Yeah, it's a controversial subject, I've thought long and hard about starting this, but it's my blog, so what the hell...
I've just been reading this on the NUS site. If you can't be arsed to click, it's about the NUS condemning George Bush for banning a certain type of abortion, because it removes the woman's choice to have an abortion.
I first saw it on the union site, and thought, humm, yeah it should all be about choice, if someone wants to kill their poor defenceless unborn, then let them go ahead, and that maybe people should spend their efforts on educating people about it, so people may use their choice to not do something.
Then I read about the type of abortion Bush banned (something which isn't mentioned on the pro-NUS site) odd that... can't think why.
OK, so it's a blatant anti site, but I can't see the actual process being that different to how they describe it. This to my mind isn't the killing of an unborn, it's the killing of the born! Hell, all that's not delivered is the babies head, with the rest kicking and moving, before the doctor nobbles it.
So yeah, it may still be down to choice, but who in their right mind would choose to do that? It's <expletive removed> sick. You might as well kill the baby as soon as it's born, it seems like the same thing to me. If keeping it's head inside the mother, means that it's still allowed to be the mother's choice then that it is well fucked up. And if it's a not about wanting to give birth to something (or something like that), then you've like given birth to it anyway! Why not have it adopted!?
Reminded me of a poll I saw recently, which I shall recreate here. Feel free to not vote if you don't want to!
Flame away...