that they (whether you believe it's fair or not is irrelevant) should have more say in the matter until the child is born.

In no way am I saying that a women should be forced through an abortion, either they agree on a decision or the baby gets born if there isn't an agreement. I'm certainly against abortion all together (unless there's a very good reason) but I doubt anything will stop it anytime soon, but there should be at least a fairer decision. And whether or not there's enough precautions to stop women from getting pregnant, it's both the male and female responsible for it in the end--not one. One isn't getting forced to do something knowing that certain protection isn't being used.

And even if specific protection is being used and pregnancy is still a possibility, they know it could happen.

[The Don]

In no way am I saying that a women should be forced through an abortion, either they agree on a decision or the baby gets born if there isn't an agreement.

So you are saying women should be forced to give birth. Not sure what kind of draconian society you want to live in, but i'm glad the UK is nothing like that.

[Lewis]

So you are saying women should be forced to give birth. Not sure what kind of Draconian society you want to live in, but i'm glad the UK is nothing like that.

Not unless both parents agree on the decision. I think of men having an equal say and I'm sure many others do, alongside those who don't!

In the case there's some issue with the pregnancy, such as possible death of the woman or serious problems for the child, then I can somewhat understand abortion and it should certainly be allowed.

[The Don]

Not unless both parents agree on the decision. I think of men having an equal say and I'm sure many others do, alongside those who don't!

Pardon? You wrote "In no way am I saying that a women should be forced through an abortion, either they agree on a decision or the baby gets born if there isn't an agreement." So if a women doesn't want to have the baby but the man does you think the woman should be forced to give birth.

[Lewis]

Pardon? You wrote "In no way am I saying that a women should be forced through an abortion, either they agree on a decision or the baby gets born if there isn't an agreement." So if a women doesn't want to have the baby but the man does you think the woman should be forced to give birth.

Perhaps I did slip up on my words there, I can't disagree with your comment.

What I meant anyway was that if both parents agreed, they should be allowed an abortion and not forced to give birth. But if one doesn't, the abortion should not go through. (which I'm sure you've picked up by now since I've mentioned it through all my comments lmao)

[Kardan]

If a woman wants an abortion, she should have an abortion. I don't think the male has any right to even make a decision on it really.

[The Don]

Perhaps I did slip up on my words there, I can't disagree with your comment.

What I meant anyway was that if both parents agreed, they should be allowed an abortion and not forced to give birth. But if one doesn't, the abortion should not go through. (which I'm sure you've picked up by now since I've mentioned it through all my comments lmao)

What you've just wrote reaffirms that you believe if the man wants the child and the woman doesn't then the woman should be forced to give birth.

Logically the decision to have an abortion is solely up to the woman as anything other than that would require the state to force women to either give birth or have abortions. This is purely related to the law, morally I would say that there should be an agreement between both the man and woman.

[lemons]

i cant believe what im reading

[lemons]

lol lewis your really ****** up how can you force a woman to give birth that's just absurd

forcing women to give birth will just lead to increased suicide/filicide, infant mortality rates, miscarriages, more kids put up for adoption and so on

[Lewis]

lol lewis your really ****** up how can you force a woman to give birth that's just absurd

forcing women to give birth will just lead to increased suicide/filicide, infant mortality rates, miscarriages, more kids put up for adoption and so on

I don't personally like children or babies whatsoever, so my comments don't affect me as a male. But that's what I think for the others, and I think if you get an abortion it is killing a life. Many will disagree with me, but we're all welcome to our opinions and I don't wish to judge anyone that disagrees absolutely with me (whether it comes to that it's a life or equal say), I may be in the wrong or you may be :P. I certainly don't have a right in telling other couples what I think about what they're doing, that's for sure.

[Francis]

To be honest..

You have to weigh into account: Is the baby going to have a better life living or not being born at all? I am pro-abortion but that's because I see some of the people that get pregnant (been working in a hospital for 2 years) and it's unbelievable how careless some of these people are. They can barely provide for themselves, and then they want to have a kid on top of it all.

[Empired]

Perhaps I did slip up on my words there, I can't disagree with your comment.

What I meant anyway was that if both parents agreed, they should be allowed an abortion and not forced to give birth. But if one doesn't, the abortion should not go through. (which I'm sure you've picked up by now since I've mentioned it through all my comments lmao)
By saying "the abortion should not go through" you are forcing a woman to give birth. That completely disgusts me and u keep saying you're sure plenty of other people agree with you but literally everyone is profoundly disagreeing with forcing a woman into giving birth. I'm sure if u found some super devout Catholics they might agree with u maybe??

The only thing forcing women to have birth will do is massively raise the number of illegal abortions which puts the woman at huge risk.

[Lewis]

By saying "the abortion should not go through" you are forcing a woman to give birth. That completely disgusts me and u keep saying you're sure plenty of other people agree with you but literally everyone is profoundly disagreeing with forcing a woman into giving birth. I'm sure if u found some super devout Catholics they might agree with u maybe??

The only thing forcing women to have birth will do is massively raise the number of illegal abortions which puts the woman at huge risk.

What I am simply saying is that the father deserves an equal say as the mother. I am completely against abortion overall, but if letting the fathers have an equal say helps to stop some, then so be it. That can be classed as forcing in one aspect of it, yes.

I'm not a religious person or a person that likes children in the slightest. To me, it's simply murder--no matter the many ways you can argue it's not, I've heard them all. As said, for those that do it, I'd never judge. For all I know I'm very much wrong, but my opinion sticks. And if I had an option to change the laws, I wouldn't change it to anything that the majority people themselves don't want. So yeah.

Whether a bunch of pro-christians agree with me or not, I couldn't honestly care less! And I never said plenty of people agree with me, I said there'll be many others alongside those who disagree. Not specifically on this forum of course!

To me murder is more wrong than forcing a woman to give birth. Others don't believe it's murder, which I can fully understand--it hasn't developed into an actual life yet and whatever else. But to me that doesn't matter (as explained in my previous posts as to why, also into reply to those who explain how it isn't murder... so please don't make that post again.)

[Empired]

What I am simply saying is that the father deserves an equal say as the mother. I am completely against abortion overall, but if letting the fathers have an equal say helps to stop some, then so be it. That can be classed as forcing in one aspect of it, yes.
What do u mean 'one aspect'. That is the only aspect. There is no other way of looking at it. A mother doesn't get a choice in whether or not she gives birth to this child. That is a definition of force...................


I'm not a religious person or a person that likes children in the slightest. To me, it's simply murder--no matter the many ways you can argue it's not, I've heard them all. As said, for those that do it, I'd never judge. For all I know I'm very much wrong, but my opinion sticks. And if I had an option to change the laws, I wouldn't change it to anything that the majority people themselves don't want. So yeah.
But a mother going to an illegal abortion centre to terminate her pregnancy is alright? To put her life at risk (and still the baby) is acceptable?


To me murder is more wrong than forcing a woman to go through birth. Others don't believe it's murder, which I can fully understand--it hasn't developed into an actual life yet and whatever else. But to me that doesn't matter.
I find that absolutely disgusting but can see that no amount of compassion for the woman and the baby (yes, compassion can sometimes mean deciding to abort) or common sense from other people will change your mind so I'm going to stop responding now.

[Lewis]

@Empired (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=80588);


What do u mean 'one aspect'. That is the only aspect. There is no other way of looking at it. A mother doesn't get a choice in whether or not she gives birth to this child. That is a definition of force...................
Depending on what both the father and mother want in terms of abortion, there's four possible outcomes. One out of the four is forcing the mother to give birth to a baby she doesn't want.


But a mother going to an illegal abortion centre to terminate her pregnancy is alright? To put her life at risk (and still the baby) is acceptable?
Yep, well done Einstein. I definitely said that...


I find that absolutely disgusting but can see that no amount of compassion for the woman and the baby (yes, compassion can sometimes mean deciding to abort) or common sense from other people will change your mind so I'm going to stop responding now.
As said before, a life matters to me more than the woman having some problems (problems which are of course very bad, the pain of birth, etc but a life is worth it).

Also as I've said before, under extreme reasons where the child would not be better off being born, I can understand abortion. So that part of your comment isn't exactly true.

You're welcome to stop responding, people are welcome to their opinions. I personally value a life more than a woman having to go through pregnancy. You, however, don't believe it's exactly a life during the abortion time, which it probably isn't in some way, so my comments likely make no sense to you, which I also understand :P.

[God]

There is a difference between someone who is living and a mass of cells inside a human. Life is precious, but if the soon to be baby is born into a situation where it is not wanted/time is right/able to be supported/ect. Then what kind of life will it have?
Heck, most of these Pro"Lifer's" are just ProBirth. Nothing else. Once it has been born, they have nothing to do with it. Look at all the homeless children on the streets, are they helping them? I think its more important to deal with the people who are suffering now, and not to bring more into this situation.

It's to be the choice of Female who is carrying the soon to be baby, and noone else. Not one woman should be denied this service, and it should be covered free of charge, unless its being abused.

[Brad]

I'd just like to ask if there has anyone on this forum whom has actually been through an abortion? Because everyone that everyone I have talked to whom have gone through an abortion have been emotionally scarred.
I believe in pro-life. Always have, and always will. This topic will always end up in a debate, especially in the world we live in. I don't think I need to argue my point because the way I see it; This world is always about who's right and who's wrong.
Is the woman at fault for having an abortion? Who knows, what I think is that there's less effort for women now-a-days to help eliminate the risk of pregnancy. There is so much that this world offers to help not have children; (condoms, birth control, etc.)
Maybe what I'm trying to get at is; should there be more emphasis on preventing unexpected pregnancies than spending the millions of dollars to pay doctors to kill babies...

[God]

I'd just like to ask if there has anyone on this forum whom has actually been through an abortion? Because everyone that everyone I have talked to whom have gone through an abortion have been emotionally scarred.
I believe in pro-life. Always have, and always will. This topic will always end up in a debate, especially in the world we live in. I don't think I need to argue my point because the way I see it; This world is always about who's right and who's wrong.
Is the woman at fault for having an abortion? Who knows, what I think is that there's less effort for women now-a-days to help eliminate the risk of pregnancy. There is so much that this world offers to help not have children; (condoms, birth control, etc.)
Maybe what I'm trying to get at is; should there be more emphasis on preventing unexpected pregnancies than spending the millions of dollars to pay doctors to kill babies...

**** happens. Not all contraceptives are 100%, sometimes its not the right time, maybe they got raped. What should be done is to provide cheap contraceptives to those who are in need of it.

[Empired]

**** happens. Not all contraceptives are 100%, sometimes its not the right time, maybe they got raped. What should be done is to provide cheap contraceptives to those who are in need of it.
Contraception is free in Britain and unplanned pregnancies still happen.