The story that has put abortion back in the dock

Joe says:

09:38am | 28/09/09

This case is about the policing of importation of dangerous drugs. This is a federal government issue not a state government issue. As much as the pro-abortion lobby would like to change the QLD abortion laws this case is unlinked. Abortion is not on trial here.

We need to do much more to counsel and support new pregnant mothers. There are far too many abortions in QLD at the moment, this is the real tradgedy.

Voxpop says:

09:59am | 28/09/09

Pro-choice means that if abortion goes against your own beliefs then you can choose not to have one - end of story.  We cannot know everyone’s individual circumstances so let the individuals decide for themselves - as it should be.  Those against abortion should just mind their own business and stop trying to control women by forcing them into unwanted pregnancies.

LeanneK says:

10:07am | 28/09/09

The practice of do it yourself abortions, by whatever means is rightly prohibited in Australia. I can’t believe anyone is advocating going back to the times when women had to deal with their own abortions, often tragically. No drug of that type should be allowed in Australia, ever. If someone wants to hide an abortion to the point of taking an illegally imported drug then they will also be reluctant to seek medical help afterwards if something goes wrong. Medical abortions these days are not only relatively cheap but also confidential! Good on the QLD Govt and good on the Federal Govt for continuing to ban these drugs.

Eric says:

10:08am | 28/09/09

I’m more concerned about choice for men. Nobody should be forced to become a father against his will.

Yet there is no right of choice for men.

Louise says:

10:27am | 28/09/09

If abortion was decriminalised or even legal perhaps this poor woman would have been spared the confusion or misunderstanding behind her decision.

This is about educating young women about ALL the choices they have.

Heléna says:

11:23am | 28/09/09

I feel so sorry for this couple and angered at a government that is incapable of correcting the laws around abortion and have allowed this tragic situation to occur, whether it is this couple or another “procuring” an abortion by any method will continue

DaveA says:

11:33am | 28/09/09

Men get a choice, they can choose to be happy and supportice of the woman’s decision or choose not to be.  Whil it is completely correct that a man cannot compel a woman to carry a baby to term there is also an argument that a woman should not be able to compel a man to pay child support for an unintended, unwanted child.

Joe says:

11:56am | 28/09/09

There were only 9 babies adopted out in QLD last year. This is a real tragedy. What is the QLD government doing about encouraging more adoptions? There is a HUGE waiting list of willing couples wanting to care for these babies. They are not unwanted.

Voxpop says:

12:37pm | 28/09/09

Joe if these ‘willing couples’ would look beyond their selfish need to have a ‘baby’ to look after rather than the countless scores of children that need homes the world would be a better place.  But if a child is 5 or 10 years old these couples don’t want them - that is the real tragedy.

Joe says:

01:13pm | 28/09/09

Voxpop are you also against IVF for this same reason - people looking “beyond their selfish need to have a ‘baby’”?

Becca says:

01:44pm | 28/09/09

The article quotes Caroline de Costa. Wasn’t she one of the doctors they mentioned in the recent story of the 19 Qld babies who survived abortion and were born alive but were then left to die by the doctors? Why exactly are we listening to her opinions?

Barb says:

01:51pm | 28/09/09

Instead of an abortion, why don’t these women have the baby and then put him or her up for adoption. These women then won’t have to live with the painful memory of aborting their child - as he or she will be out in the World livin’ life. I would personally organise a charity to ensure these women have the support they need to take the baby to term.

Jade says:

02:51pm | 28/09/09

If a woman wants to have an abortion then she should be able to.  We are in the 21st century now and it is rediculous to think that these rules are in place.  What if the child was being born into an abusive household, what if the parents can’t afford to look after. Why would someone want to carry a child for nine months if they have no intention of keeping.  It would cause more phycological stress etc to the mother of the baby.  Better to abort and save the pain.  People need to stop thinking of the own beliefs or stone age religous crap.

Suzie says:

02:53pm | 28/09/09

I wonder what public opion would be if it were found that a “clinic” was offering pills to parents who wanted to get rid of their products of conception. The only difference being that the cells had continued to multiply and they were now toddlers. Still inconvenient at times, still take money & time to look after, but after all hasn’t the mother got herself to consider????
Are the next generations of people going to be as appauled at us killing our own children as we are with the Holocaust or slavery???
This is a very serious issue and obviously needs to be given due attention. I believe life starts at conception when all the necessary chromosones are in place, and the baby just has to grow, this is something that continues throughout our life.
Education is a very vital to inform people about how to avoid unplanned pregnacies. Prevention is always better than cure.

I agree with Joe, pregnant women need good councel, giving them ALL the choices that are available and ALL possible side effecrts. Some of the well known side effects of abortion include depression, emotional breakdown, lowered self esteem, eating disorders, postnatal depression, sexual dysfunction, replacement pregnancies, parenting problems, marrieage & family breakdown, child neglect & abuse, domestic violence, drug & alcohol abuse, suicidal behaviour, anxiety attacks, compulsive disorders and other mental helath problems. Many of these issues may stay with the women and often their family for many years unless delt with properly. Most people do not consciously connect the problems they are experiencing with the abortion.
Abortion, in any form is life and death, so it is everyones buisness, and it should not be thought of lightly.

Shirl Gold says:

03:05pm | 28/09/09

If it’s ok to kill an unborn baby because of an abusive household or financial problems, then it should also be ok to kill it anytime after it is born And if having the child causes psychological stress or it’s just not wanted, then why not murder rebellious teenagers?

Obviously this would be wrong, which raises the point - why should the child’s age or location (i.e. which side of the birth canal) make any difference?

Clover says:

03:41pm | 28/09/09

Any thoughts on my philosophy?
I was taught that if you’re not ready to become a parent, you shouldn’t have sex. Obviously this theory falls down when it comes to non consensual sex, but for two consenting adults, shouldn’t the consequences be thought through before the act?

crystalsinger says:

03:51pm | 28/09/09

@Suzie: Your ‘post-birth abortion’ argument is a straw man. No-one who advocates choice, and the availability of legal, safe abortions has EVER suggested that killing infants/toddlers/adolescents/adults should be OK by an extension of logic. Or even that very-late-term pregnancies should be aborted. The slippery slope to which you’re alluding simply does not exist. Please stop pretending that it does.

In addition, asserting that “[you] believe life starts at conception when all the necessary chromosones are in place” does not make it so. I may ‘believe’ that Xenu (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that matter) is the supernatural instigator of the universe. My believing it doesn’t make it so.

Now, are there any rational, non-religious/dogmatic reasons for denying legal, safe abortions to women who CHOOSE to have them?

Anybody…?

*crickets*

wolf says:

03:53pm | 28/09/09

So much of this debate isn’t being had so lets get it out in the open.

The topic of abortion, and whether it should be condoned/legal largely comes down to religion.  I would be amazed if the ‘pro life’ people commenting weren’t “deeply religious” (likely catholic).

I’m an atheist, and I support the right of any couple to choose (reasonably early on).

Lets have all our agendas out on the table people to have a well rounded discussion.

anne f says:

03:57pm | 28/09/09

For those commenting on men’s reproductive rights it is an issue justly ignored in the abortion debate as it is has nothing to do with it. The woman is affected materially in a way which is not comparable for men. Plus she ALSO provides financial support to her child. I am assuming that any man concerned about this would be using his own contraception EVERY time, regardless of what the woman is doing. Of course, contraception fails (estimated 1 in 10 men have a condom failure once a year) so he needs to be prepared for the consequence, one of which may be that the woman elects to keep the child and wants him to contribute. If these odds aren’t good enough then he should consider more permanent contraception.

kel says:

04:01pm | 28/09/09

Game, set & match = crystalsinger.

LeanneK says:

04:10pm | 28/09/09

It takes two people to create a baby. When does the man who really wants this baby get a choice? I simply could not imagine having to give up a child of mine to abortion becasue it is the woman’s “right” to abort. You have sex knowing there could be consequences.

Suzie says:

04:31pm | 28/09/09

re crystalsinger - modern technology actually show us by microscopic photography that a new life has begun when the sperm enters the ovum and the new life begins to divide very twelve to 15 hours. That’s what my belief is founded on! So with this fact in mind there is no doubt when life begins. To try and state life begins at some given time along that process is just ludicrous. Years ago, when we were less informed in utero we can excuse such niavity. You have an issue with my logic of post birth killings. What do you think they have legislated in Vic!!!!! Babies are legally able to be murdered up until they are born!!! I have heard of babies being born during a surgical abortion and being pushed back into the vagina so it can be killed before being born. Don’t be so niave to think Drs are in this for the mothers welbeing!!!!
My reasons for educating every one, (as it’s often not just the pregnant women making this decision, she is in a very vulnerable state (for those of us who have been pregnat know), and is often pressured into this difficult decision) is that the consequences of making a decision to kill your own baby far out weigh the benefits fo getting rid of the pregnacy.I know many, many women who have made this awful decision and now really regret it. They all tell how little education they got about this life changing event and felt a degree ofbeing pushed into the decision, often with a real urgency to make a quick decision. The option of allowing life for their child and giving another couple the opportunity to show it all the love it deserves is a difficult choice, but less painful and more rewarding for all involved. If we as a nation believe murder is wrong, then abortion is wrong.Abortions are NOT safe either for mum or bub!

crystalsinger says:

05:04pm | 28/09/09

@Suzie: Science shows us that when a sperm fertilises an ovum, we have a fertilised ovum. You’re conflating this event with “human consciousness”, when it is not the same thing at all.

You do this based on misguided or distorted religious dogma, which you then try to rationalise (when dealing with someone who doesn’t just swallow the religious argument hook, line, and sinker) with either pseudo-science or a distortion/misrepresentation of actual science.

I’m not saying that you’re doing it deliberately or maliciously. And you’re probably even sincere in your beliefs and think that you’re ‘doing good’ or ‘have good intentions’.

You’re NOT doing good though, and good intentions count far less than the results those intentions produce, which in this case are overwhelmingly harmful to women.

Robert says:

05:15pm | 28/09/09

There is no such thing as a safe and sound abortion. A woman is not a computer that is designed for uninstall options at will. Even a computer has problems at times when programmes have been uninstalled. The best that a woman’s body can do is a natural abortion where the body shuts itself down to the pregnancy. An abortion performed on a woman by either surgery or drugs can be likened to a very crude “Delete” button on the computer. There are a range of physical and mental consequences that can afflict a woman by having an abortion. The government is right not to give in to demands for decriminalisation of abortion. It would be highly irresponsible if they did.

Barb says:

05:31pm | 28/09/09

Dearest crystalsinger

Sorry, but Suzie’s right - imaging technology has shown that life begins almost immediately. Furthermore, the psychological effects on the woman are absolutely devastating.

Abortion, like gay marriage, is an issue wherein modern science has proven Biblical values correct. This is why polling in America has shown Roe V Wade no longer has majority support, and that the 21st Century will be remembered as the Social Conservative Century.

For women who’ve had an abortion, what’s done is done - it was our society that failed you not yourself.

wolf says:

05:32pm | 28/09/09

Suzie, just because you punctuate your points with several exclamation marks does not make them right!!!! In fact, the style you use and your assertion that medical professionals have an ulteriour motive for performing abortions makes you seem unstable!!!!
I love when the religious selectively quote ‘science’ to help prove their point without understanding it, or considering the wider ramifications of accepting ‘science’ has for their ‘belief’.

Emmanuel says:

05:37pm | 28/09/09

This is a classic example of society turning the accused into the victim. Of course, the real victims of abortion never get a chance to defend themselves. But please, Margo, spare us the hypocrisy of claiming that Leach did not want the publicity and then stating a few sentences later, “Tegan is expected to sell her story exclusively to a women’s magazine when the dust has finally settled on this case.” This issue is about a couple wanting to abort a perfectly viable human being they created through their own actions, then crying tears of self-pity because things went pear-shaped. Of course, Margo and her pro-choice sisters will always use these sort of cases as a cause celebre for decriminalising abortion in Queensland and push the agenda as far as they can take it. It’s a poor reflection on The Punch that it gives her like the time of day!

Cuppa says:

05:54pm | 28/09/09

‘’ Crystal singer’, i couldnt have said it better myself.Well done.

crystalsinger says:

06:05pm | 28/09/09

@Barb: Ah, yes by all means let’s bring in the red herring of same-sex marriage to this discussion while we’re at it! All that does is confirm you as a religious fundamentalist.

I does nothing to support your assertions, and in fact undermines any attempt at a rational argument that you might make.

Jimbob says:

06:23pm | 28/09/09

Barb, The psychological effects on women forced to carry unwanted babies are equally devastating and the number of people suffering for the rest of their lives is increased by one. Human ‘life’ involves sentient thought. The fact that the US is now questioning the right to abortion just shows the prevalence of religious lunatics in that country and is not something for us to aspire too.

Colin says:

06:45pm | 28/09/09

Voxpop @8:59am
What an odd definition of Pro-Choice. Can we apply your definition of Pro-Choice to slavery and wife beating too? In reality Pro-Choice is all about never having to express what you really believe, i.e. that the killing of innocent human life in the womb is an acceptable practice.

As a fellow human being I will continue to remind Pro-Choicers that the deliberate killing of innocent human life is an evil that should not be tolerated.

Meg says:

07:04pm | 28/09/09

Its a shame that people are willing to neglect the individual for the sake of pursing an ideology.

Why would a young woman take a powerful drug, smuggled into the country illegally, to kill her own small child who was not yet born?

Is our society really willing to support young mothers? Is our society really pro-woman? Who was the one who administered her the drug? Her boyfriend, a man… Was she really acting out of “choice” or was it the age old view that somehow she, and her baby, were “possessions” of the man.

This case only proves what the matriarchs of the feminist stated. “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”
- Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Founder of the Womens Movement, Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873

What needs to change here is society, not a law.

Voxpop says:

07:23pm | 28/09/09

Joe to answer your question I have no problem with couples using IVF (and that includes shock horror same sex couples or even singles;-) as they actually want to have a baby.
The only negative comment I’ve ever made about IVF is the level of Government funding.
My comment was in response to you saying that there are so many couples that want to adopt a baby but there aren’t enough to go around.  I say the real tragedy is that there are scores of kids that these couples would refuse to adopt - why?  Because they are older than 3 and yes I see that as selfish.

Eric says:

07:42pm | 28/09/09

Most of the people bringing religion into this debate seem to be the pro-abortion crowd.

Ovid says:

08:02pm | 28/09/09

Actually, both Suzie and crystalsinger are wrong although crystalsinger is very wide of the mark. If you think seriously about the question of when life begins and about the evidence that the simple microscope provides, let alone modern scanning equipment, it is clear that life does not begin at conception because human life is continuous. Both the egg and the sperm have to be alive or no conception occurs. The fusion of egg and sperm, the conception, makes possible what is only in potential before, the development of a child. Kill it by all means, but you are killing what is alive and would otherwise merely grow physically into what you recognise as a child. There are any number of creatures which require the same process for conception, but do not need a mother. Perhaps science will make that possible for humans then women as far as the specific function that they bring to society will have no use. A man will then be able to do everything that a woman can do and what that means is that the abortion of female babies will become the rule as it is in certain countries and occasionally in Australia, even now.
Isn’t science grand.

Voxpop says:

09:23pm | 28/09/09

Colin I wasn’t trying to ‘define’ pro-choice merely point out that if you don’t agree then you don’t have to do it.
And by extension I say keep your nose out of other people’s personal affairs, you don’t know their circumstances and therefore do not understand why they have come to such a difficult decision.

Voxpop says:

09:35pm | 28/09/09

Eric “Most of the people bringing religion into this debate seem to be the pro-abortion crowd.”
Come on Eric you’ve been around The Punch long enough to know that these religious fundies hijack posts like this.  It’s their zealotry and arrogance, misrepresentation and over the top emotive claims that give them away.

Science is fun says:

10:09pm | 28/09/09

Crystal, might I suggest that you read any textbook on biology before you facetiously criticise others for their lack of scientific knowledge. A zygote is undeniably alive, as it is an active organism. Just like trees are life and bacteria is life. That’s a scientific fact and for you to claim anything to the contrary is absurd. I don’t believe that life alone is sufficient criteria to afford legal protection to the unborn however I think it’s a little rich of you to pick on other people when you yourself have a poor understand of science.

Gibbot says:

10:19pm | 28/09/09

Gosh! What tripe.

Bacteria achieves individuality, so washing your hands is genocide. What we’re talking about is at what point a human being actually exists. For all the folk that claim that it is the moment of conception - sorry. You’re wrong. If conception was the point at which that happened, then twins are only half a human each (or an eighth of a human each if they happen to be octuplets), as they are a result of the zygote splitting well after the moment of conception.

Science recognises death as the point when there ceases to be any brain activity, ergo human life cannot be seen to exist before there is even a neurological network. The earliest this develops is around week 20. Before that there’s a bunch of cells & some tissue.

Arguing that a ‘human’ is created from the moment of conception is arguing that nature has designed us all to be abortionists, as healthy foetus’ are routinely rejected by the body in the first couple of months. All you pro-lifers are murderers (at least all the female ones) according to your own argument. Unless you’ve never had sex, there is a great likelihood that your body has rejected a viable foetus. If you have never had sex you have bigger things to worry about than discussion on a news blog, and you’re not really qualified to comment anyway.

Not one comment I’ve read over the three posts on this topic today advocates abortion. Nobody is saying that it is a decision that should be taken lightly, or that there are no psychological repercussions. It’s not a choice like ‘shall we see a movie, go dancing, or have have an abortion tonight’. Nobody who has experienced it, or who is considering it, considers it to be a triviality.

The only sane approach to take is to educate openly and honestly, and provide the support needed to help people make the best decision they can for themselves. Nonsense talk of ‘killing children’ within the established, acceptable, medical time frame for termination is either stupid or dishonest (although it is possible to be both).

Al says:

10:55pm | 28/09/09

No she did not make ” a choice thousands of women have made before her”, unless thousands of women illegally smuggle drugs into the country, have them administered by their boyfiends (who, suprise suprise, aren’t medically qualified to administer such drugs) to end the life of their baby to-be.

Bernard O'Hara says:

11:18pm | 28/09/09

The woman concerned is not a child she with her partner exercised their freedom to act, and hence she conceived.

I understand this was not what she (or they) necessarily wanted, but having exercised their free will, they should accept responsibility for that action - the woman to carry and care for the child in her womb and the father to protect and care for the woman (and his child) during the pregnacy. 

The couple concerned are alleged to have ‘terminated’ the pregnancy. This is against the laws of our state, and to my mind, if it is proved to have occured, it is and should be seen as a crime.

Whilst I sympathise with people when things don’t go the way they want them to, I do not believe anyone has the right to ‘terminate’ or dispose of any viable human life, simply because it does not suit them.

I have further concerns about this case and in particular the fire bombing attacks on this young people.  I find it difficult to believe that anyone concerned for human life would use this tactic to intimidate them.  I would find it easier to believe that they are being ‘set up’ by people seeking to discredit people who cherish life.  Even if the subject couple have committed a crime, that is no excuse for anyone to make attempts on their lives or property.

The timing of the case, and the bombings, are very oppertune for people whose goal is legalisation of abortion in Queensland.

May we all cherish life.

Joe says:

11:39am | 29/09/09

@Voxpop “the real tragedy is that there are scores of kids that these couples would refuse to adopt - why?  Because they are older than 3 and yes I see that as selfish. “

I am not sure that this it really true (many end up adopting from overseas and it takes years to adopt from there and often the children are 1 or 2 by the time the arrive in Australia) but if it was, are you arguing that children should be aborted and not adopted out because you think that those wanting to adopt are selfish? They are willing to open up their homes to those who are being aborted.

Lets think of a few people were were adopted and wouldn’t be here if they had been aborted and not adopted out;

Steve Jobs (Apple CEO)
John Lennon
Nat King Cole
Nelson Mandela
Paul Lucas (QLD Deputy Premier)
Marilyn Monroe
Eleanor Roosevelt
Nancy Regan

Nomes says:

12:43pm | 29/09/09

Remembering that we were all once that small, that tiny and that precious.  Yes I say precious because we still are. Then I ask this - does abortion “Will the good of the other?” Or does it take away a responsibility in willing the good of that other?

Joan Seymour says:

01:18pm | 29/09/09

I’m amazed by the view that women are being forced into unwanted pregnancies by pro-life activists. Rapists can force a woman, and do; husbands - including rapists - used to be able to force their wife toconceive children long after her strenghth was exhausted. But pro-life activists? I think not. Most women in our society can prevent conception and if they don’t want to bear a child, they should do so.  The same with their partners. I wouldn’t force anyone, male or female,  to conceive a child, but once a human person exists,  there is an enormous moral issue that must be addressed by those who have conceived. It’s simply not right to dismiss a person as the result of accident therefore disposable.  Crystalsinger, that slippery slope certainly does exist and anyone who’s been around as long as I have could document it. The slope doesn’t end at birth - the debate for some time has been whether the first breath taken is the point where a human person exists, i.e. outside the womb.  A few year s back the point was at ‘viability’ - 24 weeks? And very damaged or deformed children are sometimes left to die in hospitals, (unless of course they’ve been terminated before birth), often traumatizing the nursing staff who’ve been told to do it. Next point - slightly deformed or damaged…then…???

Colin says:

03:03pm | 29/09/09

Voxpop @8:23pm,

Your statement, *if you don’t agree with abortion don’t have one* shows the inanity of Pro-Choice sloganeering. One only has to use such a statement in the context of, as I said previously, slavery or wife bashing to recognise such inanity.

You say to have an abortion is a difficult decision. I imagine for some women it is. But why? After all, I presume you think it is morally acceptable for a woman to terminate the life within her womb for any reason and at any stage of a pregnancy. Isn’t this why the Pro-Choice lobby wants all legal restrictions on abortions removed? If, as the Pro-Choice lobby believes, a human foetus has no value worthy of legal protection why would abortion be a difficult decision?

In the end isn’t it true that those who consider abortion to be an acceptable practice simply do not want to take responsibility for the natural outcome of their sexual activity?

Maybe the Pro-Choice lobby should relabel themselves Null-Responsibility lobby.

Voxpop says:

08:59pm | 29/09/09

Joe face it a truly selfless person would adopt a 5, 8, or 10 year old because there is a huge number of kids out there suffering.  Don’t ask me why they only want babies, and are happy to overlook other kids in need - maybe they think they can pass it off as their own or that they can better control a kid that has no memory of other parents.  Who knows but like I said I see that as selfish - but more to the point I’m saying that adoption is not the cure to reduce abortions.  You fail to understand the reasons behind the decision and that these women are not in a position to be able to do that.

Voxpop says:

09:26pm | 29/09/09

Bernard O’Hara I don’t know why you feign ignorance on this but it is a very well known fact that elements withing the pro-life brigade use these disgusting scare tactics, vandalism and even murder (so much for their supposed value of life)  To suggest that a sympathiser would terrorise this couple is ridiculous and I believe that you know it - you are trying to deflect attention from the mad fundies within your base.
Some of these groups have had widespread support, other pro-lifers are complicent in their silence.  But the fact is that pro-lifers have murdered doctors who perform abortions and absolutely terrorised women going into clinics etc.

Zac B says:

11:02pm | 29/09/09

I have to say I am getting tired of people telling me how old the abortion laws are, as though thats a bad thing. You know the murder, rape, incest and many other laws are just as old. Should we get rid of these too? Come on people. There is a major push by pro abortion groups and journalists to bring around decrim. on abortion. These guys want to be able to kill the unborn up to 9 months. This in my opinion is despicable.

crappedoff says:

11:03pm | 29/09/09

I can’t believe so many people can miss the point! What child is better off being nurtured inside a mother that doesn’t want it? Just look at all the cases of foetal alcohol syndrome, kids who are born from mothers who drank alcohol to excess after they were conceived? They are virtually brain dead and struggle all their lives with little or no ability to reason, remember what they are taught and behavioural issues.. Where is the quality of life? And then there’s mothers that smoked through the pregancy and their kids inherit chronic respiratory problems, or failed to give their babies the necessary nutrients from a healthy diet, or were drug addicted and passed on addictions to heroin or other substances forcing the baby into withdrawal and jaundice upon delivery… or even those mothers who were so uninterested in their foetuses that they exposed them to diseases from unsafe sex? These are mothers that did not want their babies… pregnancy must be a committed journey for a mother. It’s ridiculous to say a child can just be handed over at delivery to adoption… a mother has to give nine months of devotion and commitment to make that happen and if she doesn’t want the child how can you make her make her womb a pristine temple for that period? Is any man prepared to provide that sort of selfless sacrifice? No, they just criticise the woman for not doing it.

Rach says:

01:36pm | 30/09/09

There is nothing tragic about people who are not financially stable and feel able to care for a child to abort that foetus. The tragedy lies where people are too damn selfish for there own good and many young people view children as an anchor to there relationship with a boy, a fashion accessory instead of looking at the big picture.

She should be congratulated on being brave enough to make such a choice to ensure this child is not brought into an unrealistic world by a dreaming 19 year old mother like many others have before.

As of June, 2008 the amount of orphaned children under the age of 18 was 108, 338, 000, now you can say Oh but if you dont want your child then just adopt it out. What about the other 108 million left behind? Dont create another problem until you fix the 108 million other problems out there. They need homes before an unborn foetus does.

Gracee says:

11:55am | 19/10/09

I have read what most of what you have said and I noticed that no one has mentioned what actually happens in an abortion. I’m 16 and I looked it up and it was actually quite horrible to say the least. i mean in most methods they actually pull apart the baby.
I have always been pro-choice because I know that if I was raped and I consequently got pregnant I could (most probably) not carry that baby to term and if I did I would have to adopt it out.
I also think that every person is different and they all have different reasons for doing things. Sometimes no matter how careful people are and use birth control pills and condoms there is still a possibility that they conceive, it is incredibly low but for those times that happens I think they are entitled to do what they feel is right. As long as BOTH of them agree on the decision, whatever it may be.
Also I have read many articles about this case and she says that she wasn’t able to look after herself and then society expects her to look after a child as well? I know she could have adopted it out but there has got to be a huge amount of heartbreak still. What she did was right for them.
don’t get me wrong I love children and I can’t wait until I have my own but I would really like to be able to have them when I am in a stable position particularly financially and relationship wise.
Also another point people all ok with with killing animals but as soon as it comes to humans its automatically wrong. We put down animals that go into pounds because no one wants them and thats ok to kill thousands of dogs but one baby that is still a foetus and people well look at this thread and you will see what i mean. (i know its not one child but still)