ABORTION is a woman’s RIGHT

ffs i dont know the lassie,,but this is damm cruel,,

anita im NOT amused !

@rubyred wrote:

ffs i dont know the lassie,,but this is damm cruel,,

anita im NOT amused !

I’m sorry, was you under the impression i was here to amuse YOU?
If you dont like people using the picture, it shouldnt be posted in a public forum, 2 hagi, scotch egg and show us ya wee tatties!

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

Abortion can take place up to the 24th week. At this stage of pregnancy, the child can hear and recognize mother’s voice. Though still small and fragile, the baby is growing rapidly and could possibly survive if born at this stage. Fingernails and fingerprints appear. Sex organs are visible. Using an ultrasound device, the doctor can tell if the child is a girl or a boy.

This is a baby at 20 WEEKS – I find the idea of someone aborting the child at this stage utterly barbaric

The complication here tho is one of contradiction

Firstly I think most would agree that the father of a foetus has more of a link towards that foetus than anyone except the mother, whos say is more prevalent due to it being her body the foetus is growing within

Now were a father to want to subvert the mothers decision and “force” her to have a child she wanted to abort irrespective of where in the legal time it can be aborted the sway of public opinion would side with the mothers wish to abort, claiming that the father of the foetus has no right to MAKE that woman carry full term a foetus she doesnt want to give birth to, a child she doesnt want to have, a life she doesnt want to be responsible for in anyway at all

But anti abortionists, many of whom would also side against the fathers wishes would quite conveniently then totally want to remove that womans right to make her OWN choice about what happens to her own body when its them that doesnt want the abortion rather than “merely” the father and think its fine for “society” to try and force a woman to have a child she doesnt want to have, just not for the father of that child to have a say

So the thing here is that either it is or it isnt the womans right to decide what happens to her body, thats the ONLY relevant decision to be ascertained with, for a change, some degree of consistency of purpose rather than the more flailingly conveniently contradictive manner that is commonly used

Religious arguements are vaccuous ones as they only have meaning to practicers of that particular faith, and as they would want the right to practice their faith IF they choose shouldnt then hypocritically seek to force their beliefs onto others who choose not to share their faith and beliefs

Even morality is a bit transient, as morality is a social construct formed within the confines of a culture, and as people would want the right to have and protect their own culture without someone elses being forced onto them should to avoid hypocrisy not then seek to force their culture onto someone else

So that leaves us with the individual element, as each individual will have their own unique brand of the culture they life in which goes along with the concept of freedom and rights in westernised society, meaning that many aspects although the “norm” arent enforced and brainwashed into being compulsory thus making them optional

So as its a personal choice to either be promiscuous or not, a drinker, or not, a smoker or not, have a faith or not abortion is simply another lifestyle choice

So in the same way anti abortionists want THEIR rights and freedoms to CHOOSE to not have abortions do or should they then give up their rights and freedoms to have any rights or freedoms the second they try to remove someone elses rights and freedoms to choose what they want to do with their own body and the contents therein?

The concept of a freedom and the right to exercise that freedom dictates that where someone exercises it in a way we dont agree with but is within the confines of the freedom we should accept thats their innalienable right to do so and respect their choices and decisions as they ONLY affect that person and not us whilst we exercise our freedom and right to choose the opposite which in turn wont affect them, a choice and freedom they might equally dissagree with, but would (we hope) respect our right to exercise

When people on one side of an issue seeks to control, subjugate and dictate to the other side you lose freedom and rights and end up with dictoratorial wishes of the self righteous telling the “wrong” people what they should think and do even tho right and wrong on such topics are subjective delusions no different to what would be there if muslims told christians they were “wrong” and that they should all be muslims and vice versa rather than each simply doing what they want whilst respecting mutually the others right to exercise the freedom to do what they prefer

Shouldnt people be a bit more concerned about their own lives and what they do with their bodies and less intrusive into other peoples lives? Because they would be the first to complain if the shoe was on the other foot and something they had the right to do was being sought to be dictated otherwise to them, a point they conveniently choose to overlook when interferring in the lives and choices of other people as a rule

Obviously thats an ideal, and people as a rule tend to be too bereft of consistency for living by ideals that dont perfectly suit them as an individual. But it is still the foundation of the concepts of rights and freedoms even tho some seem to think rights and freedoms are there for them to curtail the rights and freedoms of others with less entitlement to have rights and freedoms with which to decide their own path in life

But that is also a massive delusion