King Pitcos Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I think comprehensive sex education is what will stop abortions or at least bring the number down signifcantly. Â Will it? Are there really still people who don't know how it works? There might be, I suppose, but I feel like all that "you can't get pregnant if you do it standing up" sort of shite went out a generation or so ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Halitosis Romantic Posted January 13, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 13, 2012 I think comprehensive sex education is what will stop abortions or at least bring the number down signifcantly. Â Will it? Are there really still people who don't know how it works? There might be, I suppose, but I feel like all that "you can't get pregnant if you do it standing up" sort of shite went out a generation or so ago. Â Absolutely - in the UK, in 2012, there is no reason at all for not understanding the situation re: pregnancy and contraception. Sex education aside, there's always the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted January 13, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 13, 2012 I think comprehensive sex education is what will stop abortions or at least bring the number down signifcantly. Â Will it? Are there really still people who don't know how it works? There might be, I suppose, but I feel like all that "you can't get pregnant if you do it standing up" sort of shite went out a generation or so ago. Â Absolutely - in the UK, in 2012, there is no reason at all for not understanding the situation re: pregnancy and contraception. Sex education aside, there's always the internet. To be fair, most of what the internet teaches you is wrong. Â And I can see this debate is going down the toilet now Krazy is saying some of the dumbest things anyone in mankind has ever said and Kiffy has started calling God a cunt. You lasted seven interesting pages guys. Nicely done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Yes but only for certain scenarios  Over here the 1967 Abortion Act was never extended into law, therefore abortion on demand is still illegal, and can only legally occur if the mother's life is at immediate risk or that continuing the pregnancy would introduce a high risk of permanent or long term physical or mental health problem to the mother. There is a small pressure group that seeks to extend the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland, but there's next to no political will locally to do so, both unionist and nationalist politicians are united on preventing more liberalising of abortion laws here. Women who wish to have an abortion in Britain can freely do so, but they must pay all related expenses for travel and procedure, the Health Service here will not pay any costs towards it.  Just my own opinion, but I think that the current abortion laws here are fine as it is, though perhaps it could be extended to make it clear that it should include cases where conception happened through rape rather than being ambiguous. It's hard to explain but I find the idea of abortion-on-demand, or where abortion is not the lesser evil a little uneasy. Maybe it's due to my upbringing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Absolutely - in the UK, in 2012, there is no reason at all for not understanding the situation re: pregnancy and contraception. Sex education aside, there's always the internet. I think there's a problem in that, already mentioned by Duke, what you find on the internet may not be the most reliable of sources and it can spread misinformation just as easily as good information. Â My sex education was in Year 10 and taught to us for half a dozen lessons by a Canadian Catholic nun of all people! By that age everyone in my form class knew about how sex was performed, how pregnancy took place so little time was taken in explaining this. Instead plenty of time was taken about the consequences of pregnancy from a female and male perspective, along with a bit about contraception that to be fair to the nun was a little reluctant to talk about understandably, but it had to be mentioned. Just for reference, for Year 12 RE we had a lesson on abortion that wasn't a pretty sight. Â IMO, sex education in schools should be put into the hands of someone specifically trained to teach it, rather than be a "lay person" role, be it a teacher who has taken a course on it, a doctor or a representative from a reputable body for example. An ordinary teacher going about it the first time I'm sure can be nervous about it - I've a friend (female, just for the record) who's an RE teacher whose first time taking on a sex ed class was in an all male school in front of a bunch of horny 13 & 14 year olds. "Never Again!" she said, though I think she does still take classes now in a co-ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 **double post** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ReturnOfTheMack Posted January 13, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 13, 2012 Yeah we're on our second cycle, we'd have to pay for a third and I doubt we could really afford it for what would be a gamble. Touch wood it works and all that. Â Fingers crossed for you mate. Â Â Cheers lad. Â This debate has gone mental. Jesus fucking Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members WWFChilli Posted January 14, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 14, 2012 I voted Yes but under circustances. It must be said this thread could have been much worse than it is. We still have 3 pages before it can really go to pot however. Â My flatmate doesn't read this site and doesn't know of it so I will disclose that she was a victim of a crime that produced a pregnancy (I don't really wish to type that properly for some reason) and she had it aborted. Incredibly she got god knows what kind of shit from certain pockets of her more whacked out 'friends'. I imagine they didn't fully encompass the situation my flatmate was in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoryFice Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I haven't voted, but I'd say "No, not for any circumstance" is too draconian and "Yes, in all circumstances" is too far on the other end of the scale. Â As for the other two I'm not sure. There's probably very few right or wrong decisions when considering an abortion, just that which is made at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nothing to see here! Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I've read a number of things about this on here over the years and there's always been one thing that's slightly puzzled me. Â If the anti-abortionists were of the mind that all life was sacred and we didn't have the right to take any life then I'd get it. But I once saw Kenny (and I'm not having a go, I'd actually like some clarity) ridicule DJ Stevie C for bringing up dogs in the same debate, because apparently there's no comparison, although the buzz word of that time to differentiate human life from all others was sentiency. And the recent prevailing scientific opinion is that dogs display the same amount of sentient behaviour as that of a two year old child. Â So in the sentiency is key thought process then logic would dictate that if it's okay to put down a dog, then it's okay to euthanise any human up to two years old. Even if you don't agree that dogs display that level of sentient behaviour, I think you'd have to agree that they are more sentient than any human at the foetal stage. Obviously the next stage of that argument would be that the difference is that the human life has far more sentient potential, but what if they suffer from some form of handicap? A handicap that allows them to support their own life but show little in the way of sentient behaviour and understanding of the world around them. Less than a dog anyway. Would it be okay to dispose of them? No. That'd be the anti-eugenicist view anyway. Â Anyway my point's an extremely crude one, but I have to ask. If under those circumstances I've outlined does the thinking that putting down dogs is okay while never allowing for abortion/euthanasia in humans make that thinking a rather superficial one, based on the outer encasement of life rather than the life within? And if it doesn't and sentient behaviour isn't the thing that separates us from the animals then what does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainTwitcher Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Yes, but only in certain circumstances - ie rape and/or where the foetus is extremely young. Â The legal abortion age is somewhere about 20-25 weeks I think, which is actually horrendous. My missus is currently 13 weeks pregnant and we had a scan this week - the baby has all of it's organs and actually looks like a baby now. It was even sucking it's thumb as we were looking at it on the screen. Â The idea of putting some forceps in there and tearing the foetus limb from limb at 13 weeks is horrible - never mind a few weeks down the line when it's it's effectively an underweight baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I think comprehensive sex education is what will stop abortions or at least bring the number down signifcantly. Amid the KrAzYness this is a fine point and I think it raises a contradiction in Kenny's argument. We all want there to be fewer abortions, but the Catholic moral absolutism of denying contraception, denying sex education to children and insistence on outdated attitudes to sex that are completely out of line with society will inevitably lead to more unwanted pregnancies and subsequently more abortions. In fact, it's the Catholic church actively fighting against sex education in school and the handing out of condoms to all teenagers that is a massive factor in leading to unwanted pregnancies. Â There's also the contradiction that we're trying to fight poverty, a movement that the church claims to be a leading part of, but there's a direct provable link between poverty and women not having control of their own fertility. The lack of pragmatism and the counter-productive absolutism just furthers the question about the relevance of the church. If the desired end goals are no abortions and no poverty, then why vigorously pursue policies that have the direct opposite consequence? Â Anyway my point's an extremely crude one Far from it. It's a very relevant, interesting point. It raises the question of whether the moral absolutism to do with abortion comes from the belief that man was created in God's image, that we're the end-point in evolution (if evolution is real), that we're the superior species and that animals are to be treated as we see fit or that only human life is sacred. If not then why don't those morals apply to animals and our treatment of them? If so, then I think it's an indefensible position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I had a friend who got pregnant. She was on the pill and she used a condom. Given that even when you use a condom correctly, it's only 98% effective and the contraceptive pill is supposed to be only 95% effective, the probability of getting pregnant using both is a startlingly low 1 in 1000. Think about that when you're throwing your junk up a girl you don't really like; with a condom there's still a 1 in 50 chance you'll get that girl up the spout. Â And thus I didn't like the earlier attitude of "if you're stupid enough to not use protection", as it's ignorant in the extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew "the ref" coyne Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 It's funny how everyone thats Pro-Abortion has already been born  In all fairness I thought that post was reasonably humorous.... But what was the deal with the down syndrome kid?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Jaffa Posted January 15, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 15, 2012 It's funny how everyone thats Pro-Abortion has already been born Superb. Â That's going in my sig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.