Abortion

[FromTheSouth]

This is a touch topic to debate, and a touchy one to discuss. So instead of debating what we think of abortion, I will present the topic as such:

Resolved: Abortion activists on both sides do more damage to their cause than they do good.


Since Roe vs. Wade was handed down, the United States has had an ongoing debate within it's borders about whether or not abortion should be legal. My feelings, personally, are that life is created at conception. Ending this life, to me, is morally wrong. In the same vein that people feel that the death penalty is government excused murder, I feel that abortion is as well. In the same vein that Scott Peterson can be convicted of double murder for killing his pregnant wife, I ask, why are abortion doctors not treated the same within the law? That being said, I am not a woman. I do not have the emotions involved in child birth. I feel that it is not my place, or the place of the government to tell a woman whether not she should have a baby. In the same way I condemn the act, I condone the law. What is good for me, I feel, is not good for everyone, and I can accept that.

My problem is that the pro-choice movement seems to be pro-abortion, instead of pro-choice.

I first contend, is that in a just society, choice is left to the individual. If we look to the recent incident in Indiana.

Washington Times, December 5, 2008

Planned Parenthood of Indiana has suspended a nurse after the release of an undercover videotape showing her coaching a supposed 13-year-old on how to duck Indiana's laws about parental consent on abortion and the reporting of child sex abuse.

The videotape shows Lila Rose, the president of a university pro-life group and a brunette, posing as a blond 13-year-old girl named "Brianna" and telling the Planned Parenthood nurse at the clinic in Bloomington, Ind., that she is pregnant by a 31-year-old man.

"I am supposed to report [you] to Child Protective Services," the nurse says on the videotape, though she assures "Brianna" that she will not do so if she can tell a plausible different story.

"I didn't hear the age. I don't want to know the age," the nurse says at a later point on the tape.

The nurse, who is referred to on the video as "Diana" but whose face has been blurred, knew neither that the session was being taped nor that "Brianna" really was Miss Rose, a 20-year-old pro-life activist at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Miss Rose told The Washington Times on Thursday that this footage is only part of an ongoing project with many examples of such conduct. Her group and other student pro-lifers have released tapes of similar counseling.

Indiana is not one of 12 states that restricts or prohibits surreptitious taping.

This nurse thinks she may be protecting the patient, but she is skirting the law to allow an illegal abortion. The nurse's duty is to report the girl to CPS, and then, with the parents of the child, make the best decision for the child.

Furthermore, Planned Parenthood in the same state is selling gift certificates for any treatment at their offices, as stocking stuffers.

While the gift certificates can be used for any service provided, the context in which they are presented screams come have an abortion on your Aunt Jane.

These two examples show that the pro-choice activists are overstepping their bounds to increase the number of abortions. Encouraging abortions to naive and susceptible people, who may very well be in shock over their condition, is more deplorable to me than the act itself.

Next, I contend that activist pro-lifers are crazy. I was going to use fancy words, but frankly, crazy covers it. Since 1989, 24 abortion doctors have been killed or had attempts on their lives. Over 200 abortion clinics have been fire bombed. For someone who calls themselves "pro-life" isn't this a bit hypocritical?

The inconsistency continues in politics as well. President Bush campaigns on a promise to appoint pro-life judges. Money is thrown at candidates based on how they feel about abortion. This single issue endorsement undermines the entire point of American Democracy. People are supposed to vote on what is best for themselves and their family. I don't know how an evangelical can claim that this one issue should define an entire candidacy and representation.

In conclusion, activists on both sides of the issue have taken away the concept of the debate. The debate exists in the legality of the act. The public debate has veered off course into a contest to see if the pro-choicers can kill more babies that the pro-lifers can doctors. This is disgusting. I am all for the public debate about the morals, whether life is different than sustainable life, and whether there are better options than abortion for the welfare of the baby, the mother, and society as a whole.

In the end, let's all remember, Webster, Punky Brewster, Willis, and Arnold were all with foster parents.

 

[HBK-aholic]

The Pro-Choice movement is NOT about being Pro-abortion. Which is a common misconception, one you seem to believe here. A huge majority of people who are pro-choice wish there was no need for abortions. If everyone could just fall pregnant when they wish, and nothing be difficult, the world would be a better place. However they realise that isn't the case. They give women a CHOICE about abortion. They don't talk about it as if it's a bad thing - which the media seem to do. They don't make them feel inhumane for having one.

The nurse you mentioned, she isn't doing her job, and it really is as simple as that. I don't think she can be used in any way as negative propaganda to the Pro-choice movement, which the Pro-life activists seems to believe. That nurse shows what's wrong with the healthcare system, not what's wrong with being Pro-choice.

The gift certificate thing you're being naive on. Do you really expect someone is going to get one of them, and go off and get pregnant just to use it? I'm pretty sure Planned-Parenthood also carry out procedures which are contraceptive - having a coil fitted, for example. The pro-life movement use more propaganda than Hitler did, to make all these innocent things seem huge.

Moving on, I completely agree with your assessment of pro-life as 'crazy'. You commented on the one thing I usually do - that they go out and kill doctors. Seems very Anti-Pro-life if you ask me.

 

[FromTheSouth]

But you see, it's not the belief systems I attack. It's the activists. Those who are pro-life are fine with me. So are those who are pro-choice. I feel that those who make it their number one cause in life is their side of the debate are crazy.

The nurse is going beyond the bounds of a medical professional. This would be like a doctor prescribing xanax by telling the patient what to say to get it, whether they needed it or not. My perception of the event is not that she is protecting the girl, it's that she wants to make abortion easier to get. I don't think that abortion and boob jobs are the same kind of drive thru medicine that seems to be popular today. A 13 year old girl needs her parents to make this decision. At least bring in the mother and don't tell the father, but coaching a girl on how to get away with the procedure undercover just seems, ummm, immoral.

On the gift certificate section. I know what it can be used for. You know what it can be used for. I just fear for those who feel it makes it ok to raw dog it in the bedroom. It seems to make it a little more permissable to have unsafe sex by giving the girl a plan b. Unfortunately, that gift certificate doesn't come with cure for AIDS. I don't want to legislate behavior, but I don't want to give the OK to go be stupid either.

Comparing pro-lifers to Hitler is a little extreme. I don't think that most pro-lifers demonize abortion like he did with Jews.

However......

Pro-lifers are great propaganda artists. Their methods seem a little backwards. I'm pro-life so I'm going to kill you. Stupid.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Well after adding my two cents to the other topic, I just discovered this one and definitely think I might be able to contribute something here as well.

Now as I pointed out in the other ("Is it murder?") thread, I'm a law student at Vienna University right now, unfortunately my exam in criminal law is a bit behind me and right now I'm focusing on some other stuff, so my memory may be a bit clouded and I would need to read through a lot of stuff again. However I also took several courses at university dealing with criminal law with respect to medical professions, which of course also covers the issue of abortion, among other things.

What first needs being said is that this question has a very difficult (and frankly, unanswereable) ethic basis. Because as people have pointed out here - first and foremost, you need to define when "life" begins. And frankly, this is not possible. You will never find a single point in time that everyone will accept as THE very instant life truly begins; some say it's already the conception, some say it's only upon severance of the umbilical cord. But ultimately, there is no unquestionable solution.

In Austria, which of course has a continental European legal system, which encompasses a vast amount of very specific written law (as opposed to the Anglo-American system that relies only on few written texts, but leave the development of new "law" to the courts and judges in the form of case law), we have specific regulations for that. I in all honesty don't know the exact time now, but I believe it's something around 3 months into the pregnancy after which you may no longer request an abortion without making yourself subject to criminal charges.

However, the mere fact that positive law lays down this regulation of course does not state that this is truly the instant "life" begins; it is merely a compromise between the various theories, as both the "conception" theory and the "separation" theory would be too radical in their consequences if applied uninhibited. Personally, I feel more inclined to name the instant of conception the moment life begins, however you have to consider the fact that crimes such as rape take place, and why should a woman who is a victim of such a crime then herself be subject to criminal charges, if she becomes pregnant through this act and does not wish to bear the child of her violator?
At the same time, the "separation" theory just leaves too much discretion for choice, especially since a child in the 7th or 8th month of a pregnancy will be quite developed already, and it seems out of place to not consider this child "alive".

So while this compromise is definitely not a solution to everything, at least it lays down a legal mainframe within which people can act. This allows a certain range of choice (i.e. if a woman truly does not want to have this child for whatever reason, she should know this quite quickly into the pregnancy, and not only a few weeks before the child is due) but also takes into account that at some point in time, an unborn will be quite developed already and has to be considered "alive" no matter if it has been separated from the mother yet. But as said - this is a very difficult question and there is no patented answer to this, and never can be.

Now as for doctors who perform these abortions - under Austrian law at least, they are justified if they have the informed consent of the patient (i.e. the mother), and perform the abortion within that (I believe) 3 month period. A doctor is also not subject to criminal charges if the abortion is necessary because otherwise the birth of the child would mean great danger for health and life of the woman, or (and this is also quite problematic) if there is a great possibility that the child will be born mentally or physically severly handicapped, or if the woman is underage. Furthermore, a doctor is not compelled to perform an abortion unless a life threatening situation for the woman cannot otherwise be eliminated.

So you see, while basically abortions are penalized in Austria (§96 Austrian penal code), there are quite a few exceptions to that rule in §97, some of which are quite problematic. But it just goes to show that in a very sensitive question such as this, you just cannot find a patented, all-encompassing solution, as there are so many different views, many of which are pursued very strongly and passionately (especially if religiously induced), which is also shown by your examples of the pro-life-activists.

Now I do not know enough about the concrete situation in America, but I imagine it is even a lot more heated than hereabouts, since religious groups play a much more avid part in politics and the public discussion. Of course we also take these groups and views into consideration hereabouts, but I believe our legislature tries to keep extreme standpoints out of passed laws, and tries to find a compromissory solution (at least in this case).

I personally do not find this solution all that bad. For one it leaves some room for choice, for as said - what it comes down to, and not only in the cases of rape-pregnancies, is a contest of interests between life and life-quality of the (unborn) child on the one side, and life-quality of the future mother, who might also suffer quite severe unfavorable consequences if she is in any and every case forced to have the child, ranging from everything from the natural dangers of childbirth to the social consequences (responsibility of caring for the child, possibly worse chances for education and career etc etc...) - now while these factors surely weigh not as much as "life" itself, and never should, they are definitely to be taken into consideration - for after all, life-quality also is a part of life, and thus the question comes down to life vs life - should we at all cost preserve the life of one at the cost of life (in the form of life quality) of another? Now I believe, as hard as this may sound, that a certain degree of choice should definitely be left to the individual whether she wants to have this child or not. On the other hand of course, the regulations with this 3-month-period also takes into consideration that an unborn child nonetheless represents a new life and cannot be treated as purely a thing, which especially is underlined by the way the specific law provisions are written in: In the first, earlier paragraph, abortion is penalized per se - thus stating that the killing of a child is in fact killing (however, it is not penalized as murder in Austria, and also does not entail such high sentences, which is also noteable!) and per se unlawful; and only in the second pragraph dealing with this issue the law states that there may be exceptions to this rule.

So in my opinion, while still not a patented solution, this clearly states that the life of an unborn child needs to be protected in some form or fashion; but not at all cost, as there may be cases where an abortion should be lawful, and there may be people who want to make their own "choice" about their life, a life which in any case would be gravely affected by the birth of a child one way or the other. And I personally think - and do not get me wrong on this, I know this sounds kind of harsh and cruel - it may be better to allow a woman or a couple an abortion instead of forcing them to have a child that they do not want, and which child then in turn might have to live a life unloved and unwanted by their parents. It still is a weak argument of course - outweighing life itself against quality of life or the way a life may be led - but considering the equally present right of EVERYONE to a life of their own free choice, it has to be taken into consideration.

So in closing, I believe I can only say that I really cannot give an answer, as there cannot be a single true answer here. I think that our regulation, if imperfect, still takes a lot of different factors into consideration and thus presents an agreeable compromise. There could most certainly be a way to improve the wording of the regulation, maybe even create an entirely new one that distinguishes more distinctively between the above mentioned cases of rape, and just "accidental" pregnancies or such (but then again, maybe this would then again be going too much into detail as now law can ever truly cover all the myriads of facts & circumstances that occur in life)... but it is not all bad the way it is right now, and a solution that works.

 

[Shocky]

I'm indifferent on the topic myself. Honestly, I don't see an embryo in it's pre stages being any more complicated in the life cycle then the bacteria in my spit or the ant that I step on. Cruel, yes, blunt, obviously, but it's my opinion. It's just a bunch of cells that will eventually become something else. When it gets to a certain time period, preferably by my standards, the first trimester, then it should be illegal to have an abortion. By that time, you've had 3 months at most, and it's been 2 months since a missed period, so someone should know by that time. It's sufficient enough time for someone to make a decision.

As I said, I'm indifferent. I'm not a female, so therefore, I have no choice in this situation. However, here state side I believe Rowe vs. wade should be over turned. The Federal Government should stay out of State Government affairs. If Alabama doens't want abortion clinics, then they shouldn't have to have them. The individual state should be able to decide what they want to do in this situation in my opinion. I hate big Government, and this is something they should stay out of.

And yes, fanatics on both sides are cringeworthy and probably have forced me into my opinion of indifference on this topic. conservatives will call me something because I don't care, while crazy liberals will call me something else for not taking a stand. All I know is, I find it rather pathetic for people on a saturday morning to be standing in front of a clinic because they disagree with what some 17 year old girl decides to do. Get a life.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Slayer, I take one issue with your eloquent post. You state that new law can be made by judges in the United States. This is a rather new phenomenon. There is a debate in our nation about whether or not the Constitution is a living document. It is open to interpretation, but how much is interpretation and how much is revision? Our higher-level courts are responsible for interpreting the Constitution, and a few have taken it upon themselves to rewrite some of the ideals such as church and state.

The original Roe vs. Wade argument was not about whether or not abortion should be legal, but a state vs. federal rights issue. This, of course, has led to interpretation used to ban euthanasia.


The topic I presented, however, is that the activists have so skewed their side of the debate, that activism seems counterproductive.

 

[Dragonslayer]

@fromthesouth: Ah yes, well by saying "judges create laws" I somehow tried to simplify in order to present the difference between continental European law (as we have it in Austria) and the case law system of England and America. The main difference is that the decisions of a court in the case law system are usually binding to other courts in subsequent similar cases, whereas in the continental system they are not. This is what I mean by "courts create law", in that a court's decisions create binding "law" for other courts. In our system, however, any court may rule in any way it deems right, without having to overrule a prior decision. However of course de facto, the decisions handed down by the Austrian Supreme Court will provide some "indication" for the lower courts, as ultimately, the Supreme Court can be called upon and its decisions are ultimately those that will prevail - but technically, there is no "binding" effect of "precedents" as there is in the case law system, and courts (even the Supreme Court) may decide differently in cases that have already occured prior.

Also, of course the Constitution is a written document; however as far as I know, it contains comparatively few provisions (few if you compare it to a legal system such as Austria's, where you have a myriad of laws on every small subject, covering as many circumstances and regulations as possible while remaining flexible enough to applicable to all those individual cases), and the Constitution (again with the "afaik" disclaimer; I am not all that familiar with the American legal system) really provides more "basic" rules and principles which need a lot more extensive interpretation and application by the courts - again as opposed to our system where we already have very many detailed regulations for hundreds of topics.

Concering Roe vs Wade: Well I understand where you're coming from; however I believe the differentiation between federal and state competency is much more important in America than it is hereabouts. Again I take the example of Austria: We are a very small country (all in all about 8 million inhabitants), but still organized as a federal state just like the US are. However, our states do not nearly have so many competences as the states in the US do (quite naturally; since with such a small country, it is a lot easier for the centralised government to overlook everything than it would be for the American federal government to overlook everything that's going on in 50 states, containing over 300 million people all in all), so I really just jumped on the discussion as to whether abortion per se should be legalized, and then turned out the above rant lol - simply because this issue seemed more interesting to me than the question as to whether it shold be federal or state issue in the US.

And speaking of euthanasia - that of course is also a very interesting subject (and also one that was covered in some of the courses I attended), so I might supply some of my (more or less useful, lol) opinion on that as well... especially since the Netherlands are quite close to Austria (well, closer at least than to the US heh), and as you will most likely know, euthanasia is legal there. So we have quite a vivid debate about that here as well.

And finally, speaking of the activists -maybe I indeed perceived the topic of discussion to be a different one, but nonetheless this subject is also quite interesting... for after all, especially in America, the issues with "fundamentalists" is a very pressing one in this day and age. And in this case, I believe we are also confronted with a sort of fundamentalist belief - especially, as I also stated before, if those people's conviction is based on religious foundations (and I believe a lot of Pro-Lifers will be very conservative Christians? Correct me if I am mistaken). So definitely, yeah - the actions you described above, such as protesting or even the use of actual violence to promote their belief - it truly is nothing but propaganda, and in the case of violence, a form of terrorism. And those acts definitely just pervert the intention that lies behind it, and only once more underline the fact that fundamentalism and extremism in one's beliefs are always a very very dangerous thing; for someone so convinced of his own ideas that he regards them as the only opinion that should be accepted will ultimately resort to force to proselyte the "unbelievers". And as we all know - this is a very dangerous situation, and as you yourself stated, also very counterproductive; for force and violence will only occasion resentment against those who cause it, instead of the desired acceptance of that belief as "right" or "just".

Now of course activism per se is not a bad thing - it just always depends on the lengths people are willing to go. Discussion and debate must always have a forum to occur in; otherwise we would all submit ourselves to a form of fascism or dictatorship. And activism can even occur in the form of protests to make people pay attention to the ideas promulgated - however as soon as this "protesting" resorts to violence for lack of other options or lack of reception, it has forfeit its purpose, and as you said only contorts the ideas originally pursued, making them seem less appealing if anything.

 

[Yrrab]

I'm indifferent on the topic myself. Honestly, I don't see an embryo in it's pre stages being any more complicated in the life cycle then the bacteria in my spit or the ant that I step on. Cruel, yes, blunt, obviously, but it's my opinion. It's just a bunch of cells that will eventually become something else. When it gets to a certain time period, preferably by my standards, the first trimester, then it should be illegal to have an abortion. By that time, you've had 3 months at most, and it's been 2 months since a missed period, so someone should know by that time. It's sufficient enough time for someone to make a decision.

As I said, I'm indifferent. I'm not a female, so therefore, I have no choice in this situation. However, here state side I believe Rowe vs. wade should be over turned. The Federal Government should stay out of State Government affairs. If Alabama doens't want abortion clinics, then they shouldn't have to have them. The individual state should be able to decide what they want to do in this situation in my opinion. I hate big Government, and this is something they should stay out of.

And yes, fanatics on both sides are cringeworthy and probably have forced me into my opinion of indifference on this topic. conservatives will call me something because I don't care, while crazy liberals will call me something else for not taking a stand. All I know is, I find it rather pathetic for people on a saturday morning to be standing in front of a clinic because they disagree with what some 17 year old girl decides to do. Get a life.

Bam.

It's all about choice for me. I mean, it's a big fucking choice, and I'm definently glad I don't have to make it, but shit. Just like you said, everything evolves man.

I think the only thing I really don't get/like about it, is the fact that so many teenagers use it as a form of birth control. Out of the 10 + girls who got pregnant when I was in highschool back when, they were all apparently on birth control and their partners used condoms. Really? What are the fucking odds of that? Instead of saying you did, just use it. It's not that fucking hard.

I'm completely indifferent to abortion. If my girl gets pregnant and wants to keep it, time for me to man up. If she want's to get rid of it, so be it. I just wish more kids would actually use protection instead of falling back on abortion. You can only do it so many times before your damn vagina is tainted.

 

[OIL]

Women should be able to have an abortion for about 2 months, and no longer. As soon as the sperm hits the egg, that child is set. It might not be developed but the DNA is set, and so life is ready to be born. However, since it's not actually developed as a person, it's not really real, yet, if you get me. But after 2 months i'm sure it's started developing, by which time the mother should have had an abortion if she wanted one. Anything after that, shouldn't be allowed. I get all this 'Pro Choice' stuff, but the fact of the matter is that it's murder. It's not the child's fault that the mother got pregnant, so why should it suffer? Then again, 'Pro Life' is fine to a degree, because I can understand women who have been raped, if they fall pregnant and don't want to keep the child then I could understand that, because it would be very hard for them to bring up a child in those circumstances.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Women should be able to have an abortion for about 2 months, and no longer. As soon as the sperm hits the egg, that child is set. It might not be developed but the DNA is set, and so life is ready to be born. However, since it's not actually developed as a person, it's not really real, yet, if you get me. But after 2 months i'm sure it's started developing, by which time the mother should have had an abortion if she wanted one.

2 months is 8 weeks. Many women don't even know they're pregnant after 8 weeks.

Anything after that, shouldn't be allowed. I get all this 'Pro Choice' stuff, but the fact of the matter is that it's murder.

Not legally.

It's not the child's fault that the mother got pregnant, so why should it suffer?

It's not suffering. In fact, up until around the time abortion isn't allowed, which varies from place to place but is usually around 20 weeks, the feotus doesn't even know it exists.

And why should the woman suffer if she doesn't want a child?

Then again, 'Pro Life' is fine to a degree,

Pro-life is one of the worst things in the world.

because I can understand women who have been raped, if they fall pregnant and don't want to keep the child then I could understand that, because it would be very hard for them to bring up a child in those circumstances.

It'd be very hard to keep a child you didn't want under any circumstances. While I see your point here, you can't just choose which circumstances are eligible, and which aren't.

 

[OIL]

2 months is 8 weeks. Many women don't even know they're pregnant after 8 weeks.

Ok, make it 16 weeks. Then they should know by then, right?

Not legally.

It's not suffering. In fact, up until around the time abortion isn't allowed, which varies from place to place but is usually around 20 weeks, the feotus doesn't even know it exists.

But what gives the mother the right to deny that feotus to life? And how do you know the feotus doesn't exist? (I'm a little naieve to when certain things are developed regarding pregnancy)

And why should the woman suffer if she doesn't want a child?

Why should the child be denied life because the mother couldn't make sure the guy wore a condom. If they did, she should go on the pill if she's that against having a baby.

It'd be very hard to keep a child you didn't want under any circumstances. While I see your point here, you can't just choose which circumstances are eligible, and which aren't.

Well you sort of can & can't. While obviously, after rape a mother could feel that abortion is nessecary, if a 15 year old got pregnant just out of casual sex, then maybe she shouldn't have been having sex in the first place.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Ok, make it 16 weeks. Then they should know by then, right?

An abortion should be allowed any point up to which the baby can not survive outside the womb. When it becomes viable abortion should no longer be allowed. There is a lot of debate about when this point is at the moment. I believe abortions are allowed up to 24 weeks in some circumstances, but babies have been known to survive from 22-23 weeks. At which I'm all for lowering the limit.

But what gives the mother the right to deny that feotus to life? And how do you know the feotus doesn't exist? (I'm a little naieve to when certain things are developed regarding pregnancy)

What gives people not involved in the situation the right to decide if she has to carry a child for 9 months?

The feotus obviously exists, but it lacks the understanding of knowing it does. Up until a certain point (I'll get back to you when I find out for definite) the feotus is aware of nothing.

Why should the child be denied life because the mother couldn't make sure the guy wore a condom. If they did, she should go on the pill if she's that against having a baby.

Birth control fails.

Well you sort of can & can't. While obviously, after rape a mother could feel that abortion is nessecary, if a 15 year old got pregnant just out of casual sex, then maybe she shouldn't have been having sex in the first place.

I'm inclined to agree, I hate the idea of abortion being used as birth control by irresponsible teens. But I'd like to point out that is a tiny minority of people. Most abortions are by those in their 20s-30s who have completed their family. The idea it's all teenage girls is a myth. Some may feel after rape they want an abortion, completely their choice. But you couldn't say abortion is only allowed after rape, which is why there will be cases such as the 15 year old.

 

[Tastycles]

Why should the child be denied life because the mother couldn't make sure the guy wore a condom. If they did, she should go on the pill if she's that against having a baby.

To be honest, this would pretty much solve everything, but we don't live in an ideal world, and mistakes can be made. I don't believe birth control fails nearly as much as people say it does, but it does, and you have to take this into account. Sad as it is, people don't think about the conseqences in the heat of the moment, and people can be lied to e.g. "I've had a vasectomy". In short, you can't eliminate the need for abortion with preventative measures.

I'm inclined to agree, I hate the idea of abortion being used as birth control by irresponsible teens. But I'd like to point out that is a tiny minority of people. Most abortions are by those in their 20s-30s who have completed their family.

The highest rates, here in the UK at least, are in the 18-24 age group, which obviously suggests that it is not schoolgirls as people suggest. However, I don't think it is women who have "completed their families", but are actually the people who are young and likely to be sexually active.

My personal view on the topic is that abortion is a necessity in the modern world. There is a need for it, because accidents happen, rapes happen and cirumstances change. It is a horrible thing to happen to a woman, and nobody in their right mind would see it as contraception, and people who see it as so are, frankly, repulsive.

As I've said, I am definitely pro-choice, but even if I was pro-life, I still think it should be legal. Abortions have been happening for years, the difference now is that the woman has no chance of dying and it's generally hygenic. If abortion was made illegal, you would be sending women down alleys to see a struck off doctor with a knitting needle, and that is why legal abortion is a necessity.