Kevin's Watch

Av's right. There are clinics, and some OB-GYNs will do them as well.

Well, not that I'm right, as much as it seems to be the same principle.

(Do them for free Cail?)

--A

Thanks Av. And the nominal fee is somethinig that everybody could pay?

Some are free, some are done at reduced prices.

Thanks. I was just wondering if there could be a bias, if there were people, who simply could not afford to have them.

Prebe wrote:Thanks Av. And the nominal fee is somethinig that everybody could pay?

Well, not everybody. Which is why it's waived where necessary.

--A

I wonder if it's the same in the US. I.e. that the poorest cant get abortions at all. In that case, as much as I hate to admit it, Plissken has a bad case, when it comes to the poor people having most of the abortions.

This is interesting.....
www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jan/05012104.html

I feared as much Cail.

“Proponents of abortion like to portray it as a desperate choice of a young girl who made a mistake, but this study shows a staggering and appalling picture of experienced and worldly-wise women refusing to alter their lifestyle and using abortion to cover their reckless and self-centered behavior.”

-pro abortionists, any comment?

sgtnull wrote:“Proponents of abortion like to portray it as a desperate choice of a young girl who made a mistake, but this study shows a staggering and appalling picture of experienced and worldly-wise women refusing to alter their lifestyle and using abortion to cover their reckless and self-centered behavior.”

-pro abortionists, any comment?

Dennis, I am pro-choice but I do not think that someone should use abortion as their primary means of birth control. I have no sympathy for the "experienced and worldly-wise women refusing to alter their lifestyle", at all. IMO, these women shouldn't even be having sex. But, who is going to stop it? Outlawing abortion won't stop it, that's for damn sure.

dennis,

That's part of what we've been talking about. All I have to say is that, Of course there is truth to that statement. Like I've said, I'd like to see the number of abortions, in general, go down. But what about that statement convinces you, the anti-abortionist, that these women should not have the right to receive an abortion?

Just because some abuse the system doesn't mean all should suffer. To make a comparison, look at alcohol. There are many alcoholics (destroying their lives and their family's lives), drunk drivers, date rapes, liver damage, miscarriages and birth defects and so forth that occur because of drinking. But does that mean nobody should be allowed to drink?

And seriously[mod voice], can we keep it "pro-choice" unless someone specifically calls themselves "pro-abortion"[/mod voice]? Not mandating it, but the use is typically baiting.

Syl: call it by any nice names you like. but people at Planned Parenthood aren't marching in too many pro-life parades? and they simple fact is people can drink and not kill folks, abortion always results in a death. so the two are not comparible.

Mhoram: the baby says that abortion should not be a choice.

Duck: do you think we would have millions of abortions if it were not a legal option? has anyone ever counted a million abortions in any year before Roe?

Syl: I am not advocating the term pro-life or pro- choise for reasons explained earlier. If we do away with these PC-euphemisms we all know what we are discussing. Pro-choise does not mean "Hey! you can choose anything you like." Just like pro-life does not mean that you support the right to life (it seems that most pro-lifers (not you Dennis) are proponents of CP).

I do not mind calling myself pro-abortion more than I would mind calling myself pro-bypass. This means that I am for the surgical procedure (murder as some will have it) under certain circumstances. For me, it is those circumstances that are the subject of debate.

A good point Prebe, but I still think that the terms are too ambiguous. As I mentioned earlier, Pro-choice pretty much covers it for me. I'm in favour of people deciding for themselves.

I'm not necessarily in favour of abortion, in the sense that I don't think that people should have them lightly, or unneccessarily, but I am in favour of people having the right to choose.

I certainly agree though that the circumstances, and the reasoning, are the important things to discuss though.

In terms of who's getting them, in SA at least, the majority remain desperate, poor, young girls. And under the economic circumstances in which they find themselves, I don't blame them.

--A

You might be the only true "Pro-choise" and Dennis is probably the only "Pro-life" in here. The rest of us pragmatists are not so fancy

You do know that Dennis is so pro-life that he's a vegetarian too?

--A

Yes Av. He told me in the beginning of this thread I think. I always say: If you want to be dogmatic, you should live by your dogma or shut up. That's why I'm a pragmatist

i take my orders from God.