pink13

Thank god the jury saw sense on this one, they have been found not guilty abortion although yes on the odd occasion is used as contraception for most woman, and some men!! it is never and easy option,

I think that it is ridiculous that it is illegal in any country or state but that is just my opinion!!!!

Cheetah7

I know we are all entitled to our own opinion but I am shocked that anyone would think that the rights of an unborn child should supercede that of the mother.

Sometimes contraception does fail, sometimes people are careless - whatever the reason, the effects of forcing someone to carry a child against their will could be devastating.

I might not agree with abortion being used as contraception but at what point does the doctor take over the womans body and her choice, and what would happen if the woman forced to go through this, decided not to look after herself, not to eat properly, drank copious amounts of alcohol or even smoked in pregnancy, what happens then?

Someone who would desperately love to carry their own child and managed to get pregnant would probably (or one would hope) not take stupid risks with her body and health and inflict her bad habits on her child and treat her body as well as she would treat the baby once it is born.

But in the event of forced child bearing, - who would enforce the health of the unborn child then?

paulry

There's so many variables in this that it's easy to appear ambiguous and/or contradictory. For some the shock of discovering that they're pregnant can trigger irrational, spontaneous and ill-thought out decisions. It's counter productive if a person is forced to see the pregnancy through full term and along the way self-harms, takes it out on the new born or raises the child neglectfully.

Regardless of the law the bottom line is it's the mother who has last say but one would hope that her decision is based at least as much on the unborn child's welfare as her own. Counselling will help her to arrive at the right decision. My own preference would be to see a reluctant mother turn a negative into a positive by transforming their "accident" into a gift of life firstly to the unborn child and then to a childless couple desperate to adopt.

scottishcelts

Are you by any chance brainwashed by a certain religion based in rome?

You must be right?

Cape Blue

I'm pro-choice, I've known several woman that have had abortions, none of them were for rape or life-threatening conditions - they just realized that they were not prepared for having a child.

Two were too young, typical mistakes with contraception and both were not old enough or established enough to become parents (they would doubtless have ended up being lambasted as single mothers in council accommodation).

One was in her late 20's, contraception mistake, but her partner was not a good one and she was not well established enough (financially, support network, etc).

One was in her mid 30's, married with 2 kids already, just decided that 2 was all they could manage.

I think it all depends upon whether you think "life" starts at conception or at a later stage. I suspect that, like many social issues, ones religious background will impact ones opinion.

HelenTD

I do wonder about the objectiveness of some of these counselling services.

You appear to be simplifying the emotional cost of adoption by saying that there are ups and downs in life anyway. Unfortunately, adding adoption on top of the normal ups and downs of life can be a very heavy burden.

You are assuming that a pregnant woman is considering the unborn child's welfare only if she continues the pregnancy - but she might well be considering the unborn child's welfare by terminating the pregnancy.

Just because they want to, people do not have the right to become parents by taking on someone else's child and taking an anti-abortion stance to achieve that goal. Some aspects of adoption equate to commodity trading, only it's not wheat, rice or gold, it's a child. As I said before, there is a tendency to see adoption from the viewpoint of the adults only - but what is best for the child?

paulry

Nope, religion has no influence in my opinions


While counselling services are meant to help people reason things through and decide for themselves there's little doubt that the aim of many of the organisations sponsoring such services is to discourage abortions.

Yes but likewise feelings of guilt and remorse after having an abortion can also add a heavy burden.

I'm not sure that there's a huge amount of difference between someone choosing abortion and years later someone wiping out themselves and their family - both done "for the childs welfare". It's still taking a human life. Depends when a person considers that life has begun, I suppose.

I never said that they have the right to be parents but my point was that there's no shortage of people willing and happy to come forward and raise unwanted children. In that background the choice of whether to abort a child or give the child a chance of life is a bit of a no brainer to me.

Over the years I've known lots and lots of people who have been adopted. The vast majority are as happy and well adjusted as anyone else. It would be interesting to hear from BE posters who are adopted. Do they think it would have served their interests better if they'd never existed? However, it is a child's right to know from an early age that they were adopted but not necessarily to know the identity of their natural parents. My wife and I know a couple who adopted their 20 year old daughter as a baby and they've never told her that she's adopted. A very difficult position for them which would unlikely to have been an issue if they'd not kept it secret.

Bix

Must admit I'm surprised.

Be interesting to read the full story behind this one as from what we have read so far they clearly broke the criminal law.
That being the case I expected the judge to instruct the jury to deliver a guilty verdict.

Whether that law is a century old or not is irrelevant, and even though many consider it unfit for contemporary times it is statute.Therefore shouldn't that law now be reviewed? Good old Anna Bligh says there are no plans to amend it so where does that leave things now?

I think the biggest "injustice" was that this couple was singled out after all these years.

sonlymewalter

I agree. I don't like it but at th end of the day, the law is the law. Same as that woman who killed her husband, admitted murder and got off scott free

Pollyana

From the little I've read so far, it looks like they couldn't prove that it wasn't a miscarriage due to natural causes, hence they couldn't be directed to deliver a guilty verdict as there was an element of doubt.

northernbird

Blimey, think I must be feeling exceptionally unwell because I find myself agreeing with you on this issue