Feedback and Notes


Imagine No Religion

Latest Activity

Mrs.B commented on Michel's group The Daily Cosmos or Interesting Facts about the Universe
20 minutes ago
Doone commented on Michel's group The Daily Cosmos or Interesting Facts about the Universe
23 minutes ago
Mrs.B commented on Hope's group Imagine No Religion Or holey,holey,holey Arguments for Religion
30 minutes ago
Doone commented on Hope's group Imagine No Religion Or holey,holey,holey Arguments for Religion
43 minutes ago
Mrs.B commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
1 hour ago
Stephen commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
1 hour ago
Stephen left a comment for Wesley Sherman
1 hour ago
Stephen left a comment for Steven Richards
1 hour ago
Stephen left a comment for Nathan Hevenstone
1 hour ago
Stephen left a comment for jcak
1 hour ago
Stephen left a comment for Gabe Om
1 hour ago
Mrs.B commented on Hope's group Imagine No Religion Or holey,holey,holey Arguments for Religion
1 hour ago
Stephen commented on Hope's group Imagine No Religion Or holey,holey,holey Arguments for Religion
1 hour ago
Doone commented on Doone's group Some of North America, Most of the Earth and the Trumpiest Country News
5 hours ago
Doone commented on Doone's group Some of North America, Most of the Earth and the Trumpiest Country News
5 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on A Former Member's group Animal | Vegetable | Mineral or Super Hero
7 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
7 hours ago
Suzanna commented on A Former Member's group Animal | Vegetable | Mineral or Super Hero
8 hours ago
Suzanna commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
8 hours ago
Doone commented on Doone's group Some of North America, Most of the Earth and the Trumpiest Country News
9 hours ago

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

A Woman's right to choose


A Woman's right to choose

         Women's rights arguments in favour of abortion



  1. Woman have a right to decide what to do with their bodies
  2. You can’t have gender equality without the right to have an abortion
  3. Banning abortion puts woman at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists
  4. The right to an abortion should be part of a group of pregnancy rights that allows woman to have a free informed choice to end a pregnancy 

Members: 18
Latest Activity: on Friday

Discussion Forum

Patient’s Right to Know

Started by Mrs.B. Last reply by Chris Nov 23, 2016. 39 Replies


Abortion – A Different Perspective

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Andy Stout Oct 7, 2016. 43 Replies

Yet another piece I wrote a LONG time ago, but considering the current attacks on a woman's right to control her own body, I think the relevance of the following still maintains.  Let me know what…Continue

Tags: perspective, Roe v Wade, abortion

Prosecuted for Having Abortions

Started by Mrs.B. Last reply by Chris Apr 21, 2016. 7 Replies


Comment Wall

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of A Woman's right to choose to add comments!

Comment by Stephen on January 18, 2018 at 22:48

Comment by Stephen on January 11, 2018 at 18:01

Majority of Irish Cabinet wants to repeal Eighth Amendment

Comment by Mrs.B on January 11, 2018 at 17:46

That's the only thing that makes sense to me. This is something between woman & doctor so she should be able to take her dosages home & take them when she has her privacy, then if she needs a follow up with her dr. she can make that appointment without anyone else being involved.

Comment by Stephen on January 11, 2018 at 17:31

Open Letter to Chief Medical Officer – Decision to allow abortion pill at home must be defended

We write with reference to your recent report that The Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC) intend to legally challenge the decision of Scotland’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr Catherine Calderwood, to enable women, for whom it is clinically appropriate, to take Misoprostal – the pill that completes an abortion – at home.
We write in support of Dr Calderwood’s decision and to urge her, and the Scottish Government, to strongly fight this legal action, if raised.
We believe that the decision to designate a woman’s home as a place where abortion treatment can be completed is progressive and in line with modern medicine. Abortion is vital, routine healthcare that around one in three women will experience in her lifetime.
In particular, we would highlight the effect which the change will make to the lives of women in Scotland:
Home administration will mean that the current arrangement – of a woman requiring to attend the Hospital to be provided with the first pill and then sent home, only to require to go back to the Hospital to be administered the second pill and then sent back home again – will be a thing of the past.
It will end the horrendous experience of abortions commencing on public transport due to outdated legislation which takes no account of medical advances or the reality of women’s lives.
The flexibility of home administration will undoubtedly benefit women who struggle to access services for a range of reasons including: domestic abuse, inability to get time off work and childcare arrangements.
In addition, it will benefit rural women who struggle geographically and financially to access such healthcare. Too often finding enough money for the required travel and accommodation is a huge obstacle in women’s access to abortion.
The change brings Scotland in line with the United States, France and Sweden who allow women to take one, or both, abortion pills at home. It is also important to note that women in Scotland were already permitted to take this medication at home, but only following a miscarriage. This demonstrates that the medication is perfectly safe and that there is no clinical reason why it cannot be taken at home.
We also note various international studies which demonstrate the safety and clinical appropriateness of women taking one or both of the abortion pills at home. This provides more flexibility while maintaining safe and effective abortion healthcare.
We believe that Dr Calderwood’s decision is not only legally sound but also has many positive and progressive benefits for women in Scotland.
Yours sincerely,
Jillian Merchant, Vice Chair, Abortion Rights
Abortion Rights Committee Scotland
Dr Wendy Savage, Chair, Doctors for a Woman’s Choice on Abortion
Gordon MacRae, Chief Executive, Humanist Society Scotland
Davena Rankin, Chair, Unison Scotland’s Women’s Committee
Lawyers for Choice
International Campaign for Women’s Right to Safe Abortion
GMB Scotland
Fire Brigades Union Scotland
Richard Bentley, Managing Director, Marie Stopes UK
Mara Clarke, Abortion Support Network
Kerry Abel, Chair, Abortion Rights
Natia H Halil, Chief Executive, Family Planning Association
Dr Carrie Purcell, Academic
Lesley Hoggart, Leading Reproduction, Sexualities and Sexual Health Research Group, Open University
Mary Senior, Scotland Official, University and College Union
Ann Gow, President, University and College Union
Scottish Irish Abortion Rights
Bryan Simpson, Better than Zero Campaign and Unite Hospitality
Sister Supporter
London Irish Abortion Rights
Alliance for Choice, Belfast

Comment by Stephen on January 3, 2018 at 3:41

Three cheers for Canada. Miles ahead of their southern neighbour.

Comment by Mrs.B on January 3, 2018 at 3:29

B.C. to cover cost of abortion pill Mifegymiso

Starting Jan. 15, province to become the sixth in Canada to make the pill universally available at no cost............

Comment by Chris on December 30, 2017 at 16:29

I couldn't be more sarcastic than Barrhingtoh H Brennan if I tried.

Any time someone uses the word womb for womans Uterus it should be known it going to be barnyard talk. In this case about the cows unable to calf.

Barington H. Brennan must have spent years in sensitivity training in the chuch, or barn.

Sounds of Encouragement for women without children by Barrington H. Brennan, May 26 2015.

Barrington  obviousely knows about biblical scripture and a specific work enviornment.

Recently a few women talked with me about a serious concern they had.  The common factor among these women was that they all had no children.  Their concern was that their friends, co-workers, and sometimes family members would say unkind things to them or made their own ridiculous conclusions why they did not have children.  A few months would not pass without someone saying to them something like this: “You need to have a child so you can be happier.”  These women said that it is very difficult to convince everyone that they are happy and do not want children.


Why do so many of us conclude something negative when people do not have children?  It seems by default that a woman without children is incomplete, as a man without children is queer.  What absurdity!  Mothers who’ve had miscarriages or still births also experience similar responses from their family members or friends.  I actually heard someone remarked to a mother who recently lost a baby through miscarriage these words: “You must have done something wrong to cause this to happen to you.”  Here’s another: “Child, my mother never had a miscarriage.”   This is to suggest that her family’s wombs are of better quality.

Read more from him here

Comment by Chris on December 30, 2017 at 6:50

I wanna baby at any cost.

Just because doctors can should they?


Will Uterus Transplants Change the Way We Perceive Gender? The medi...

This year, the United States passed a medical milestone: the first baby in the nation born through a transplanted uterus. Reports on the specific number of successful births via transplanted uterus vary, but all place the count at fewer than 30 births.

However, the number is expected to rise exponentially in the immediate future.

“We’re hoping that in a decade or so, this will become mainstream,” Dr. Zaraq Khan, a Mayo Clinic reproductive endocrinologist and infertility surgeon, told HuffPost.

The procedure is currently limited to a specific set of patients who fit narrow medical criteria for eligibility.

“As of right now, when uterus transplantation is still in its infancy, it will be limited to patients with absolute uterine factor infertility,” Khan said. This excludes women who, for example, are able to conceive but routinely miscarry.

While bioethical questions remain, some wonder if the technology may one day allow men to eventually carry and birth children.

Dr. Richard Paulson, the outgoing president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, believes such procedures are already within the scope of immediate possibility for transgendered women.

“You could do it tomorrow. There would be additional challenges, but I don't see any obvious problem that would preclude it,” Paulson told the Telegraph. “I personally suspect there are going to be trans women who are going to want to have a uterus and will likely get the transplant."

But Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics and head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University's School of Medicine, told LiveScience that performing such a procedure now would violate ethical standards.

Comment by Chris on December 30, 2017 at 3:27

When did abortion become illegal?


The following is an exclusive excerpt from the "Abortion" chapter of Our Bodies, Ourselves for the New Century. For complete information and resources, we recommend that you consult the chapter and the book in its entirety.


Over several centuries and in different cultures, there is a rich history of women helping each other to abort. Until the late 1800s, women healers in Western Europe and the U.S. provided abortions and trained other women to do so, without legal prohibitions.

The State didn't prohibit abortion until the 19th century, nor did the Church lead in this new repression. In 1803, Britain first passed antiabortion laws, which then became stricter throughout the century. The U.S. followed as individual states began to outlaw abortion. By 1880, most abortions were illegal in the U.S., except those ``necessary to save the life of the woman.'' But the tradition of women's right to early abortion was rooted in U.S. society by then; abortionists continued to practice openly with public support, and juries refused to convict them.

Abortion became a crime and a sin for several reasons. A trend of humanitarian reform in the mid-19th century broadened liberal support for criminalization, because at that time abortion was a dangerous procedure done with crude methods, few antiseptics, and high mortality rates. But this alone cannot explain the attack on abortion. For instance, other risky surgical techniques were considered necessary for people's health and welfare and were not prohibited. ``Protecting'' women from the dangers of abortion was actually meant to control them and restrict them to their traditional child-bearing role. Antiabortion legislation was part of an antifeminist backlash to the growing movements for suffrage, voluntary motherhood, and other women's rights in the 19th century. *For more information, see Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right, rev. ed. (New York: Penguin Books, 1990).

At the same time, male doctors were tightening their control over the medical profession. Doctors considered midwives, who attended births and performed abortions as part of their regular practice, a threat to their own economic and social power. The medical establishment actively took up the antiabortion cause in the second half of the 19th century as part of its effort to eliminate midwives.

Finally, with the declining birth rate among whites in the late 1800s, the U.S. government and the eugenics movement warned against the danger of ``race suicide'' and urged white, native-born women to reproduce. Budding industrial capitalism relied on women to be unpaid household workers, low-paid menial workers, reproducers, and socializers of the next generation of workers. Without legal abortion, women found it more difficult to resist the limitations of these roles.

Then, as now, making abortion illegal neither eliminated the need for abortion nor prevented its practice. In the 1890s, doctors estimated that there were two million abortions a year in the U.S. (compared with one and a half million today). Women who are determined not to carry an unwanted pregnancy have always found some way to try to abort. All too often, they have resorted to dangerous, sometimes deadly methods, such as inserting knitting needles or coat hangers into the vagina and uterus, douching with dangerous solutions like lye, or swallowing strong drugs or chemicals. The coat hanger has become a symbol of the desperation of millions of women who have risked death to end a pregnancy. When these attempts harmed them, it was hard for women to obtain medical treatment; when these methods failed, women still had to find an abortionist.

Comment by Chris on December 25, 2017 at 6:03

Laws making abortion illegal must have started in other countries at different times through history and culture.  

Consider the One Child policy in China. 


Members (18)


© 2018   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service