@ Putin

I have no great interest in reading yet another rant from you about the failings of the USA. Let's focus on nations with well established abortion procedures.

"Meanwhile it could be a very urgent situation which causes women to seek an abortion to begin with, and that waiting has had a disastrous impact on women's health"

In which case spending time looking for the father would be unreasonable. The law allows for a common sense approach even if you don't.

I disagree with sexism where I see it. I disagree with women being denied opportunities in Saudi Arabia, I disagree with single sex parliamentary shortlists, and I disagree with your appalling assumptions and generalisations of the fathers. Some of them will be wastes of space. Some will be entirely unaware that the girl they love is pregnant and is considering an abortion. Some won't give a shit about the girl but will care deeply about the baby and may be able to reach an agreement with the mother that convinces her to have the child. How dare you judge these men and take the option away that may allow the child to be born and live a successful life.

My opinions on this matter are based on two key beliefs. Firstly that it is the women's right to make the choice within a given time of pregnancy. Secondly that abortions are generally a bad thing. A women who chooses to abort is choosing the lesser of two evils. I would be greatly interested in what underpins your opinions on the matter.

My views on the matter have hardened considerably since reading the account of Bernard Nathanson. He, together with one Betty Friedan, was one of the prime movers behind the legalisation of abortion in the USA. He estimated that he himself was directly responsible, as the head of the then largest abortion clinic in the country, for some 75,000 abortions. I might ''recommend'' this documentary he made: The Silent Scream http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NQhKktrDr4 or this latter one which I personally feel is considerably better and less emotionally charged The Eclipse of Reason http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5ILndK3aDg. The latter covers ‘’late abortions’’ and it is salient to point out that the abortion shown was that of an 18 week foetus/neonate.
I hope that I am clear in saying that I do feel that we should collectively face up to what actually occurs in abortion clinics. If, however, the graphic content of these videos disturbs you here is a written account given before congress by Dr. Anthony Levantino (120 abortions) in response to the absolutely horrendous Gosnell case (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/us/kermit-gosnell-abortion-doctor-gets-life-term.html?_r=0):
'' The first task is remove the laminaria that had earlier been placed in the cervix to dilate it sufficiently to allow the procedure you are about to perform. With that accomplished, direct your attention to the surgical instruments arranged on a small table to your right. The first instrument you reach for is a 14-French suction catheter (the video shows the instruement itself) . It is clear plastic and about nine inches long. It has a bore through the center approximately ¾ of an inch in diameter. Picture yourself introducing this catheter through the cervix and instructing the circulating nurse to turn on the suction machine which is connected through clear plastic tubing to the catheter. What you will see is a pale yellow fluid that looks a lot like urine coming through the catheter into a glass bottle on the suction machine. This is the amniotic fluid that surrounded the baby to protect her.

With suction complete, look for your Sopher clamp. This instrument is about thirteen inches long and made of stainless steel. At the end are located jaws about 2 ½ inches long and about ¾ of an inch wide with rows of sharp ridges or teeth. This instrument is for grasping and crushing tissue. When it gets hold of something, it does not let go. A second trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure. The baby can be in any orientation or position inside the uterus. Picture yourself reaching in with the Sopher clamp and grasping anything you can. At twenty-four weeks gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to perforate or puncture the walls. Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard–really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.

The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby’s head. The head of a baby that age is about the size of a large plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the Sopher clamp (again this instrument is illustrated in the video) is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush d own on the clamp and see white gelatinous material coming through the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. Many times a little face will come out and stare back at you.

Congratulations! You have just successfully performed a second trimester Suction D&E abortion. You just affirmed her right to choose. If you refuse to believe that this procedure inflicts severe pain on that unborn child, please think again.''

Taken from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t--MhKiaD7c

I have also toughened my stance on abortion since realising that I was not coming at this issue from my own political, religious and, most importantly, gender-based agenda. They may be in a minority, but there is a significant pro-life constituency on the left as well as on the right. There are also atheists who oppose, or would wish to restrict, abortions. Most importantly there are a highly significant proportion of women themselves who vehemently oppose (or would wish to further restrict) abortion. Guys I suggest that you ask the women in your family, friends, colleagues etc. straight out how they feel on the issue. I think if my experience is anything to go by, that you will be surprised. I now realise that I am not speaking, as what some here might characterise, as a fascist, fundamentalist and misogynistic nutcase, but rather from a varied constituency of people who view the current legislation on this particular issue as being wrong and intrinsically unjust.
Did I mention gender-selective abortion or the historical connection between the pro-abortion lobby and euthanasia yet? If not, and you are interested in my views, ask me more.

@fulhamish - thanks for your input, it is important that people are aware of the gore involved in such abortions.

It is also true of course that heart bypasses, brain surgery, d-day landings etc are also gory and things we would rather not do. But the fact they are gory doesn't in itself make them wrong. We also have to look at the alternatives to abortions conducted under surgical conditions. Prior to abortion being legal, abortions were carried out in back rooms with coat-hangers, knitting needles and no aftercare. We also need to keep that in the forefront of our minds.

@Maniac. I am not sure why you refer exclusively to the gore of heart bypasses and brain surgery. While it is true that they are ''gory'' the visual and written material are nevertheless fascinating and even a little inspirational; perhaps you disagree?
Does this not give you cause to wonder why watching (if indeed you did) or reading (if indeed you did) the material I supplied on abortion does not provoke the same reaction in you? Indeed, I would be very surprised if instead of fascination/inspiration your predominant reaction was one of disgust and maybe even a little empathy for the foetus/neonate?
Two points on the ‘’backstreet’’ argument:
1) Between 1968 (Abortion Act passed in 1967) and 1988, there have been 986 recorded abortions performed illegally and 293 prosecutions in the UK. So much for 'controlling' illegal abortion. (House of Commons Hansard, col. 276, 17 January 1990)
2) Are you seriously suggesting that because something cannot be stopped it should be legalised? How do you feel about incest, murder........................
Just, however, to make my position clear I reluctantly support a conception +12 week limit. I do this partly to pragmatically address the point you raise about back street abortions (and rape) and also Octavious' excellent post centred on the balance to be struck between a women's right to choose and the rights of the unborn foetus/neonate.
Incidentally did you catch my previous post in this thread on the dichotomy which exists between the contemporaneous support of the 21 week neonate and that of the aborted foetus offered by our society?
Additionally, it should also be born in mind during these discussions whether the measurement of foetal/neonate life span is to be made from that of the missed period or from the date of conception. It very much suits the pro-abortion lobby to quote the former rather than the latter. I suggest that we would all benefit from introducing a little clarity when we have these line-drawing discussions.

@ fulhamish: With regard to your first point, do you have figures for the number of "backstreet" abortions performed in the 20 years *prior* to 1968? If you don't, the figure you have quoted is largely meaningless.

That is, if the figures indicated that the number of "backstreet" abortions between 1948 and 1968 was, say, 50,000, then reducing that to less than 1,000 in the 20 years following the change in the law certainly *would* demonstrate the benefit of the law. If, on the other hand, there was evidence to suggest that only about 1,000 backstreet abortions had happened between 1948 and 1968, then obviously the law could be seen to have had little effect.

But to simply quote a figure, as you've done there, without a comparison or baseline to set it against, proves nothing.

I do not think that the issue of backstreet abortions is the main reason for allowing abortions to take place legally, by the way, I'm just saying that your use of statistics is flawed.

Yes Jamie you make a good point. It is of interest nevertheless that illegal abortions continued even after the introduction of the legalised variety, don't you agree? I would make the same point in reverse should someone mention the low (in their view) percentage of late abortions by asking them to compute the associated absolute number. What is source for the goose.... Thank you, however, for your note of statistical caution on that particular point. It is a pity that you felt unable to comment on the rest of my post(s), it would have been interesting to hear your views. Never mind.

Ok, in response to the general thrust of all your other points: Ultimately, what right do you have to tell a woman what do with her uterus?

It's a privacy issue Fulhamish. If I got pregnant and decided to have an abortion it's really none of your business. My body and all that.

Precisely, CF.

So in the light of this argument you would draw no line at all? Abortion at 28, 32 weeks and beyond by C section if necessary, why the hell not? I guess you also support infanticide, if so I must at least complement you on your consistency

Of course unborn humans are a concern of wider society, just as are "your" children. Be open watch the videos, read the reports and then decide.

On statistics: over 30% of the 200,000 odd legal abortions carried out in the UK in 2012 were at least repeats, if not higher replicates, on individual women. That computes to an absolute # of at least 60,000 foetus'/neonates. In my view these figures constitute an obscenity.

@ fulhamish: "Of course unborn humans are a concern of wider society"

1. Why do you begin this sentence with "of course" ? Why do hold this as a position which could not possibly be challenged?

2. Presuming "unborn humans" are a concern of wider society, why should society's concern over-ride the right of a woman to decide what happens to her body?

(Also on your second recent post - what do you mean by "replicates"? I don't quite understand your terminology there)

Allow me to explain - some women have a single abortion, some have two, others have more still. Replicates from the word replication is useful way of generically describing this ongoing chain.

So there's tons of dead beat fathers. I can't force them to go get a vasectomy. No I know where I wouldn't have an abortion, but can I tell another women what to do with her body.. no. I know someone who had a late term abortion, but only cause the child was stillborn. So should that mother be forced to carry a non-living child to full term delaying the grieving and healing process because of your standards? Or should the mother be allowed to do what is best for her?

On your previous post you will see that earlier in the thread I proposed a gestation plus 12 week limit to balance a women's right to choose against the rights of the unborn human. Did you notice that?

Awaiting your response on where, if anywhere, you would draw the line and why.

I should of pointed out that she was past the 12 weeks when the fetus lost viability.

Doesn't matter where I personally draw the line, it's not my place to tell another women where she should. It's her body, her choice, and it's on her conscience and between her and whatever higher entity she may or may not believe in.

^ That is also my response, fulhamish.

At Celtic Fox, I feel that you are putting words in my mouth. The unborn should be defended, but if the foetus is dead then there is nothing to defend.

Also awaiting your response on where if anywhere you would draw the line and why.

And I told you that where I would draw the line myself doesn't matter in my overall debate. So you'll just have to take my other answer. It doesn't matter where you or I would draw our own lines.. it depends on women to women where they would draw theirs. Hell, I could even say I would personally never have an abortion and it doesn't matter. It's about a women's right to choose for herself.

So you guys would draw no line at all? The day before term would still be an appropriate point to C section that baby out? Just curious but what should we do with "it" once it has been delivered/aborted? It would need to be dispatched, maybe we could borrow some technology from death row or look up some historical precedents?
Any volunteers to work in that clinic?

Hey Ful what would you do with all the unwanted children from unaborted pregnancies? It's not like the adoption system is overloaded or anything.

Also, I'm all about compromise, but 12 weeks is still first trimester and not acceptable to me. I know 2 people who didn't know they were pregnant til after that mark.

My *personal* view, fulhamish, is that if a foetus is near term and would therefore be very likely to survive being removed from the woman, then it may be that the best thing to do is to keep it alive and allow it to be adopted.

However, that is my *personal* view and, as Celticfox has already tried to explain to you, I do not feel I have any right to impose that view on a woman. It is her body and her right to choose, whatever my *personal* feelings.

Also, besides where to put all the children that would be born. The other thing to take into account is the fetus is basically a parasite on the women's body. No one should be forced into having to deal with that if they don't want to.

I know a woman who has given birth to 14 children and she live alone, because she is a drug addict and many of those children are suffering the physical and mental effects of being born to a butane addict.
The children are immediately taken off her at hospital and placed in the custody of social services who then try and find homes for the children.
She refuses any form of birth control.
Would you agree to forced abortion or sterilization, of course we don't at the moment, thankfully there are not many people like this so should we just let her be and let the taxpayer and society pick up the financial and social costs.

Guys you are not being very clear. If viable should the foetus/neonate be allowed to live or can the mother dictate that it is to die by active intervention or medical neglect? If it is the latter how, if necessary, should we as a society arrange for "its" demise. And if one of you uses the word "humanly" I will scream down the internet at you.

Ful I think we've been clear enough you just aren't getting it. Hell Jamie said exactly how I feel, but you don't seem to be getting the point.

And Fulhamish please answer my question about what you would do with all those unwanted children. That is something that needs to be taken into account as well when having discussions like these.