If so many women in Britain are opposed to abortion and want the upper limit of 24 weeks reduced, why is it necessary to mess with the law.
If all those people don't want them in the first place, no one will want to procure them. So it's not necessary to reduce the limit, is it?
"recognisable human behavior" doesn't change the impact that pregnancy has on the woman.
While I agree with the author on the morality of "abortion on demand" in later term pregnancies, I too feel a law such as this is not helpful, nor appropriate.
Okay, I don't know what the situation is in Britain, so I'll comment about what I know for the U.S.
"treat abortion as just another means of contraception"
This argument tends to assume that other forms of contraception (such as condoms or BCP) are inexpensive, widely available, and information about it is well-presented. Unfortunately, in the U.S., that is simply not true.
At my high school, the word "contraception" could not be uttered by a teacher without risk of severe reprimand. My AP Biology textbook contained a whole chapter on contraception, but my teacher wasn't allowed to cover it or even mention the title. We just had to hope that it wouldn't come up on the AP test (which of course it did). During the Bush administration, rules were changed to allow the discussion of contraceptive devices, but only to say how ineffective they are at preventing pregnancy and STD's. Apparently this is now the standard for many states.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to learn that if there are fewer unplanned pregnancies, there will be fewer abortions. So why is it that the same organizations that are pushing for limits to the legality of abortion are also pushing for limits on access to inexpensive, effective contraception? One only needs look at my home state (Utah, highest teen pregnancy rate in the country) to know that abstinence-only education doesn't work. But if you don't believe that, you only need look for any one of a thousand studies on AO education showing that it doesn't stop teens from having sex.
The U.S. needs to stop treating teen sex like "the war on drugs" and realize that it's a natural process. If people want to stem the tide of abortions (and really, I would too), they need to advocate ways to prevent pregnancy beside abstinence.
Why is it that so many Republicans are for "small government" except in this instance? Like Bush, I have a BA in history. Like Bush, my degree does not give me the education or right to dictate the medical decisions of others.
You wouldn't take food away from a pregnant woman, would you?
Video Hosting at Photobucket" src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b324/colleentovin/ProChoice.gif" border="0" />
Powered by CGISpy.comThanks
I don't know the laws or statistics for Britain.
"You're cute. I like you."
"What you se
Where in the US are you not able to walk into a drug, discount, grocery or convenience store and find condoms? The last time I checked, they were in all of these places and pretty inexpensive.
Are you saying that the teachers were not allowed to teach the topic but then put that material on the tests? Was the school board or the state board of education made aware of this?
Do you have the links to these laws?
It doesn't sound like Utah teaches abstinence-only.
It also doesn't sound like they have the highest teen pregnancy rate but maybe that's because this chart is a few years old.
I don't think that it's fair to put all of the blame on the school system. The average age of someone getting an abortion is not a teen. It is a woman in her 20's and more often than not, they are already mothers. Maybe part of the blame should go to the medical community for not educating these women after their first pregnancy.
I'm not sure that I understand your question.
I'm not sure that I understand your question.>>>
that's just her tag line on her siggie.
It's a grey area for me.
I don't believe that a woman should be able to choose to terminate her pregnancy past viability unless her life is at risk or because of a serious life threatening condition in the fetus.
The idea of a woman choosing to abort a healthy pregnancy that late just doesn't sit well with me. I know that it's not done often but I think that is because there are currently some restrictions. If those restriction were removed, what would there be to stop a women from making that choice?
If viability is the standard that we use, the laws may need to be adjusted if science advances to the point that younger babies are able to survive. If we don't use viability as a standard, why not allow abortions to be legal at any stage for any reason?