Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest I'm neither pro-life nor pro-choice as it is entirely up to the individual what she does with her body.
    I wouldn't exactly say I agree with abortion though and could never go through with one myself (but there are always exceptional circumstances, perhaps rape or severe abnormality which would prevent the child living beyond birth or danger to the life of the mum)
    The current abortion limit seriously needs reviewed however, from 24wks gestation onwards the foetus is viable outside the womb, yet several babies have been born below that point and have with medical intervention, survived...IMO 12 weeks should be the absolute limit at which a woman can abort a pregnancy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    Those sorts of studies have been heavily criticised:

    http://blackadderiv.wordpress.com/20...abortion-rate/
    I'd rather not argue by proxy with links. I'd say that article brings up some interesting points and examples, but they're really speculation, valid as it is. Examples which buck the trend are always going to happen in a large survey, simply by variation, but it's ridiculous to claim these debunk the WHO studies - it may show there are at least exceptions to the trend, but it far too weak to show anything more. You can bet the Ireland/England example was the largest difference he could find as well. It's selective and narrow and nearly useless.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CondensedMilk)
    I'd rather not argue by proxy with links. I'd say that article brings up some interesting points and examples, but they're really speculation, valid as it is. Examples which buck the trend are always going to happen in a large survey, simply by variation, but it's ridiculous to claim these debunk the WHO studies - it may show there are at least exceptions to the trend, but it far too weak to show anything more. You can bet the Ireland/England example was the largest difference he could find as well. It's selective and narrow and nearly useless.
    You were the one who'd brought up other studies which have been widely criticised. It's commonly known that making something legal makes it more widely available, it is advertised and made more accessible etc. which increases incidences of it. The argument that something should be completely legalised because people will probably do it anyway does not justify the act itself morally. You could say the exact same thing about other illegal acts, e.g. arson or crimes of passion.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CondensedMilk)
    A lot of time and effort has gone into deciding the limits for abortion, and it certainly isn't a decision taken lightly. I would think they go for the safe end of the range of possible time limits, and if not I'd have a problem with that. I trust they've taken this seriously though, and I trust their competence. I won't pretend I've pored over the ins and outs of setting these limits, and I honestly don't have a good understanding of them (neither do you, I suspect - no offence, 99% of people probably don't), but the professionals do.
    As someone else said, several very premature births have resulted in babies being born under 24 weeks and surviving. It just doesn't seem right to assume that these babies, who survived, could have been aborted and explain that with "the professionals know what they're doing". In addition, abortion is legal right up to the point of birth in the UK if there is evidence to suggest that the baby is disabled. There have been cases where a baby is aborted on the basis of having a cleft lip and palate - look that up to see how ridiculously unimportant it is. There have also been cases where evidence has been wrong - I remember reading a newspaper article about a boy, celebrating his first birthday, who had been diagnosed with Down's Syndrome before he was born, and whose mother was given the chance to abort him, who is now a normal, healthy, happy 1-year-old. It's very easy to avoid thinking about the matter by assuming that the lawmakers know what they are doing, but remember: slavery used to be legal, men used to be allowed to beat their wives et cetera et cetera. The fact is abortion law is flawed.

    I'd also like to comment briefly, with regards to the argument in the posts above this - the WHO is not impartial in this matter. They are explicitly pro choice. I am therefore inclined to think that their articles may be at best up for debate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WrigglyMammoth)
    What I said is as close to the truth as you can hope to grasp.

    By all means take the abortion, but don't try to justify it or yourself to a higher moral or intellectually developed standard.
    Nah mate, no abortion for me, I'm a guy.

    But by all means take your views on abortion, but don't try to justify them or yourself to a higher moral or intellectually developed standard.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    You were the one who'd brought up other studies which have been widely criticised. It's commonly known that making something legal makes it more widely available, it is advertised and made more accessible etc. which increases incidences of it. The argument that something should be completely legalised because people will probably do it anyway does not justify the act itself morally. You could say the exact same thing about other illegal acts, e.g. arson or crimes of passion.
    Saying legalisation is widely known to increase incidence just doesn't cut it. Whatever is being said on paper takes back seat to the real life data, and the real life data says that, for whatever reasons the paper pushers haven't considered, abortion rates are not affected by legality. The point about moral consideration for the act itself isn't even relevant. The studies aren't there to say 'people do it anyway so don't fight it'. The main point being communicated here is that abortion must be made accessible safely for the good of vulnerable women.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derangedyoshi)
    As someone else said, several very premature births have resulted in babies being born under 24 weeks and surviving. It just doesn't seem right to assume that these babies, who survived, could have been aborted and explain that with "the professionals know what they're doing".
    Individual cases which will definitely have been considered. It's not even that new data isn't being taken into account as it arrives, as you'll remember only a couple of years ago this was on the agenda, as it has been in the past and always will be. As for professional mistakes*

    In addition, abortion is legal right up to the point of birth in the UK if there is evidence to suggest that the baby is disabled. There have been cases where a baby is aborted on the basis of having a cleft lip and palate - look that up to see how ridiculously unimportant it is. There have also been cases where evidence has been wrong - I remember reading a newspaper article about a boy, celebrating his first birthday, who had been diagnosed with Down's Syndrome before he was born, and whose mother was given the chance to abort him, who is now a normal, healthy, happy 1-year-old. It's very easy to avoid thinking about the matter by assuming that the lawmakers know what they are doing, but remember: slavery used to be legal, men used to be allowed to beat their wives et cetera et cetera. The fact is abortion law is flawed.
    I agree that all those cases sound really ****** up, but I can't honestly take your word for it you've reported them unbiased, unless there's some original source. *Even so, these are individual cases, and anything with one mind involved is bound to have slip ups. It's a different ball park to the international teams of researchers, statisticians and healthcare professionals who deal with this.

    I'd also like to comment briefly, with regards to the argument in the posts above this - the WHO is not impartial in this matter. They are explicitly pro choice. I am therefore inclined to think that their articles may be at best up for debate.
    Get some better data and we can talk about that. The WHO is an authority on the matter, and any pro-choice position they have isn't based on some deep seated ideology for it as you seem to suggest. Their priority is healthcare based on evidence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere)
    Nah mate, no abortion for me, I'm a guy.

    But by all means take your views on abortion, but don't try to justify them or yourself to a higher moral or intellectually developed standard.
    Why should I not; I have posited a standard by which I can affirm my other standards
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CondensedMilk)
    Saying legalisation is widely known to increase incidence just doesn't cut it. Whatever is being said on paper takes back seat to the real life data, and the real life data says that, for whatever reasons the paper pushers haven't considered, abortion rates are not affected by legality. The point about moral consideration for the act itself isn't even relevant. The studies aren't there to say 'people do it anyway so don't fight it'. The main point being communicated here is that abortion must be made accessible safely for the good of vulnerable women.
    No that study showed that generally abortion rates weren't affected, specific studies (based on data from the UK/Ireland in my example) have shown different as you'd expect given the different attitudes towards abortion and the varying levels of support and education available depending on which country you're studying. You could reduce the threshold to 16 weeks and provide further support on education, contraception and awareness of pregnancy etc. to prevent DIY abortions occurring. Do you approve of raising the threshold significantly considering your sourced study suggests that making it illegal to have an abortion after 24wks causes more dangerous abortions to occur?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trigger)
    It is if i ask them to be involved. I don't remember asking anyone else.
    so your womb is the business of another, afterall
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WrigglyMammoth)
    Why should I not; I have posited a standard by which I can affirm my other standards
    Of course you have Mr. Mammoth *pats head*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    No that study showed that generally abortion rates weren't affected, specific studies (based on data from the UK/Ireland in my example) have shown different as you'd expect given the different attitudes towards abortion and the varying levels of support and education available depending on which country you're studying. You could reduce the threshold to 16 weeks and provide further support on education, contraception and awareness of pregnancy etc. to prevent DIY abortions occurring. Do you approve of raising the threshold significantly considering your sourced study suggests that making it illegal to have an abortion after 24wks causes more dangerous abortions to occur?
    There are of course many ways to bring down abortion rates, and I have no problem with education and awareness programs, but these should be implemented whatever the situation. Ideally there would be no abortions. The fact remains, with evidence, that banning abortion will increase the amount of dangerous abortions. Maybe you could reduce the threshold and provide more education, but I don't see how restricting abortions is going to help.
    As for raising the threshold, my opinion on this is not simply based on the rate of dangerous abortions. Many other factors are involved. I don't agree with raising the threshold simply to reduce dangerous abortions.

    edit: typo
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    There are many, many people like you...

    I don't really agree with the really late 24-week abortions. I think you should be able to make up your dam'n mind by then (except obviously for medical reasons) but it seems far, far crueller to bring a life into the world when they aren't really wanted. People should have children when they have built up the financial strength and have a stable partnership.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WrigglyMammoth)
    so your womb is the business of another, afterall
    IF I ASK. Read pls bbz
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trigger)
    IF I ASK. Read pls bbz
    and not at all the property of the inhabiting cluster of cells, who, like you, are dependent upon a larger organism?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WrigglyMammoth)
    and not at all the property of the inhabiting cluster of cells, who, like you, are dependent upon a larger organism?
    I really don't understand. This may be because i am exhausted but please rephrase.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trigger)
    I really don't understand. This may be because i am exhausted but please rephrase.
    why does the foetus not get a say?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Depends on the situation, young girl father not around then definatly pro-abortion
    happily married couple that just dont want kids - anti-abortion
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WrigglyMammoth)
    why does the foetus not get a say?
    It is not self aware, it does not have the ability to make decisions, it cannot survive without leeching off it's mother, it has practically no brain function whatsoever. For me a foetus is no better then a tumour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trigger)
    It is not self aware, it does not have the ability to make decisions, it cannot survive without leeching off it's mother, it has practically no brain function whatsoever. For me a foetus is no better then a tumour.

    you're talking about a baby right, or a foetus, I forget which
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.