Tory MPs line up to disagree with Jacob Rees-Mogg's 'utterly abhorrent' views on abortion

First topic message reminder :

A number of Conservative MPs have criticised Jacob Rees-Mogg's views on abortion, some expressing vehement disagreement while others have gently espoused their more liberal stances.

On Wednesday, Mr Rees-Mogg, who is tipped to one day take over from Theresa May and become Tory leader, said he disagreed with abortion in every circumstance, including in cases of incest and rape. He also said that because he is a Catholic, he disagrees with same-sex marriage.

Margot James MP said: "Agree with @TimesOpinion about Jacob R-M who I like very much; but his views on pregnant women are utterly abhorrent"


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/07/tory-mps-line-disagree-jacob-rees-moggs-utterly-abhorrent-views/


Religious beliefs again, at the forefront of idiocy.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Whatever his views and beliefs - he has every right to believe this - it doesn't mean he can put a law in place to stop all abortions- its his right his belief just as everyone else has their own beliefs - its equality and nobody should be judging his beliefs .

Exactly right.

I person is entitled to their views

Are Muslims entitled to their views? Or are they, in your mind, a lower form of life not worthy of having opinions or beliefs?

Syl wrote:A report from the Guardian 2016.

"The number of abortions carried out in England and Wales last year was the highest in five years, driven by growing numbers of women in their 30s and 40s who are terminating a pregnancy, official figures show.

More women are having multiple abortions, according to the annual statistics released by the Department of Health. Almost four in 10 terminations are now carried out on women who have undergone the procedure before. Fifty women had each had eight terminations, the figures revealed.

In all, 185,824 abortions were carried out on women and girls in England and Wales last year. That was 1,253 (0.7%) more than the 184,571 performed in 2014, and the largest number since the 189,931 carried out in 2011.

The figures provide further evidence that abortions are becoming less common among women under 30 and more so among women aged 30 and over.

“Since 2005 the rates for women aged 30 to 34 have gone up from 14.5 per 1,000 women in 2005 to 17.1 in 2015, and rates for women aged 35 or over have gone up from 6.8 per 1,000 women in 2005 to 7.8 in 2015,” the statistical report said."

Misleading article from the guardian...

Let's look at the facts here without the spin...!


Women over 30 account for 2.49% of abortions in 2015... which means women/girls under 30 account for 97.51% of abortions in 2015...!!!


And much the same in 2005... 2.03% over 30's and 97.97% under 30's...


With around 185,000 abortions being carried out each year!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:A report from the Guardian 2016.

"The number of abortions carried out in England and Wales last year was the highest in five years, driven by growing numbers of women in their 30s and 40s who are terminating a pregnancy, official figures show.

More women are having multiple abortions, according to the annual statistics released by the Department of Health. Almost four in 10 terminations are now carried out on women who have undergone the procedure before. Fifty women had each had eight terminations, the figures revealed.

In all, 185,824 abortions were carried out on women and girls in England and Wales last year. That was 1,253 (0.7%) more than the 184,571 performed in 2014, and the largest number since the 189,931 carried out in 2011.

The figures provide further evidence that abortions are becoming less common among women under 30 and more so among women aged 30 and over.

“Since 2005 the rates for women aged 30 to 34 have gone up from 14.5 per 1,000 women in 2005 to 17.1 in 2015, and rates for women aged 35 or over have gone up from 6.8 per 1,000 women in 2005 to 7.8 in 2015,” the statistical report said."

Misleading article from the guardian...

Let's look at the facts here without the spin...!


Women over 30 account for 2.49% of abortions in 2015... which means women/girls under 30 account for 97.51% of abortions in 2015...!!!


And much the same in 2005... 2.03% over 30's and 97.97% under 30's...


With around 185,000 abortions being carried out each year!!!

And?

How many of these were let down by men, who claimed to love them and then chose to not want to raise that child?

Are you saying that woman should go through with that pregnancy, simple to make you feel better about this?

How many were based off failed contraceptives and those involved could not make up their mind?

Of course all the above is irrelevant, when it comes to you saying what a woman can or cannot decide to do over living organism within her body.

You may not like it, but its not your body. Whether you like it or not, its up to a woman to decide whether to carry such a foreign body within her. Sadly its how many miscarriages happen. As often the woman's immune system attacks that foreign body within her system.

So what does stats have to do with anything here, when its down to a woman to decide whether she changes her mind, based on a multitude of reasons whether to keep a baby or not?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

Ita already been said that abortion is illegal in the UK just because the child is the 'wrong' sex.
So yes, in that respect you can pick and choose who gets an abortion ....or the medics can.

Not sure what you mean by 'abortion free for all'.....if you think supporting a womans right to choose amounts to a free for all thats your interpretation....not mine.
A woman doesnt just wander in off the street for a quick termination.
She is interviewed by two different doctors, who will need to ansure that her physical and mental well being will be at risk if she carries on with the pregnancy....she will also be offered counselling to make sure she is making the right choice .

Maybe its time for you to rethink your outlook of  what the outcome would be if women were forced back into seedy  illegal abortions.

Someone has never heard of Planned Parenthood it seems

I have one son...planned.
Unlike others I do have empathy for many women who are pregnant with an unplanned pregnancy.

Women over 30 account for 2.49% of abortions in 2015... which means women/girls under 30 account for 97.51% of abortions in 2015...!!!


And much the same in 2005... 2.03% over 30's and 97.97% under 30's...


With around 185,000 abortions being carried out each year!!!

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Someone has never heard of Planned Parenthood it seems

I have one son...planned.
Unlike others I do have empathy for many women who are pregnant with an unplanned pregnancy.

No I'm not talking about people planning for Parenthood.

I'm talking about planned Parenthood, the baby killing factory.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

I have one son...planned.
Unlike others I do have empathy for many women who are pregnant with an unplanned pregnancy.

No I'm not talking about people planning for Parenthood.

I'm talking about planned Parenthood, the baby killing factory.

Can you elaborate?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

I have one son...planned.
Unlike others I do have empathy for many women who are pregnant with an unplanned pregnancy.

No I'm not talking about people planning for Parenthood.

I'm talking about planned Parenthood, the baby killing factory.

So just about every misconceived wank you had? After you misspent this on a tissue other than that of a fertile woman?

So how does your view point work, when the woman;s own immune system miscarriages that foreign body within her?

Is that the baby killing factory you speak off?

Tommy Monk wrote:Women over 30 account for 2.49% of abortions in 2015... which means women/girls under 30 account for 97.51% of abortions in 2015...!!!


And much the same in 2005... 2.03% over 30's and 97.97% under 30's...


With around 185,000 abortions being carried out each year!!!

I see Tommy runs a mile

Try again

And?

How many of these were let down by men, who claimed to love them and then chose to not want to raise that child?

Are you saying that woman should go through with that pregnancy, simple to make you feel better about this?

How many were based off failed contraceptives and those involved could not make up their mind?

Of course all the above is irrelevant, when it comes to you saying what a woman can or cannot decide to do over living organism within her body.

You may not like it, but its not your body. Whether you like it or not, its up to a woman to decide whether to carry such a foreign body within her. Sadly its how many miscarriages happen. As often the woman's immune system attacks that foreign body within her system.

So what does stats have to do with anything here, when its down to a woman to decide whether she changes her mind, based on a multitude of reasons whether to keep a baby or not?

Just to look at this from the womans perspective.

So a woman is pregnant with no means to look after a baby.....maybe she cant even look after herself, or she could have been raped, be underage, have planned a life that doesn't include children, already have children she is struggling to feed, be abandoned by the sperm donor, be too old, too ill, or as in the reported cases of 50 women who have already had 8 abortions possibly be mentally ill.

If you don't agree with abortion what should these women do?
In extreme cases I would say sterilise them.....but that would be frowned on too no doubt.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:A report from the Guardian 2016.

"The number of abortions carried out in England and Wales last year was the highest in five years, driven by growing numbers of women in their 30s and 40s who are terminating a pregnancy, official figures show.

More women are having multiple abortions, according to the annual statistics released by the Department of Health. Almost four in 10 terminations are now carried out on women who have undergone the procedure before. Fifty women had each had eight terminations, the figures revealed.

In all, 185,824 abortions were carried out on women and girls in England and Wales last year. That was 1,253 (0.7%) more than the 184,571 performed in 2014, and the largest number since the 189,931 carried out in 2011.

The figures provide further evidence that abortions are becoming less common among women under 30 and more so among women aged 30 and over.

“Since 2005 the rates for women aged 30 to 34 have gone up from 14.5 per 1,000 women in 2005 to 17.1 in 2015, and rates for women aged 35 or over have gone up from 6.8 per 1,000 women in 2005 to 7.8 in 2015,” the statistical report said."

Misleading article from the guardian...

Let's look at the facts here without the spin...!


Women over 30 account for 2.49% of abortions in 2015... which means women/girls under 30 account for 97.51% of abortions in 2015...!!!


And much the same in 2005... 2.03% over 30's and 97.97% under 30's...


With around 185,000 abortions being carried out each year!!!

Here are the official figures Tommy....thay may be different, don't have time to do the maths right now.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/618533/Abortion_stats_2016_commentary_with_tables.pdf

Syl wrote:Just to look at this from the womans perspective.

So a woman is pregnant with no means to look after a baby.....maybe she cant even look after herself, or she could have been raped, be underage, have planned a life that doesn't include children, already have children she is struggling to feed, be abandoned by the sperm donor, be too old, too ill, or as in the reported cases of 50 women who have already had 8 abortions possibly be mentally ill.

If you don't agree with abortion what should these women do?
In extreme cases I would say sterilise them.....but that would be frowned on too no doubt.

None of that is even relevant

And you are missing the whole point on this. Even more on based on a mouth to feed.

This is about and has always been about the rights of a woman to decide.

Sometimes, she cannot even decide,as her body will decide for her and attack that foreign body within her.

I even sadly think that some miscarriages are caused subconsciously, where a woman does not want to have that child.

The point is, a woman can change her mind and more so when let down by a partner, who they thought they loved.

Its dumb where people go off contraceptives, ignoring how many women when pregnant want to keep that child, but have had that supposed love of creation, kicked right back in their face by then someone leave them, because they are pregnant.

The reality is on one aspect here. Does anyone have an argument, that can say, they have the right to force a woman to go through pregnancy all the way to birth, against her wishes?

Nobody can. Where they will do this within the law or outside it.

Now people may place many ethical arguments, but it is her choice and when men start to have to carry this 9 months or hardship, then they can even begin to form an argument on this.

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Women over 30 account for 2.49% of abortions in 2015... which means women/girls under 30 account for 97.51% of abortions in 2015...!!!


And much the same in 2005... 2.03% over 30's and 97.97% under 30's...


With around 185,000 abortions being carried out each year!!!

I see Tommy runs a mile

Try again

And?

How many of these were let down by men, who claimed to love them and then chose to not want to raise that child?

Are you saying that woman should go through with that pregnancy, simple to make you feel better about this?

How many were based off failed contraceptives and those involved could not make up their mind?

Of course all the above is irrelevant, when it comes to you saying what a woman can or cannot decide to do over living organism within her body.

You may not like it, but its not your body. Whether you like it or not, its up to a woman to decide whether to carry such a foreign body within her. Sadly its how many miscarriages happen. As often the woman's immune system attacks that foreign body within her system.

So what does stats have to do with anything here, when its down to a woman to decide whether she changes her mind, based on a multitude of reasons whether to keep a baby or not?

I am just pointing out the facts of the article, minus the guardian spin...

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Misleading article from the guardian...

Let's look at the facts here without the spin...!


Women over 30 account for 2.49% of abortions in 2015... which means women/girls under 30 account for 97.51% of abortions in 2015...!!!


And much the same in 2005... 2.03% over 30's and 97.97% under 30's...


With around 185,000 abortions being carried out each year!!!

Here are the official figures Tommy....thay may be different, don't have time to do the maths right now.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/618533/Abortion_stats_2016_commentary_with_tables.pdf

I was using the figures from the guardian article... but just removed the spin...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I see Tommy runs a mile

Try again

And?

How many of these were let down by men, who claimed to love them and then chose to not want to raise that child?

Are you saying that woman should go through with that pregnancy, simple to make you feel better about this?

How many were based off failed contraceptives and those involved could not make up their mind?

Of course all the above is irrelevant, when it comes to you saying what a woman can or cannot decide to do over living organism within her body.

You may not like it, but its not your body. Whether you like it or not, its up to a woman to decide whether to carry such a foreign body within her. Sadly its how many miscarriages happen. As often the woman's immune system attacks that foreign body within her system.

So what does stats have to do with anything here, when its down to a woman to decide whether she changes her mind, based on a multitude of reasons whether to keep a baby or not?

I am just pointing out the facts of the article, minus the guardian spin...

Who cares about the Guardian?

Do you have the right to force a woman to go through having a baby, she does want?

You presented arguments based off the most poor black and white situations. Never understanding what a woman goes through when rejected after impregnated by a man. Who will often give her the biggest load of bullshit. Telling her he loves her, not to worry about being worried about getting pregnant. Giving her a load of crap bout how condoms have not the same feeling whilst having sex. Or even worse have sex with her when drunk. Not caring she may well throw up later, ensuring her contraceptive pill does not work. Mainly as the man, thinks with his dick and then even more stupidly, seems to negate all this and then decide what she can do with her own body afterwards when pregnant. When he thinking with his dick, multiplied the chances she would get pregnant massively. Where many who find out she is pregnant, shit a brick and run a mile.

We as men, do not have to face that dilemma and yet in reality, we are the dicks that cause it.

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

No I'm not talking about people planning for Parenthood.

I'm talking about planned Parenthood, the baby killing factory.

Can you elaborate?

Don't you think you should know what it is you're supporting?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

Can you elaborate?

Don't you think you should know what it is you're supporting?

That is interesting, as what are you supporting?

The control of women?

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Don't you think you should know what it is you're supporting?

That is interesting, as what are you supporting?

The control of women?

I'm supporting the trump train

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

That is interesting, as what are you supporting?

The control of women?

I'm supporting the trump train

So controlling women then?

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

I'm supporting the trump train

So controlling women then?

Exactomondo

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So controlling women then?

Exactomondo

So you must then clearly fear women then, in order to need to control them?

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:


Exactomondo

So you must then clearly fear women then, in order to need to control them?

Or control them so I don't need to fear them eh bob?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So you must then clearly fear women then, in order to need to control them?

Or control them so I don't need to fear them eh bob?

So either way, your view is based on a fear you have of women.

I knew you were insecure, but I never knew you feared women that much mate.

I would provide you the psychological analysis of this, but I would get told off for bringing personal family members into this

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Or control them so I don't need to fear them eh bob?

So either way, your view is based on a fear you have of women.

I knew you were insecure, but I never knew you feared women that much mate.

I would provide you the psychological analysis of this, but I would get told off for bringing personal family members into this

Oh this is good to miss

*ATTENTION MODS*

Please allow didge to give me a psychological analysis, if this means he has to bring my family into it, then he has my permission.

Didge, continue

SB. Your ego is nearly as big as my cock.
Women are not owned or controlled or used.
They are men's equals and partners.

Angry Andy wrote:SB. Your ego is nearly as big as my cock.
Women are not owned or controlled or used.
They are men's equals and partners.

Unless you live in Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim country, then women are not only controlled but owned and savagely abused as well, as for being equal??

Muslims believe  women are worth half the value of a man.

Not sure you will take issue with that though, much better to go for the low hanging fruit, safer too

I am sure you think the same as Muslims with regards to women.
But when I think of you in relation to a tree, you are the guano on the ground that the birds have shat out.

Someone has "Mother" issues.

eddie wrote:Someone has "Mother" issues.

Yeah I'm a real mother fucker

If a woman has the total right to choose (which she doesn't in theory), why should she not have the responsibility of paying for the abortion?

Angry Andy wrote:Bandit only has 1 chilf.
Not surprised.
Who woman would want to be shagged by him twice?

Was there a point to that completely pointless post, or are you just going to troll all over the forum now that Smelly's back?

Raggamuffin wrote:If a woman has the total right to choose (which she doesn't in theory), why should she not have the responsibility of paying for the abortion?

We all make choices in life, and many of those choices require NHS services.

For eg....people smoke, drink too much, eat like pigs, drive like madmen/women, and so on.

if its the cost you are bothered about do you think these people should people pay privately when their lifestyles causes them to need medical care?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

Can you elaborate?

Don't you think you should know what it is you're supporting?

I know exactly what I'm supporting, a womans right to choose....the bewilderment comes in trying to work out what you are going on about.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If a woman has the total right to choose (which she doesn't in theory), why should she not have the responsibility of paying for the abortion?

We all make choices in life, and many of those choices require NHS services.

For eg....people smoke, drink too much, eat like pigs, drive like madmen/women, and so on.

if its the cost you are bothered about do you think these people should people pay privately when their lifestyles causes them to need medical care?

Those people are ill. Women who have abortions are not ill - they merely require a service to get rid of something they don't want.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

We all make choices in life, and many of those choices require NHS services.

For eg....people smoke, drink too much, eat like pigs, drive like madmen/women, and so on.

if its the cost you are bothered about do you think these people should people pay privately when their lifestyles causes them to need medical care?

Those people are ill. Women who have abortions are not ill - they merely require a service to get rid of something they don't want.

Ill through their own risky lifestyle.
You have mentioned a few times now about the money coming from tax payers, perhaps many tax payers object to paying for diseases caused by smoking or drinking.

If you start complaining about where your money is being spent in the NHS you start picking and choosing who you think is worthy.....and people have different opinions.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Those people are ill. Women who have abortions are not ill - they merely require a service to get rid of something they don't want.

Ill through their own risky lifestyle.
You have mentioned a few times now about the money coming from tax payers, perhaps many tax payers object to paying for diseases caused by smoking or drinking.

If you start complaining about where your money is being spent in the NHS you start picking and choosing who you think is worthy.....and people have different opinions.

Smokers and drinkers pay a lot of tax for those products, women who get pregnant don't. My point is that abortions shouldn't come under the NHS, which is stretched enough.

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Don't you think you should know what it is you're supporting?

I know exactly what I'm supporting, a womans right to choose....the bewilderment comes in trying to work out what you are going on about.

You don't understand that by saying any woman at anytime for any reason is allowed an abortion without question or judgement is an open invitation to men from misogynistic cultures and world views to hijack your beloved women's empowerment to further their own ends??

Try this

Keys + fox + henhouse = dead hens

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

I know exactly what I'm supporting, a womans right to choose....the bewilderment comes in trying to work out what you are going on about.

You don't understand that by saying any woman at anytime for any reason is allowed an abortion without question or judgement is an open invitation to men from misogynistic cultures and world views to hijack your beloved women's empowerment to further their own ends??

Try this

Keys + fox + henhouse = dead hens

Only if the fox has opposable thumbs

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:Someone has "Mother" issues.

Yeah I'm a real mother fucker

You wanted me to elaborate and then you admit to this?

What can I say

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Ill through their own risky lifestyle.
You have mentioned a few times now about the money coming from tax payers, perhaps many tax payers object to paying for diseases caused by smoking or drinking.

If you start complaining about where your money is being spent in the NHS you start picking and choosing who you think is worthy.....and people have different opinions.

Smokers and drinkers pay a lot of tax for those products, women who get pregnant don't. My point is that abortions shouldn't come under the NHS, which is stretched enough.

Absurd reasoning. so poor in fact it then would argue on the same lines people not be given help medically based on what they pay tax on.

Next you will be saying children are not entitled to health care.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

I know exactly what I'm supporting, a womans right to choose....the bewilderment comes in trying to work out what you are going on about.

You don't understand that by saying any woman at anytime for any reason is allowed an abortion without question or judgement is an open invitation to men from misogynistic cultures and world views to hijack your beloved women's empowerment to further their own ends??

Try this

Keys + fox + henhouse = dead hens

How dumb to say the least.

How can you compare such separate things.

Are you saying a woman cannot have control over her own body?

Based on this, you think this justifies men controlling women?

Love to hear your reasoning on this?

What I would like to know is whether you believe a woman cannot remove an unwanted living organism within their body or not?

http://dailym.ai/2wi910x

The abortion industry ramps ups efforts to increase its bottom line

What a surprise, smelly runs away again

Thorin wrote:What a surprise, smelly runs away again

Ooooooo chase me chase me

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:What a surprise, smelly runs away again

Ooooooo chase me chase me

As much as i know you crave for me to do so. Its far easier to simple watch you struggle, unable to answer points.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:Just to look at this from the womans perspective.

So a woman is pregnant with no means to look after a baby.....maybe she cant even look after herself, or she could have been raped, be underage, have planned a life that doesn't include children, already have children she is struggling to feed, be abandoned by the sperm donor, be too old, too ill, or as in the reported cases of 50 women who have already had 8 abortions possibly be mentally ill.

If you don't agree with abortion what should these women do?
In extreme cases I would say sterilise them.....but that would be frowned on too no doubt.

None of that is even relevant

And you are missing the whole point on this. Even more on based on a mouth to feed.

This is about and has always been about the rights of a woman to decide.

Sometimes, she cannot even decide,as her body will decide for her and attack that foreign body within her.

I even sadly think that some miscarriages are caused subconsciously, where a woman does not want to have that child.

The point is, a woman can change her mind and more so when let down by a partner, who they thought they loved.

Its dumb where people go off contraceptives, ignoring how many women when pregnant want to keep that child, but have had that supposed love of creation, kicked right back in their face by then someone leave them, because they are pregnant.

The reality is on one aspect here. Does anyone have an argument, that can say, they have the right to force a woman to go through pregnancy all the way to birth, against her wishes?

Nobody can. Where they will do this within the law or outside it.

Now people may place many ethical arguments, but it is her choice and when men start to have to carry this 9 months or hardship, then they can even begin to form an argument on this.

I'm not missing any point Thor, I am looking at it from a different angle.

For a woman to come to the decision whether she has an abortion or not, she will be faced with three basic choices.
I don't believe any normal woman would have an abortion without giving it deep thought.
I just outlined some of the circumstances a woman may choose the option to terminate.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

I know exactly what I'm supporting, a womans right to choose....the bewilderment comes in trying to work out what you are going on about.

You don't understand that by saying any woman at anytime for any reason is allowed an abortion without question or judgement is an open invitation to men from misogynistic cultures and world views to hijack your beloved women's empowerment to further their own ends??

Try this

Keys + fox + henhouse = dead hens

I haven't said any of the above....try to concentrate.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

None of that is even relevant

And you are missing the whole point on this. Even more on based on a mouth to feed.

This is about and has always been about the rights of a woman to decide.

Sometimes, she cannot even decide,as her body will decide for her and attack that foreign body within her.

I even sadly think that some miscarriages are caused subconsciously, where a woman does not want to have that child.

The point is, a woman can change her mind and more so when let down by a partner, who they thought they loved.

Its dumb where people go off contraceptives, ignoring how many women when pregnant want to keep that child, but have had that supposed love of creation, kicked right back in their face by then someone leave them, because they are pregnant.

The reality is on one aspect here. Does anyone have an argument, that can say, they have the right to force a woman to go through pregnancy all the way to birth, against her wishes?

Nobody can. Where they will do this within the law or outside it.

Now people may place many ethical arguments, but it is her choice and when men start to have to carry this 9 months or hardship, then they can even begin to form an argument on this.

I'm not missing any point Thor, I am looking at it from a different angle.

For a woman to come to the decision whether she has an abortion or not, she will be faced with three basic choices.
I don't believe any normal woman would have an abortion without giving it deep thought.
I just outlined some of the circumstances a woman may choose the option to terminate.

You have be a woman and in that situation to fully appreciate how it is. No amount of posturing pontificating man will ever appreciate how it is, how it feels, what it does.

Having said that, in this day and age, there should be no reason to get pregnant unless you've been raped. Contraception is fully available and easy to to access, unlike the early days when it was nigh impossible to get it unless you were married with a dozen kids. I remember going to my GP when I was seventeen and single and being turned away when I asked to go on the pill. I was told I didn't need to, and that I was too young.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I'm not missing any point Thor, I am looking at it from a different angle.

For a woman to come to the decision whether she has an abortion or not, she will be faced with three basic choices.
I don't believe any normal woman would have an abortion without giving it deep thought.
I just outlined some of the circumstances a woman may choose the option to terminate.

You have be a woman and in that situation to fully appreciate how it is.    No amount of posturing pontificating man will ever appreciate how it is, how it feels, what it does.

Having said that, in this day and age, there should be no reason to get pregnant unless you've been raped.   Contraception is fully available and easy to to access, unlike the early days when it was nigh impossible to get it unless you were married with a dozen kids.   I remember going to my GP when I was seventeen and single and being turned away when I asked to go on the pill.    I was told I didn't need to, and that I was too young.

Spot on. 

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I'm not missing any point Thor, I am looking at it from a different angle.

For a woman to come to the decision whether she has an abortion or not, she will be faced with three basic choices.
I don't believe any normal woman would have an abortion without giving it deep thought.
I just outlined some of the circumstances a woman may choose the option to terminate.

You have be a woman and in that situation to fully appreciate how it is.    No amount of posturing pontificating man will ever appreciate how it is, how it feels, what it does.

Having said that, in this day and age, there should be no reason to get pregnant unless you've been raped.   Contraception is fully available and easy to to access, unlike the early days when it was nigh impossible to get it unless you were married with a dozen kids.   I remember going to my GP when I was seventeen and single and being turned away when I asked to go on the pill.    I was told I didn't need to, and that I was too young.

Since when did contraceptives become 100% workable?