NoMoreEUSSR

That's the big problem. Instinctively I feel mainly anti-abortion - rather anti-impulsive-profligate-on-demand abortion - much as I'd say I'm anti-drugs and anti-prostitution... but certainly in the latter two cases prohibition is ineffective and seems to cause more harm than good (in a TV interview I was so shockingly pleased to find that Farage appears to agree with me on this - well done fellow libertarian ), and that may well apply to abortions too. Abortion-on-demand may be disgusting, but prohibition is worthless if it does not actually prevent this from occurring and simply creates an illicit (profitable, criminal-controlled) black market with all the negative side effects that entails.

Illegal abortions have certainly been rampant in places like Portugal that either impose or have imposed a policy of strict prohibition.

Smidgey

We could argue for ever about the metaphysical details if a fetus is a person or not, but I think what it comes down to is what the law says.

If a doctor wishes not to perform an abortion - that is up to them. I would say the same to a doctor who does not wish to perform euthanasia. Being a doctor should not have a requirement behind it like, for example, a policeman has (I'm thinking of that recent case where a Muslim police officer refused to guard the Israeli embassy).

What it boils down to, is that some things which are moral and immoral need not be enshrined into law. I'm sure most of us here think that adultery is immoral - but would we really wish to see it as a crime as well?

Abortion, I believe, falls into this category. The pro-choice position is more moral than the immorality or morality of having or not having an abortion. It therefore trumps both. If you find abortion to be immoral, then don't have one. If you find an abortion to be 'acceptable', then have one if you wish to have one. I would be extremely opposed to any law concerning abortion that allowed the government to force upon people what they do with their own bodies.

Personally, I think abortion is immoral in many circumstances, however, I still adopt the pro-choice stance as it doesn't (in theory at least - but we know how much the government likes to screw with legislation) force upon anyone.

Smidgey

P.S. I would just like to ask the pro-lifers when the 'soul' is added to the 'child'.

Also, are the pro-lifers amongst us opposed to stem-cell research as well?

rjt

The problem with the current law is that it allows abortion on demand with the father having no say and nobody acting as an advocate for the unborn child.

Feldoon

I say give fathers the right to a finanical abortion.

That is, to say to the female "I want nothing to do with the baby" whilst the abortion window is well and truly open.

What child?

rjt

WHat you would term the foetus Feldoon is what I call a child.

Are you saying that a father has the right to abdicate his responisbility despite making an decision to have sex with someone knowing that pregancy could result?

Equally the woman could not have got preganant without the man so he was half repsonsible and thus has a right to more of a say than you appear to suggest.

rjt

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...enComment=true

This seems like a good article

A crisis brought on by selfish desires.

Besoeker

That would mean, at 2005 rates, another 186,400 cases to be heard by our already beleaguered legal system.

rjt

http://www.prolife.org.uk/show?item=238

This article is a couple of years old but I think it is worth reading and reflecting on.

rjt

Again this article is from a few years ago but it says a lot about mens rights.

http://www.prolife.org.uk/show?item=38