abortion at 24 weeks is murder.
the legal threshold for abortion in britain is 24 weeks. any pregnant woman will tell you that the babies personality develops long before this time. for those who have never been pregnant and who dispute this and who think the current threshold is acceptable then please look at this photo of a premature baby born at 23 weeks and which survived:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1196168/Little-fighter-The-baby-born-23-weeks-survived.html
it says a lot about society and its attitude to life when it is legal to 'abort' fully formed human beings at 24 weeks-- the baby actually starts moving and playing at 7 weeks and by 10 weeks the body shape is fully formed. this magical and sacred process should fill people with joy and reverence instead the babies are reduced to 'lumps of cells' or 'fetus'................even at 24 weeks people say this!
i know arguing against abortion in this age of selfishness and lack of humanity is pointless but i think people at least people should campaign to have the threshold drastically lowered.
this is what the 23 week old 'fetus' above looks like now............
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1196168/Little-fighter-The-baby-born-23-weeks-survived.html
it says a lot about society and its attitude to life when it is legal to 'abort' fully formed human beings at 24 weeks-- the baby actually starts moving and playing at 7 weeks and by 10 weeks the body shape is fully formed. this magical and sacred process should fill people with joy and reverence instead the babies are reduced to 'lumps of cells' or 'fetus'................even at 24 weeks people say this!
i know arguing against abortion in this age of selfishness and lack of humanity is pointless but i think people at least people should campaign to have the threshold drastically lowered.
this is what the 23 week old 'fetus' above looks like now............
(edited 12 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Abortion IS murder, but don't expect the new elite opinion formers and decision makers to acknowledge that.
Oh for when we had a proper elite- respectable, cultivated, philanthropic Christians and a few Jews who did not spend their lives in careerist machinations and subversion of society.
Oh for when we had a proper elite- respectable, cultivated, philanthropic Christians and a few Jews who did not spend their lives in careerist machinations and subversion of society.
Original post by lulubel
x
Yes, I think 24 weeks is a bit late, but you must consider some people have to have terminations due to serious medical reasons.
Also, is it better for an unwanted baby to be born into a life of abuse and misery than to never be born?
Original post by lulubel
the legal threshold for abortion in britain is 24 weeks. any pregnant woman will tell you that the babies personality develops long before this time. for those who have never been pregnant and who dispute this and who think the current threshold is acceptable then please look at this photo of a premature baby born at 23 weeks and which survived:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1196168/Little-fighter-The-baby-born-23-weeks-survived.html
it says a lot about society and its attitude to life when it is legal to 'abort' fully formed human beings at 24 weeks-- the baby actually starts moving and playing at 7 weeks and by 10 weeks the body shape is fully formed. this magical and sacred process should fill people with joy and reverence instead the babies are reduced to 'lumps of cells' or 'fetus'................even at 24 weeks people say this!
i know arguing against abortion in this age of selfishness and lack of humanity is pointless but i think people at least people should campaign to have the threshold drastically lowered.
this is what the 23 week old 'fetus' above looks like now............
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1196168/Little-fighter-The-baby-born-23-weeks-survived.html
it says a lot about society and its attitude to life when it is legal to 'abort' fully formed human beings at 24 weeks-- the baby actually starts moving and playing at 7 weeks and by 10 weeks the body shape is fully formed. this magical and sacred process should fill people with joy and reverence instead the babies are reduced to 'lumps of cells' or 'fetus'................even at 24 weeks people say this!
i know arguing against abortion in this age of selfishness and lack of humanity is pointless but i think people at least people should campaign to have the threshold drastically lowered.
this is what the 23 week old 'fetus' above looks like now............
Original post by stroppyninja
Yes, I think 24 weeks is a bit late, but you must consider some people have to have terminations due to serious medical reasons.
Also, is it better for an unwanted baby to be born into a life of abuse and misery than to never be born?
Also, is it better for an unwanted baby to be born into a life of abuse and misery than to never be born?
^ This, basically. With sufficiently advanced medical care, any age of foetus could survive outside of the womb. But is it better to risk serious harm to potentially the baby and mother, and also risk a baby being born into a neglectful family?
Eugh, this same old tripe?
What you neglect to mention is that the baby only survived because of advanced medical techniques and the prowess of the doctors tending to it. Had it been born and raised naturally it would have died. So are we now going to say if science can let it live then to not let it live is murder? There has to be a line, and the line is from where a baby can naturally survive, however unlikely.
What you neglect to mention is that the baby only survived because of advanced medical techniques and the prowess of the doctors tending to it. Had it been born and raised naturally it would have died. So are we now going to say if science can let it live then to not let it live is murder? There has to be a line, and the line is from where a baby can naturally survive, however unlikely.
Original post by Steevee
Eugh, this same old tripe?
What you neglect to mention is that the baby only survived because of advanced medical techniques and the prowess of the doctors tending to it. Had it been born and raised naturally it would have died. So are we now going to say if science can let it live then to not let it live is murder? There has to be a line, and the line is from where a baby can naturally survive, however unlikely.
What you neglect to mention is that the baby only survived because of advanced medical techniques and the prowess of the doctors tending to it. Had it been born and raised naturally it would have died. So are we now going to say if science can let it live then to not let it live is murder? There has to be a line, and the line is from where a baby can naturally survive, however unlikely.
If you're saying that, though, couldn't you also say that it's perfectly acceptable to let any elderly person with a medical condition die if they are becoming inconvenient, because they wouldn't survive 'naturally'?
I don't necessarily believe this personally, just putting it out there
And while your at it, why not make contraception illegal? If that wasn't there then the egg could have been fertilised and therefore wouldn't have been discarded but would now be a human. Or we could go even further and say women should be pregnant all the time as soon as they reach maturity to ensure eggs don't lose their chance to develop into a human either?
I personally am not fond of the idea of abortion - but to equate it to murder is ludicrous.
I personally am not fond of the idea of abortion - but to equate it to murder is ludicrous.
Vast, vast, vast majority of abortions take place before 22 weeks. The people who abort after this are often the most vulnerable people
Abortion is there to give legal aid to women forced or made to abort a child for medical reasons, fact. Why should we limit that?
A lot of birth defects can't be noticed til 20 weeks+. Why should a family be FORCED to keep a child which may e hard to look after? They should be ENCOURAGED to , but forced is a different thing entirely. you will be legally forcing a parent to keep a disabled child. For example, a young single mother with no support from family will have a disabled child. She gets money from the government, but not enough to help with the disability, what does she do now?
Lets say an 18 year old finds out, at 18 weeks, her baby is severely disabled. Such so that the mothers life will essentially be ruined because of the time spent looking after this children throughout his entire life. not just as a child.
Now, time now gives her like 6 weeks to ' make a decision' on what she wants to do. If it was lowered.. to say 19 weeks. She would have a week to make this VERY important decision. One week.. she will have no legal help or alternative, a person will have a week, and many less, to make massive life changing decisions. How is that fair?
Abortion is the fact that the mother should have more rights than the child. And the legality of it allows them to have such rights.
Abortion is there to give legal aid to women forced or made to abort a child for medical reasons, fact. Why should we limit that?
A lot of birth defects can't be noticed til 20 weeks+. Why should a family be FORCED to keep a child which may e hard to look after? They should be ENCOURAGED to , but forced is a different thing entirely. you will be legally forcing a parent to keep a disabled child. For example, a young single mother with no support from family will have a disabled child. She gets money from the government, but not enough to help with the disability, what does she do now?
Lets say an 18 year old finds out, at 18 weeks, her baby is severely disabled. Such so that the mothers life will essentially be ruined because of the time spent looking after this children throughout his entire life. not just as a child.
Now, time now gives her like 6 weeks to ' make a decision' on what she wants to do. If it was lowered.. to say 19 weeks. She would have a week to make this VERY important decision. One week.. she will have no legal help or alternative, a person will have a week, and many less, to make massive life changing decisions. How is that fair?
Abortion is the fact that the mother should have more rights than the child. And the legality of it allows them to have such rights.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by lulubel
it says a lot about society and its attitude to life when it is legal to 'abort' fully formed human beings at 24 weeks--
the baby actually starts moving and playing at 7 weeks and by 10 weeks the body shape is fully formed. this magical and sacred process
it says a lot about society and its attitude to life when it is legal to 'abort' fully formed human beings at 24 weeks--
the baby actually starts moving and playing at 7 weeks and by 10 weeks the body shape is fully formed. this magical and sacred process
"Fully formed"?
Source?
Magical? No, it's nature dearie.
If abortions were not legal, they would still happen but under dangerous conditions e.g. backstreet abortions or the mum being pushed down the stairs etc
(edited 12 years ago)
you can't kill something that hasn't been born....
Original post by Amwazicles
If you're saying that, though, couldn't you also say that it's perfectly acceptable to let any elderly person with a medical condition die if they are becoming inconvenient, because they wouldn't survive 'naturally'?
I don't necessarily believe this personally, just putting it out there
I don't necessarily believe this personally, just putting it out there
Not a sound argument. An Old person is already alive, sentienent and capable of thought, reason etc. A featous is not.
Also despite all the medical interventions that keep the babies alive - do you think these 23 weekers turn out to be 100% normal far reaching adults?
They have chronic lung problems, developmental problems, and many die before they get anywhere near that far from infections, necrotising enterocolitis - you really shouldn't just spout rubbish
They have chronic lung problems, developmental problems, and many die before they get anywhere near that far from infections, necrotising enterocolitis - you really shouldn't just spout rubbish
Original post by Steevee
Not a sound argument. An Old person is already alive, sentienent and capable of thought, reason etc. A featous is not.
But even so, if you're using the 'nature vs medical intervention' argument, it still applies. Without medical intervention, many people of many ages would not be alive today. If you're going to give people a right to abort an unborn child which could survive with advanced medicine, what is actually different between that and the right to 'abort' an already living person who would die without care?
Again - not my personal view I'm just gauging the argument.
Original post by lulubel
So what?
This two week old embryo, the size of a pinhead, will eventually grow to be the cute toddler in your picture, does that mean we shouldn't abort that either, on the basis of what it'll grow to be?
Original post by Steevee
Not a sound argument. An Old person is already alive, sentienent and capable of thought, reason etc. A featous is not.
OK then, by your argument, at which point does the baby stop being a bundle of cells which will develop into a human, and become a human - given that, left alone, it will become one?
Given time, it will become as capable of thought and reason as said old person? Where is this boundary you're setting? The baby is also "already alive" - note the heartbeat, breathing, movement, brain activity - the same tests used to check whether the old person is alive or dead.
To take it away from its source of life and nutrition and leave it to die is surely exactly the same as switching off a life support machine and feeding tube.
By the argument above, keeping old people alive is doing so with advanced medical techniques when they wouldn't have survived anyway, but leaving a baby in the womb is doing it naturally.
Original post by lulubel
x
I suggest you read this. I do think that 24 weeks is too late for non-medical reasons for abortion though.
http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/briefings-and-qas-/human-fertilisation-and-embryology-bill/brie-0
(edited 12 years ago)
Do you think it is an easy decision for a woman to have to make to abort her child at this late of a stage?
People don't generally carry their baby for 6 months before just deciding they don't want it anymore. Abortions at that late stage are normally because the child will be born with a severe disability or continuing the pregnancy will seriously harm the mother. The parent will have been looking forward to and planning for their child when they are given the news that their child may have no quality of life and quite often they will have literally days to decide what to do. That is heart breaking. It is a horrible decision for any parent to have to make, not one that will be taken lightely and certainly not one for which they should be judged for.
People don't generally carry their baby for 6 months before just deciding they don't want it anymore. Abortions at that late stage are normally because the child will be born with a severe disability or continuing the pregnancy will seriously harm the mother. The parent will have been looking forward to and planning for their child when they are given the news that their child may have no quality of life and quite often they will have literally days to decide what to do. That is heart breaking. It is a horrible decision for any parent to have to make, not one that will be taken lightely and certainly not one for which they should be judged for.
Original post by Amwazicles
But even so, if you're using the 'nature vs medical intervention' argument, it still applies. Without medical intervention, many people of many ages would not be alive today. If you're going to give people a right to abort an unborn child which could survive with advanced medicine, what is actually different between that and the right to 'abort' an already living person who would die without care?
Again - not my personal view I'm just gauging the argument.
Again - not my personal view I'm just gauging the argument.
Original post by dh2
OK then, by your argument, at which point does the baby stop being a bundle of cells which will develop into a human, and become a human - given that, left alone, it will become one?
Given time, it will become as capable of thought and reason as said old person? Where is this boundary you're setting? The baby is also "already alive" - note the heartbeat, breathing, movement, brain activity - the same tests used to check whether the old person is alive or dead.
To take it away from its source of life and nutrition and leave it to die is surely exactly the same as switching off a life support machine and feeding tube.
By the argument above, keeping old people alive is doing so with advanced medical techniques when they wouldn't have survived anyway, but leaving a baby in the womb is doing it naturally.
Given time, it will become as capable of thought and reason as said old person? Where is this boundary you're setting? The baby is also "already alive" - note the heartbeat, breathing, movement, brain activity - the same tests used to check whether the old person is alive or dead.
To take it away from its source of life and nutrition and leave it to die is surely exactly the same as switching off a life support machine and feeding tube.
By the argument above, keeping old people alive is doing so with advanced medical techniques when they wouldn't have survived anyway, but leaving a baby in the womb is doing it naturally.
A fetus to me, is defined as a baby, as a person, at the point at which there is more than a 50% chance it will survive with minimal medical help. Now obviously, this is not a good measure, we need a time limit. 24 weeks is a generous one, but acceptable. At 24 weeks a child can survive with minimal complications, but a lot of medical care.
Now as for the difference between an old person and a fetus. The fetus is not yet a person, it is not aware, it has no capacity for reason or logic, understanding or emotion. It is not sapient. An old person is. And old person has been for their entire life. So the difference is between stopping life beginning and taking life.
okay....whilst I do completely agree with you...I'm going to say this only once :
You are wasting your time posting about it on TSR.
I've been on this site a LOOOOOONG time, trust me, I know what I'm talking about. You're just going to end up getting negged to high heaven, and having a butt-load of people disagreeing with you.
Your opinion is valid, but nobody else wants to hear it on here. You might as well go and smash your head on a brick wall right now and save yourself a bit of time doing it later.
I don't debate abortions on TSR any more! Gave up several years ago.
You are wasting your time posting about it on TSR.
I've been on this site a LOOOOOONG time, trust me, I know what I'm talking about. You're just going to end up getting negged to high heaven, and having a butt-load of people disagreeing with you.
Your opinion is valid, but nobody else wants to hear it on here. You might as well go and smash your head on a brick wall right now and save yourself a bit of time doing it later.
I don't debate abortions on TSR any more! Gave up several years ago.
Original post by lulubel
...
Fetus's develop nerve-endings at 28 weeks. Therefore aborting a fetus in the 24th/25th/26th/27th week is fine.
I have always and will always firmly stand by the belief that an aborted fetus is better than an unwanted child. If the child is despised by the parents, it will not have a nice life. (Yes, sometimes people decide against abortion and end up loving their child, but this is not always the case).
Don't come on here and use the word murder when discussing abortion. It's one of the hardest things any woman will go through in her lifetime.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
