You’re confusing me with another ‘Mike.’ I rarely read Harry’s Place let alone contribute to the comments section.

Secondly, if you want a debate on abortion or anything else, bring it on. But if you want to gesticulate about what a horrible person I must be for not agreeing with you, then get a life.

That’s my position.

Ah yes, how very pro-life of you.

I wouldn’t describe myself as ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’ or anything else for that matter. To repeat myself for the umpteenth time: I don’t care about semantics. My approach to politics (and to morality in general) is piecemeal.

What about women who have decided that their family is complete and want no more children for that reason?

Very simple: take a pill, or ask your partner to wear a condom. Why should a tiny, innocent foetus pay the ultimate price because two people can’t be bothered to protect themselves?

adult [very often married] women in the mid to late 30s who have simple decided that enough is enough.

If ‘enough is enough’ then these so-called ‘adult’ women should get their tubes tied.

‘It’s all very well talking of trade-offs, but what about the trade-offs that arise where a woman considers that she is unable to provide adequately for a[nother] child, or considers that she cannot cope with motherhood because she is not in a stable relationship, etc.’

That’s not a legitimate trade-off. The life of a human being outweighs the financial situation of its mother.

Great point. Underlined by Mikes contributions here and over on Harrys Place last week.

Ah yes, how very pro-life of you.

It’s all very well talking of trade-offs, but what about the trade-offs that arise where a woman considers that she is unable to provide adequately for a[nother] child, or considers that she cannot cope with motherhood because she is not in a stable relationship, etc.

Especially, I might add, where a significant factor in the trade-off rests on the woman already having children and considering that one more will push her family over the edge and adversely affect not only the one she’s expected but also her existing children.

What about women who have decided that their family is complete and want no more children for that reason?

That’s actually one of the fastest growing groups amongst those seeking abortions, not careless teenagers but mature, adult [very often married] women in the mid to late 30s who have simple decided that enough is enough.

Those are the kinds of trade-offs that many women deal with in arriving at a decision over whether to continue with an unexpected pregnancy or seek an abortion, not some glib notion that abortion is a back-up form of contraception.

Where does this fit into your conception of morality.

Thanks for the response…

‘Why, if you claim to take a ‘moral’ view on abortion, do you include pregnancies arising as a consequence of rape and incest amongst your exceptions?’

#1 A raped woman does not, for obvious reasons, give her consent to the attacker. So there’s a trade-off between the emotional and physical wellbeing of the pregnant woman and the integrity of the unborn child. Ideally, if anyone is going to die, it should be the rapist. The problem is: we don’t live in an ideal world.

#2 Children, conceived between a brother and sister, tend to suffer from physical illness and mental retardation because of a lack of variation within the gene pool. It causes a lot of social problems. And it destroys families. So again: you have to think about trade-offs.

In an ideal world, of course, I’d prefer an adoption to an execution. But to restate my previous point: we don’t live in an ideal world.

Abortion is only justifiable in extreme circumstances.

But to use ‘abortion’ as a form of ad hoc contraception is fucking disgraceful.

This is a non-issue, as you would agree that for women, abortion is the least preferable form of contraception. I will let you figure out why is that so.

In communist Russia, it was not uncommon for women to have multiple abortions, but it was reduced dramatically in the last years, with the introduction of the pill and morning-after pill.

I am becoming more and more cynical about life in general, and I do believe that a child should only be brought to this world if it is going to be loved and cared for. It is a complex issue, and while I empathise more with the pro-choice movement than the other camp, I feel that the Left sometimes gets carried away and comes up with a narrative that I find quite inhumane, for instance, with this idea that a baby should be considered human only when it is born, and not 5 minutes earlier when it is still inside the womb.

That’s not what I asked. Do you have any evidence that women are treating abortions as a form of contraception?

Yes, we know that’s what you are doing anyway Mike.

I am aware that the vast majority of abortions take place before the gestation period. And yes, the moral mathematics change somewhat. But the moral question remains more or less pertinent.

In other words, even if the real stats don’t back up your vision that dead babies are being killed by the hour by callous mothers, you’re going to scream and shout anyway.

Well done puttar.

Why, if you claim to take a ‘moral’ view on abortion, do you include pregnancies arising as a consequence of rape and incest amongst your exceptions?

Are you motivated by genuine concern for the mother or is rather that you consider that the circumstances in which conception occurred somehow imbue the foetus with a moral ‘taint’ or deficiency that in some manners renders it less deserving of the same consideration you extend to other foetuses?

Is it any less innocent than other foetuses?

Does the ‘sin’ of the manner in which it conceived somehow magically transfer from parent to child?

In what sense, precisely, does such a foetus differ from others?

Perhaps you could explain how, under your view of morality, you justify this?

And I think the right is worth defending despite the tactics used by the likes of Mike above to constantly direct us to pictures of aborted foetuses.

‘Tactics?’ It’s called having a conscience goddamit. How can you look at those bloodied corpses without feeling a pang of guilt or a scintilla of shame? People have a right to know what an abortion looks like, how it takes place, and what it means to take an innocent life in the name of ‘choice’ or any other ‘progressive’ buzzword you and yer’ lackeys can come up with. Screw semantics. I care only about the brute and bloody reality.

People like Mike don’t look at the fact that the vast majority of abortions take place before the gestation period – they only want to point towards pictures.

I am aware that the vast majority of abortions take place before the gestation period. And yes, the moral mathematics change somewhat. But the moral question remains more or less pertinent.

Do we have any evidence that this actually occurs?

It’s self-evidently true. If a pregnant woman doesn’t want her child and aborts as a result, then she’s using the procedure to stop the birth from taking place. Which raises an interesting question: why should an unborn child pay the ultimate price (death) just because two people can’t be trusted to use their genitals in a responsible way?

And secondarily, Mike, do you think women have abortions for fun?

Of course I don’t. It’s a vile procedure. No one with a conscience would take such a decision ‘lightly.’

Do we have any evidence that this actually occurs? And secondarily, Mike, do you think women have abortions for fun?