Not allowing women to have a life saving procedure is murder. Forcing 10 year old rape victims to have their rapists' babies is inhumane. Anyone who can't see that is dumb. Abortion is used for WAY more things just just elective abortions. Stop telling women what to do with their bodies and mind your own god damn business. Medical intervention needs to stay between a women and HER DOCTOR not some idiot politicians or brain washed religious nut! IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN ABORTION DON'T HAVE ONE!

I am not anti- abortion, but I used to be, so I'll try to answer. The biggest one, for me, was the belief that it is literal murder. A woman can do what she likes with her body, but it is quite literally not her body. My mind has changed for a number of reasons, but the biggest one for a lot of people is the murder thing.

"Murder" by definition, is the illegal taking of another's life. If abortion is legal, then it cannot be murder.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Would have been nice for someone to address my points rather than simply downvote. This is why the debate is so toxic. Any nuance and you are instantly called misogynistic.

Downvoted for whining about downvotes.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

@XenoMurph — Looks like even if you agree on the main issue, refusing to blindly repeat the same five statements means you'd better just shut the ʞɔnɟ up. Not so long ago, this level of militant bigotry was exclusive to the religious far-right 😞

"Waaaaaaah, people disagreeing with my comments is BIGOTRY!" What a spoilt, privileged bleat that is.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

That's not at all what I said, Eric, but you've proven with your previous comments that comprehension is not exactly your forte 😀

It's exactly what you said, Graham, but I don't expect you to admit that when you prefer playing to your forte: manufacturing imaginary martyrdom :D

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Ok, here goes. And I'm ignoring some arguments for now due to space. Pregnant women have rights. "Her choice" But that does not apply for the full pregnancy. Most societies say that it cannot be aborted after a certain date, and it's CRIMINAL to do so, society takes away the choice. Why? It becomes a person. But if it cannot survive outside the womb it's not a person. After a certain numer of weeks it becomes a person with legal protection. But in different countries different dates are used. What defines a person? If a new treatment is developed, and we can sustain a life earlier, does that mean it becomes human earlier? What about foetuses aborted at that stage last decade, were they people now, but not then? If we define a person purely based on our medical skill, what about when we can support them from conception? Do the foetuses not deserve the same protection by law as their one day/week/month older sibling?

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

2, Ok to deal with the points OneWith brought up. In the case of an unviable foetus or a pregnancy that may cause death, of course those medical decisions must be taken. It's heartbreaking, but it's a sad reality that pregnacy is dangerous and life choices must be made. As for the other situations, I refer you to my other answer. Despite the devastating events surrounding conception, If you protect those foetus at 36 weeks by law, because we feel it has "personhood", then there is a strong argument that it should also be protected earlier. If I can quote you: "Surely no one should be forced to carry a child...." yet you do believe a person should be forced to, unless you believe in abortion at 39weeks? What if she decides, quite rightly, at 30 weeks she doesn't want it, she can't cope, it's just too trerrible? Does she not have rights then? If society protects 39weeks, and accepts the foetus has rights, then why not 22 weeks? 20 weeks? Is it truly our medical ineptitude that decides?

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I do believe abortion should be legal, but the oversimplified "pro-choice vs. pro-life" debate makes nuanced discussion almost impossible. There is a crucial ethical and philosophical question about when exactly we consider it to be two lives instead of one. Does it begin at conception, with the romantic notion of the first heartbeat, at the onset of brain activity, or only at birth? What are the legal and human rights implications of these perspectives? How significant is the role of education and healthcare in this issue, and what can we learn from international experiences? These are all important questions that are overshadowed by the polarized, binary nature of the American football-style debate, which has become tiresome without moving us any closer to a resolution.

NO woman ever 'wants' to have an abortion! Circumstances dictate the desirability of giving birth to that potential baby, simple. I will defend and assist any woman who NEEDS to have an abortion; it is an horrific emotional experience for them.. They would not do it if it were not necessary.

Personally I think it's simple - it's two lives when both can survive without the other

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

@Jill Rhodry — Wouldn't that make conjoined twins legally considered one person? I fully support abortion rights, but biological dependency can't be used as a defining factor here. It's not "simple" at all.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

This comment has been deleted.

Exactly this... they would refer to force that d**g addicted women, to have the baby... and then they would sit back and spend years complaining about what a horrible mother she is and how awful the child "turned out". WTF. Probably doesn't help that wherever she lives, there's a GOP Governor that refuses to provide lunch to poor, underprivileged GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN. "PRO-LIFE" ? - I call B******T! If you call yourself pro-life, then you better give a s**t about that life once its born. (AND ALL LIVES FFS!)