-
Posts
-
As I said earlier the ONLY thing that can be responded to is whats written
So if “My concern was people using unrestricted abortions as a method of birth control, not one abortion but many per person and many people using it, therefore, causing the health system additional services that it does not need”
Isnt saying that them NOT having abortions would be less of an “additional” burden what IS it saying?
Because if they didnt have an abortion irrespective of whether its their first of 50th the child that wasnt aborted would be a much larger burden making the abortion the cheapest least burdenesque route all round
There is also no evidence anywhere in government figures that a mass of people have regular and multiple abortions as a method of birth control either, simply that a percentage have had an abortion before which says nothing at all about frequency or reasoning whatsoever so the conclusion is foundationless
Just claiming you have been missunderstood without providing a clearer version of what you did say is to say the least pointless and will appear like the witterings of someone who wasnt missunderstood but cant think of an effective spin on what they did say, so why not just explain what you ACTUALLY meant in a clearer way IF as you claim what was written wasnt what was meant?
Simpler surely than an endless but non clairifying series of “but you missunderstood me”‘s?
@lil fek wrote:
What bothers me about “unrestricted on demand abortions” is that it would be used, by some, as a method of birth control i.e repeat abortions.
Which was a thought I had when writing it . Birth control is the key here not abortion versus giving birth.
I really don’t think someone would have 50 children but if they were using it as birth control they might have 50 abortions and if it wasn’t on demand they would have to be more careful. It is not about them not having abortions and giving birth..its about using it as birth control. Like being careless and not worrying about the consequences as they can have an abortion on demand. So more and more people could be having abortions and giving birth and using it as birth control and thats makes additional costs.
@ubermik wrote:
Just claiming you have been missunderstood without providing a clearer version of what you did say is to say the least pointless and will appear like the witterings of someone who wasnt missunderstood but cant think of an effective spin on what they did say, so why not just explain what you ACTUALLY meant in a clearer way IF as you claim what was written wasnt what was meant?
Simpler surely than an endless but non clairifying series of “but you missunderstood me”‘s?
Lmao not once have I said I was misunderstood..I said you didn’t read the post properly and I have never said what was written wasn’t what was meant. You are making things up now!
Still not following
Demographics show that people dont stop having abortions just because they arent available, nearly half the abortions carried out in the world are done by people in countries where they arent legal or allowed
So restricting them wouldnt limit the amount of pregnancies, it would just divert the abortions elsewhere or mean more women would have more kids
Unless the lifestyle changed nothing else would change till their brood of unwanted kids left them so tired and busy they couldnt get laid anymore
But as we live in a society that rewards women for irresponsible breeding via the benefits system restricting abortions which is the only other option to having them on demand is unlikely to make the possible but small percentage of repeat offenders alter their lifestyle, which again comes back to the point of one pregnancy being more of a burden than several abortions
So even IF it was a method of birth control its still less of a burden to the NHS than additional pregnancies
So I’m sorry, but I still cant see why my responses arent connected to your original post which I didnt think was exactly hard to understand at all really
Not having abortions on demand is likely to not limit the amount of unwanted pregnancies but IS likely to increase the amount of births making it create a greater rather than lesser burden NEEDLESSLY
And as the same NHS is scaling down its family planning clinics the amount of unwanted pregnancies is more than likely going to increase proportionally
The fact women who would frequently get pregnant WOULD have an abortion each time is actually a good thing as far as the NHS is concerned, because if they didnt those children would be a huge burden as by the time abortion is discussed they already ARE pregnant so not having an on demand abortion available is like trying to lock the gate a few shags after the horse has bolted really
@lil fek wrote:
Surely you are not suggesting the initial poster is an Internet troll?
He’s not a troll. He doesn’t abuse. He does banter, like I. He’s a good ‘en.
Anyway, back on topic. There is no debate here. Abortion is not wrong nor is it right.
I don’t agree with abortion, personally. BUT, I agree that each woman has the right to choice. So if she wants to have an abortion – it’s her body, it’s her baby, if she wants to abort then it’s her right to do so; whether we disagree with it or not.
@smiley wrote:
Anyway, back on topic. There is no debate here. Abortion is not wrong nor is it right.
I don’t agree with abortion, personally. BUT, I agree that each woman has the right to choice. So if she wants to have an abortion – it’s her body, it’s her baby, if she wants to abort then it’s her right to do so; whether we disagree with it or not.
Thats definately the right attitude.
Yeah, I’m deciding to be myself for once instead of a tw*t looking for a rise :)
You can be very nice :lol: but dont do it for too long lol! :wink: people will soon get bored. You aint called me a Scottish B*tch for bloody ages….. 8)
shazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr :D
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!