To secure an abortion the pregnant woman must meet one of the below criteria:
Ground A – risk to the life of the pregnant woman;
Ground B – to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;
Ground C – risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (up to 24 weeks in the pregnancy);
Ground D – risk of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing children of the family of the pregnant woman (up to 24 weeks in the pregnancy);
Ground E – substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped;
Ground F – to save the life of the pregnant woman; or
Ground G – to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman in an emergency.
This must be signed off by two separate doctors for an abortion to be legally performed.
This must be done before 24 weeks unless in case of medical emergency.
Abortion furore & trigger laws
posted on 28/6/22
comment by Kung Fu Cantona 🙏🏼 🇵🇸 (U18082)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 22 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona 🙏🏼 🇵🇸 (U18082)
posted 10 minutes ago
A sperm cell and a fertilised egg starting its 9 month gestation are two wildly different things.
People keep on talking about consciousness and the ability to feel pain.
The fact that the growth of an eventual human being is so flippantly terminated as a final attempt at contraception should be enough to find this whole thing morally questionable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about your men's rights?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can separate my own feelings from the discussion and bring western ideals of equality into the frame.
Like I said,I personally feel the mother and father should both take responsibility for their actions.
If we're talking about equality then if a mother is able to opt out of parenthood then a father should also be able to opt out of parenthood.
This isn't what I would want but what is fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leaving children unprovided for?
posted on 28/6/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 19 hours, 56 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona 🙏🏼 🇵🇸 (U18082)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
A sperm cell and a fertilised egg starting its 9 month gestation are two wildly different things.
People keep on talking about consciousness and the ability to feel pain.
The fact that the growth of an eventual human being is so flippantly terminated as a final attempt at contraception should be enough to find this whole thing morally questionable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another chosen word...flippantly. to make your view seem strong. But I doubt it's ever done flippantly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another chosen word... ever. To make your point seem strong.
"Abortion Addict Confesses 15 Procedures in 16 Years"
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/abortion-addict-admits-multiple-abortions-suicide-attempts/story?id=8594347
"An estimated 50 percent of women who seek one abortion, will have a repeat one, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which promotes sexual and reproductive health. About 10 percent of those women will have three or more."
Any of this sound flippant, or at least suggests POSSIBLE flippant behaviour towards abortions?
posted on 28/6/22
Leaving children unprovided for?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say it was the right thing to do. I'm making a point about equality. Men and women aren't equal, both genders NEED to take responsibility for their own choices or be held accountable.
Men have no say in being a father or not, IF they make a mistake. The repercussions of the mothers choice will be ever lasting for the potential father.
You either have equality for both genders or you promote self accountability.
posted on 28/6/22
Or you protect women and you protect women’s rights, and when a child is born, ensure that it is fed and has a roof over its head.
Facking hell, we live in a world which is still absolutely dominated by men - in politics, in the media, in academia, in religion, in terms of rights, in terms of wealth,
posted on 28/6/22
…in terms of income, in almost every conceivable way; and when we find one single issue which is - and can only be - a woman’s issue, still men want to have their say, and in doing so, they want to complain about equality.
Absolutely facking unbelievable
posted on 28/6/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
…in terms of income, in almost every conceivable way; and when we find one single issue which is - and can only be - a woman’s issue, still men want to have their say, and in doing so, they want to complain about equality.
Absolutely facking unbelievable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Gods are all men, nearly all priests, Rabbis, all muslim leaders. It is always men that interpret holy scripts, womens role is to obey.
posted on 29/6/22
In true equality
A man should not be forced to provide for a child he did not want it a woman chooses to give birth, knowing he does not want the child.
Equality is not a woman choosing to destroy a child that their partner (not a one night or far more criminal acts) wants of their own volition.
If a woman can destroy that child, it is blatantly unequal that she can then force a man to pay for said child for 18 years because she wants it and he does not.
That is clearly not equality. Yes it’s her body that carries it but 18 years is not 9 months.
If you want true and real equality then both parties have to have an equal say.
posted on 29/6/22
Women cannot “destroy children”. Killing children is illegal, in the US, and everywhere around the world.
Women are asking to be able to make decisions about their own bodies, where those involve the medically-supervised termination of non-independent, non-sentient embryos and fetuses. Yet again, these are not children we are talking about.
You’re drawing a completely false equivalence.
posted on 29/6/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 4 hours ago
Women cannot “destroy children”. Killing children is illegal, in the US, and everywhere around the world.
Women are asking to be able to make decisions about their own bodies, where those involve the medically-supervised termination of non-independent, non-sentient embryos and fetuses. Yet again, these are not children we are talking about.
You’re drawing a completely false equivalence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
how do you know a fetuses at a particular stage of development is not "sentient"
posted on 29/6/22
you know, because of the evolutionary pressure caused by big brained, bipedal mammals trying to give birth, human childbirth is far more precarious for the mother than for that of other mammals (which literally slip out of the birth canal) and premature. Human babies remain in a fetal state for a year after birth