I dare say i disagree with the current stance on abortion. The limit is made irrelevant mostly by the fact that if the state order it, an abortion may be carried out at any point in the pregnancy. Even close to full term. This is dependent on the risk to the mother when giving birth, the mental capacity of the mother and whether there are serious defects with the baby. But the limit, 24 weeks, is a question of morality. We deem ourself a civilised society and yet we allow for abortions to take place at the 24 week period.

At 24 weeks a baby is developed enough to survive on its own. In fact, a baby could potentially survive a good number of weeks prior to that. Even the 22 weeks as recommended by David Cameron. The abortion limit should reflect whether or not the child could survive on its own or not, if it can survive on its own then it is a life form, not a bundle of cells to be terminated. This is not bronze-age thinking. This is not Tory thinking. This is common sense. It is also about being humane. A child can feel pain at 24 weeks. There comes a point where a foetus stops being a foetus and starts being a baby.... and this is around the 20 week period.

I am not going to get into the pro-life arguments which have already been stated so many times before.

The limit could realistically be cut back to 18 weeks. A lot of the reason for the limit itself is that certain defects only become visible at a late date, around 16 to 20 weeks. Then the state has to jump through various hoops before actually performing the abortion. What we are failing to take into account is that in many countries where abortions are subject to stricter time frames there are various clauses to allow for the abortion to be carried out after the expired time frame. Such as dangers to the mother or defects in the child, as already mentioned above. So we are not dealing in absolutes here. The policy is flexible though this is not often mentioned by those arguing in favor of seemingly endless limits on abortion, which in the UK and the US run close to the full term of the pregnancy.

Limiting the time on abortions is not about gender oppression, it is about ending the use of abortion as a means of contraceptive. It should be no such thing. Abortions for other causes would still be able to take place, but not for a pointless and meaningless reason. Why do these people need abortions? We should all be taking some responsibility for our own actions. Women know if they have unprotected sex. If you have unprotected sex, go to the pharmacy and get the morning after pill, it works for three days afterwards. It isn't like there is no choice available to you. Emergency contraception is even free. As are other methods of contraceptive free from the GP or local clinic. You can even get condoms and other items from school these days. What is the excuse for unwanted pregnancy? It isn't that people are not educated, there is vast amounts of progressive sex education taught in schools.

Under what circumstances, other than irresponsibility, would you possibly leave your abortion to wait till the 6 month limit? You find out you are pregnant after a month or so, and then if we were in France you would have over two months to make a decision about an abortion.

I am a vegetarian. I believe absolutely all life is sarcred, be it the life of an animal or an unborn child. What right do we have to take that life away for silly reasons? I remember reading some newspaper article where the reason cited was because "it would make the other child jealous" which is monstrous. This is not the case in all abortions, but for abortions to go ahead at so late a date on such flimsy grounds is disgusting. I have nothing but contempt for people who choose to end the life of a child at so late a date, because they can.

...if it can survive on its own then it is a life form...

You should inform the medical community, because they put a lot of effort and expertise, with the usage of expensive technology, into keeping such babies alive.

Embryos and foetuses are forms of life, many things are life forms. Not all of them have a right to life. That babies do not impinge on the rights of mothers has nothing to do with any common definitions of life.

Babies born prematurely can survive outside the womb at younger and younger ages. Does that mean that under your definition a fetus is a "life form" today that wasn't a decade ago?

A child can feel pain at 24 weeks. There comes a point where a foetus stops being a foetus and starts being a baby....

There is no evidence to support your claim about pain. What you're probably refering to is that it's unlikely that a foetus could feel pain before 20 weeks. That says nothing about if a foetus feels pain. If there comes a time when there is evidence of a pain response that still does not mean a foetus suffers like we do.

There is no child at 24 weeks, there is a foetus. The transition from foetus to baby is at birth, the terms have specific meanings, they're stages of human development. Physically a foetus can be more developed than a baby.

We should all be taking some responsibility for our own actions.

This sounds like using pregnancy and children as a punishment, pregnancy should not be used as a punishment, a child should not be a seen as a punishment. People are stupid, and not everyone is educated. If someone cut off their finger doing something stupid you wouldn't demand that doctors not put it back on would you?

What difference is it to you whether a woman gets an abortion or not? Taxes would be a reasonable answer, but it's not that, it's about unreasonable positions on abortion or recreational sex. The talk about responsibility, pain, and "life" are a flimsy façade for unsupported beliefs and values.

Even perfect use of condoms have a 2% per year risk of pregnancy, 10-18% in practice. The morning after pill is meant for emergencies and should not be taken repeatedly. Contraceptives with a higher success rate like The Pill can have side effects, and some women are unable to take them. How could you tell whether a woman was responsible or not?

I disagree that some things do not have a right to life. What a crazy notion, who are we to deny any creature a right to life just because we can? That is what we refer to as playing God. Every creature, no matter how big or small, how intelligent or otherwise, has a complete right to life and we have no authority to deny it to them. Unlike me, you appear to have little respect for life.

We can reasonably assume that a foetus can feel pain at around the 20 week period for it has developed its nervous system by that time. No nervous system = no pain. Therefore the reverse is true in this case. Additionally the point at which we have to start considering the rights of the foetus go hand in hand with the viability of the foetus. I have discussed this at length with friends of mine who are indeed Doctors and they have advised me, rather than vice versa.

Your analogy with the finger being cut off is a ridiculous one. If people are going to have unprotected sex, they should expect the consequences of those actions. Unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy, this is not rocket science.

My position is based on a value for all life, which many people have a lack of respect for. I refuse to have living creatures killed on my behalf so i may eat them because i respect life, i can therefore never condone abortion.

My argument is not flimsy and i suggest you look at your own before passing judgement. I refer you to your final comment which is deeply flawed. The morning after pill may be used as much as anyone wants and whenever they want. It does not descrease in effectiveness after multiple uses as people say. It is emergency contraception, yes, but it is better than getting an abortion. Which for the record i support up until the 20 week period. The pill does have side effects but this is not the only form of contraceptive for women, is it?

Who are you to grant the right to life to creatures, what is your authority? I do not have any respect for your values, nothing you have written has compelled me. I'd like to know how you discriminate between different forms of life, which kinds qualify for the right to life, what would happen if theirs a conflict between species.

A nervous system is a requirement not an indicator. You cannot reasonably say that a foetus can feel pain, or does feel pain. It's pure speculation on your part.

If people put their finger in a blender they should expect the consequences? The analogy is not ridiculous, it's just hard for you to face the ridiculousness of your words on "responsibility". It's not about responsibility, you clearly don't care about that.

Read the human rights act. We all have a right to life, this debate is pointless for neither you nor i have a right to grant life or to take it away.

But are you really suggesting we sail through life without ever having to take responsibility for our actions? In that case, let us rid ourself of the prison system. Let us live in complete and total anarchy!

We are human. We all make mistakes. What i am saying is that abortion shouldn't be a method of correcting that mistake. And if you don't want the child, get rid of it early in the pregnancy when it is a mere bundle of cells and can't be seriously considered as a form of life. It is irresponsible to leave it to the last minute. I also feel it is cruel. You may disagree and i respect that.

But this is why there was a free vote in the House of Commons yesterday as this sort of issue is based on personal morality and on these types of issue it is often near impossible to convince someone of your way of thinking.

Read the human rights act. We all have a right to life...

What you are suggesting is not what the human rights act is refering to and you know it.

But are you really suggesting we sail through life without ever having to take responsibility for our actions?

So would you withhold treatment for people who stupidly injure themselves? This is disingenuous, you don't care about responsibility.

What i am saying is that abortion shouldn't be a method of correcting that mistake.

Yes, you don't care about responsibility or any of the other things you mention, you are against abortion for a reason you're not going to be able to justify.

And if you don't want the child, get rid of it early in the pregnancy when it is a mere bundle of cells and can't be seriously considered as a form of life.

This is nonsense, every step of the way a human embryo is a form of life using the many definitions of life there are.

You're going to have to explain what you mean if you're going to co-opt words for unusual purposes with well established words already used within the subject.

But this is why there was a free vote in the House of Commons yesterday as this sort of issue is based on personal morality and on these types of issue it is often near impossible to convince someone of your way of thinking.

Personal morality that is based on arbitary boundaries, lies about fetal pain, punishment of women for having sex or being stupid, ignorance of biology, and primitive religious belief.