Hi

a)Henrietta the pill has no effect whatsoever on where the little squirmers end up and you still ovulate, so eggs can be fertilized. The pill prevents the womb from accepting implantation of an egg.

b)guest. In Britain adoptions of babies are organised by social services and birth parents are not allowed to know who has adopted the baby. Privately arranged adoptions are illegal unless it involves a blood relative (ie adoption by grandparent). All birth mothers can do is request that the adoptive parents have the same religion, for example. Older children may be adopted and still have contact with birth parents if this is deemed in their best interests. Babies and birth parents have no rights of contact or rights to information about each other until the baby reaches 18 years of age, and then it is the child's choice whether to explore these options. So, a mother giving up a baby for adoption could well spend the rest of her never knowing what happened to her child.

Of course, debate is difficult on this topic. It basically comes down to each individual's 'gut-feeling' as to whether it is right or wrong, and each 'side' believes truth to be theirs.

Perhaps we can look at the options from the unwanted child's point of view.

A quick death/non-development (depending on your point of view) usually at an early stage before any pain would be felt,
having a perfectly happy and content childhood with your birth mother,
being resented and not having a happy and content childhood with your birth mother
being adopted and perfectly happy
being adopted and perfectly unhappy

The last two are random as for any individual and the birth mother could not possibly predict which would occur. For the first three, the birth mother would probably be able to predict what would happen and make an informed decision, including taking what is better for a child into account.

and this does not even consider the issues surrounding babies with disabilities.

My personal 'gut-feeling' is that it is down to the mother up to a certain point where individual viability occurs - late abortions are a different matter to early ones.

As regards the pro-abortion argument, the coach has turned into a pumpkin and the mice have all run away. According to a Gallup Poll in January 2001, people who considered themselves to be anti-abortion rose from 33% to 43% since 1996, and people who considered themselves to be pro-abortion declined from 56% to 48%.

People have often tried to justify the right to abort by citing cases of rape, incest, and a risk to foetal or maternal health. But the sad truth is emerging:

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

Source: The Alan Guttmacher Institute

The National Abortion Federation will not mention these statistics on its Abortion Facts page; but it will show you pictures of beaming nurses and tell you that one in three women have an abortion by the age of 45, in the mistaken belief that this is somehow a good thing.

On the other side of the Atlantic, with the abscence of euphemism, the amorality is so strident it is beyond belief. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) regularly advises women who are beyond Britain’s 24-week limit to contact foreign clinics for an abortion without having to give a reason. The service’s chief executive, actually had the gall to defend the policy by saying that it would be "morally reprehensible" not to help clients to get treatment.

Source: The Times Online: NHS Funding 'Illegal' Abortions

I think it's very selfish to deny a woman abortion, and I am not against abortion being used as a contraceptive either. As soon as you get past the fallacy that the embryo or foetus is alive, you won't be against abortion either.

People will change their perceptions to make their decisions seem better. Fleogan will try to convince people that a foetus up to 24 weeks old is still a "collection of cells" -- interestingly, so is a full grown adult -- while at the same time strengthening his or her own convictions. This is the same mechanism that helped the Germans establish concentration camps: Nazis placed a portrait of a Jew alongside a photo of a sewer rat in advertising campaigns, convincing German people of the inferiority of Jews. They really and truly saw nothing wrong with gassing a Jew, in the same way that you'd feel nothing wrong with poisoning a rat.

In July Professor Stuart Campbell published 3D moving images of a 12-week-old foetus. As the pro-abortion camp struggles to deal with the cognitive dissonance it will be interesting to see what kind of disgraceful excuses they come up with.

Here's a little tidbit to ponder. What is a human at the embryonic stage? It doesn't think, feel, or respond. It's just there, feeding off of the woman carrying the embryo. There's another organism with qualities very similar to this. Parasites. Now, I'm not saying that an embryo IS a parasite, but it's very close to being one. It is an organism that drains the energy of another (in this case the mother of the embryo) and doesn't give back. This is a parasitic relationship. The only difference between an embryo and a true parasite is that a parasite usually causes harm to come to the organism it is feeding off of. Just something to think about.

I would repeat my point from earlier, which no 'pro-lifer' has replied to.

Perhaps we can look at the options from the unwanted child's point of view.

A quick death/non-development (depending on your point of view) usually at an early stage before any pain would be felt,
having a perfectly happy and content childhood with your birth mother,
being resented and not having a happy and content childhood with your birth mother
being adopted and perfectly happy
being adopted and perfectly unhappy

The last two are random as for any individual and the birth mother could not possibly predict which would occur. For the first three, the birth mother would probably be able to predict what would happen and make an informed decision, including taking what is better for a child into account.

Matt, are you seriously suggesting that we should attempt to force women to bear children against their will? All that happens is that a black-market illegal abortion market is created, which not only destroys embryos, but threatens the life of the women.

Also, I think it is not irrelevant to consider the reasons for abortion. There are not 'good' abortions and 'bad' abortions. If you believe abortion is wrong, then surely all reasons for abortion are equally wrong. If you believe abortion is acceptable, then surely all reasons for abortion are equally acceptable.

You may well have religious reasons for your beliefs in this matter. Fair enough. Don't accidentally get a woman pregnant then. Others may not share those beliefs so why should you be able to influence their decision?

I'm also intrigued by your statement 'On the other side of the Atlantic, with the abscence of euphemism, the amorality is so strident it is beyond belief.'

Presumably you mean in Britain. What does euphemism have to do with abortion or morality? You have to bear in mind that we are a very secular country so we deal mainly in science rather than religion or emotion when it comes to such matters. Of course our attitude differs from America with its 'religious right'. This does not make us amoral.