I like this law for one simple reason. Women will finally be forced to act responsibly and not just sleep around without a care. If they're stupid enough to try other means of abortion which don't require consent, and they get hurt or die in the process, they only have themselves to blame.

Let's not forget that there are several effective forms of birth control out there. Sure, reaching for a condom may kill the mood for some, but there is also ParaGard. It has no hormones and lasts for 10 years or until the woman wants to have it removed. Can it get easier than that? It even has a 99.9% success rate at preventing pregnancy, and it only requires the woman herself checking for the strings once a month after her period. So for those who just want to have wild, uninhibited sex, this is the perfect form of birth control.

Yes, the father should have a say. It has nothing to do with whose body it is. It should always be about the child. A woman being forced to carry a child she doesn't want will, of course, result in unfortunate repercussions for the fathers, and in some cases the women, but until women are forced to be responsible for the mistakes they make, they will continue to make them. I didn't get pregnant until I wanted to. It's not that hard to do. At the very least, women can track their ovulation to know when not to have sex during their cycle. If they were to do that and use a condom the rest of the time, that would be enough.

Exactly what are the pro-choice people worried about? Ooo, the woman can't decide what to do with her body because she needs a man to okay it. It's his unborn child and he deserves a say too. Pregnancy is not some disease that we're being denied the cure to. It's the creation of a life, and it starts with two people. Why should it end with only one? How can the father of that child only have rights after the child is born? And him even having rights then is arguable. Look at child custody and support statistics. Women are tricking men into getting pregnant because it's the easiest way to cash in on the daddy ATM. It's disgusting. Giving fathers more rights, even that early on, can only be a good thing. If mommy didn't want to get pregnant, tough. She should have thought about that before she so willing had sex with him. It's not like they're asking for women to be forced into abortions when the fathers don't want the child, and think of all the times men were tricked into parenthood. Women saving condoms and inserting the sperm themselves, lying about being on birth control, etc. The laws need to stop enabling women and start hindering them. I think this is a good start.

And to the person commenting about needing a rapist's consent, I don't see anything like that in the article. What I see is requiring a police report of the alleged rape, and the only reason I can see that being required is to deny the rapist his right to consent, which is perfectly acceptable to me.

Also, a fetus is a baby, and we need to learn to treat it as one. It's not a figment of our imaginations until the day it's born. It's a living, breathing human being in the early developmental stage. If we think its lack of development makes it less human, why do we think newborns are human? Human babies are one of, if not the most, undeveloped babies in the world. How many animals are born before they can walk or hold their own heads up? Just because the child is located internally doesn't mean it's less human. The only reason it needs the womb is the safety and constant nurturing. Without that, anything would die, including a newborn. If anyone call tell me what makes a fetus less than human, I'd like to hear it. I'm not pro-life. I think the world is overpopulated and I'm certainly not planning to have a dozen kids to add to that, but don't make arguments for abortion based on flawed logic that a fetus is somehow not yet or not fully human. Since a preemie isn't considered any less human than a full term newborn, it seems the only factor to being human is not living within the confines of someone else's living tissue. I guess intestinal parasites are less real because they live inside us too. Until they're expelled, they're not really worms. Anyone starting to see how stupid that logic is? I can fully support abortion when it's needed, but not when recklessly promiscuous women want to use it as a form of birth control. Abortions are very serious and can result in death of the woman. Are we really that obsessed with doing whatever we please and foregoing the consequences? Feminists, please get over yourselves and think about someone else for a change.

So if the law is accepted, then a woman that was raped and got pregnant must ask the raper before she can get an abortion? A law is a law, right?

If a woman have sex with two guys, which of the two guys had to accept the abortion? If a woman have one-night-stand and dont know who might be the father, who is gonna accept the abortion?

Just wanna make my point that a woman is the owner of her own body, if she wanna hurt her self its up to her, if she wanna f.u.c.k anyone she can, if she wanna get an abortion she should be allowed.....

Let say the law goes through, if the women DONT want the baby and still have to carry it and give birth, who has the moral responsabilaty for the child can she just leave the child with the father... like many fathers do today?

An unborn baby is not a human yet and should not be treated as one before it is a baby that could manage to live in the world.

If you don't want a baby keep your legs shut, go on the pill, use condoms, etc. "we" have too many things to prevent an unwanted baby other than to kill it! The people that kill these unwanted babies will pay for it someday! I know someone who had 2 abortions and then later tried to have a baby and couldnt. Pay back is a B*tch!

If you don't want a baby and want to have an abortion.....then DON'T have sex!!!

When I got on this website 20 minutes ago this article wasn't on the most viewed list. So whomever it is clicking on it to keep it up front has been busy for the last few minutes. Give it a rest!

Like a slave, is an unborn child not a brother?

By Charles Moore
27/10/2007

This week, I received an invitation to the opening of a new gallery in the Museum in Docklands, an offshoot of the Museum of London.

The gallery, which is in an old sugar warehouse, will be called "London, Sugar and Slavery". "Discover," says the invitation, "how the English sweet tooth, consumer boycotts and the Notting Hill Carnival are linked by one of the great crimes against humanity".

The opening of the gallery marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade. The publicity material speaks of "obscene profits, horrific brutality" and how "the seeds of racism" were sown. It would be an understatement to say that the museum organisers regard slavery as a wholly evil thing.

On the same day as I opened my invitation, Dawn Primarolo, the health minister, was telling the Commons Science and Technology Committee that there was no justification for lowering the limit for abortion below the current 24 weeks.

In doing so, she was going against those who argue that medical advances now make it easier for children born before 24 weeks to survive.

As if timing it to undermine Miss Primarolo's position, Millie McDonagh, who was born in Manchester aged 22 weeks, celebrated her first birthday the following day, photographed with her mother in the newspapers.

I found myself wondering how abortion will be viewed by museum curators, teachers, historians and moralists 200 years from now.

As the slavery exhibition shows, something that one generation accepts readily enough is often seen as abhorrent by its descendants " so abhorrent, in fact, that people find it almost impossible to understand how it could have been countenanced in a supposedly civilised society.

How could people not see that Africans should not be bought and sold for the convenience of our trade or our domestic life? We reserve particular scorn for those who sought to justify slavery on moral grounds. We look at the moral blindness of the past, and tut-tut, rather complacently.

It is not hard to imagine how a future Museum of London exhibition about abortion could go. It could buy up a 20th-century hospital building as its space, and take visitors round, showing them how, in one ward, staff were trying to save the lives of premature babies while, in the next, they were killing them.

It could compare the procedure by which the corpse of a baby who had died after or during premature birth was presented by the hospital to the mother to assist with grieving, with the way a similar corpse, if aborted, was thrown away.

It could display the various instruments that were used to remove and kill the foetus, rather as the manacles and collars of slaves can be seen today.

It could make a telling show of the propaganda that was used to promote abortion " the language of choice, control of a woman over her own body " and compare it with less happy information about the infertility caused by abortion, or depression or about the link between breast cancer and having an abortion before the birth of the first child.

It could show how women, vulnerable and often alone, came under pressure from the medical authorities to have an abortion without being offered help with the alternative.

The museum could make a pretty devastating contrast between the huge growth of rights for the disabled, which began in the late-20th century, and the fact that the disability (or even mild deformity) of a child was always grounds for abortion.

Just as, today, we are invited to glare at the Georgian portraits of fat, bewigged English sugar planters or pro-slavery politicians, there could be a rogues' gallery of pro-abortionists.

Here Marie Stopes, the great advocate of abortion and pioneer of "sexual health", who was also in favour of sterilising "half-castes"; there Lord Steel of Aikenwood, the leader of the Liberal Party, whose 1967 Abortion Act produced more than seven million abortions in 40 years.

How about a picture of Dawn Primarolo, accompanied by her words this week, and juxtaposed with photographs of children born before 24 weeks, who grew up and led full lives?

In many ways, I accept, such a museum of the future would be extremely unfair. We anti-abortionists should not paint all those who disagree with us as callous.

Many of those who support abortion have a deep concern about the horrors of an unwanted child, not realising that the culture of abortion is one that promotes unwantedness.

Others worry about world population growth. For reasons too long to explain here, I think they are mistaken, but I would certainly not want to argue that this automatically makes them haters of the human race.

We should be conscious of how genuinely difficult some of the situations of a pregnant woman can be. We should think more of help and less of condemnation.

Much better, as the late Cardinal Thomas Winning did, to give practical assistance to hard-pressed mothers who do not abort their children than to attack the clinics attended by those who do.

And although I cannot think of any good arguments for slavery, I think there is something priggish and unhistorical about the approach of the Museum in Docklands, which seems to be jumping into a pulpit rather than spreading information.

An anti-abortion museum in 200 years would be less educational than one that simply told the whole extraordinary story.

But the reason I throw this argument into the future is that, with the passage of time, abortion, especially late abortion, is slowly coming to be seen as a "solution" dating from an era that is passing. It will therefore be discredited.

Partly it is the effect of technology. My wife and I still have the video of the scan of our twins at about 18 weeks. You can see heads and limbs. That was in 1989. It bears the same relation to the technology today as do silent, black and white films to modern Hollywood hyper-realism.

Nowadays, it is even more visible and undeniable, as it was not to the first generation of people who had legal abortions, that what you are removing is human " human, though usually not in independent form, like you and I.

It is also visible that this human entity is alive, and therefore that, by removing it, you are taking life.

You may say that this physical image should not make a difference to the moral case, but in practice it does. The famous anti-slavery image was of a black man in chains, on his knees, saying, "Am I not a man and a brother?"

It was powerful because it used the physical to make a direct moral appeal: this person is essentially like you in body and soul, so why do you deny him the rights which you demand for yourself? To see a foetus in the womb is to experience the same appeal.

If you want to do people wrong, you must first undermine the idea that they are people. The Nazis called Jews rats. The Hutu in Rwanda called the Tutsis cockroaches. Pseudo-Darwinian views promoted ideas about racial purity or mental or physical health which allowed those who lacked these qualities to be seen as "inferior stock".

One of the good moral trends of our time has been to reject this way of looking at things. Instead, we insist, in the great debate about what it means to be human, that weakness is not a disqualification, but, by a famous Christian paradox, a strength.

Abortion runs against this trend, and so civilisation will eventually reject it, as once it rejected slavery.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YXVYP5I1RWYRRQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2007/10/27/do2702.xml

Who is another to tell one what to do with their own body. Should this ignorant and assinine law go into effect women will ultimately seek other ways to end a pregnancy, whether it be with drugs, drinking, or possibly suicide. How can a man say he wants a child when the carrier doesn't and that be allowed to go against what the women wants for her well being.
CHOICE...its your choice to drink alcohol, eat what you want, and do as you please with your body. It is NOT THE CHOICE OF OTHERS. Nor should others have an opinion or audacity to say that a woman should HAVE to keep something she doesnt want.

IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE...how would you like to be forced to abort a baby? Its the same as making a woman keep a baby.

PRO CHOICE...MY BODY MY CHOICE...JUDGE ME NOT AS YOU HAVE NO SAY IN WHAT I DO...WHO ARE YOU DO PSH YOUR IDEAS ON OTHERS...WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO?...

Ultimately, there are always other states, or countries to go to for abortion. What the GOOD DOERS who are NOSEY going to push pro-life in other countries.

PRO CHOICE....MY CHOICE NOT YOURS...MY BODY NOT YOURS...YOU ARE NOT GOD...YOUR JUDGEMENTS MEAN NOTHING TO ME!

TRISHA MARKS

WOW, CMike how do you really feel?

The ignorance of conservative pro-life christians is disgusting and ignorant they say that pro-choice supporters use rape and molestation as some excuse to justify abortion and although in some cases this may be true, overall it isn't, abortion is a very complicated thing that women has to struggle to decide to do. They aren't doing this because they are some cynical baby killers it goes beyond that you should read some of the things online about poverty and pregnancies where a mother can't have a abortion because you bastards decided to take away government money to help them. In many cases the child would grow up in slums amongst poverty and horrid lives or a family that can't provide or take care of the child or drug addicts or drunks. Do you fools believe that this a good thing for a small child, I certainly don't think so and you conservatives act like your doing some great justice to your god by saving a life that may grow up in a living hell and don't you dare give me that ******** about adoption because over 80% of children over the age of two will never be adopted these children will grow up alone and you tell me this is some kind of "better treatment" that this is somehow more ethical to do to a child then abortion please save your breath its reeks of lies and contradictions. You pro-life bastards have as much of a open mind as a jackass and you'll never change your views because of your pride and your fear of a god that won't even respond to you worthless prayers. In the end it's the mothers decision and that is how it should stay.

ha ha ha!!!!! Well 5ofus,when you write a comment, it renews it some, so you helped to do that. Plus this is a very emotional topic for a lot of people. Almost everyone has something to say about it. That is why its most viewed and most commented on. And if I am not mistaken, that is what this forum is for. Perhaps, you shouldn't click on it, and read it, then you would not have to deal with it. Just a suggestion.