Turn on thread page Beta

Brits Concerned Over High Abortion Rates watch

Announcements
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morningtheft)
    Here are some of the reasons women get late-term abortions:

    -Finds out that fetus is at high risk for severe birth defects or a certain very bad disease
    -Finds out that she will risk death or other very serious physical risks by giving birth

    It is EXTREMELY rare that a woman will get an abortion at 20 weeks for any other reason. Do you really think that a woman should risk her own life because a fetus might feel pain?

    I find this whole notion that women get late-term abortions for ***** and giggles so hilarious...
    In that case then the law should limit it to only these two circumstances.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morningtheft)
    Here are some of the reasons women get late-term abortions:

    -Finds out that fetus is at high risk for severe birth defects or a certain very bad disease
    -Finds out that she will risk death or other very serious physical risks by giving birth

    It is EXTREMELY rare that a woman will get an abortion at 20 weeks for any other reason. Do you really think that a woman should risk her own life because a fetus might feel pain?
    In fact, I believe these are the only legal reasons that a woman can be granted a late abortion.

    I think it is unjust. Children should be born regardless of birth defects. I am against involuntary euthanasia both within and outwith the womb. I believe people who have abortions for this reason are putting a veneer of civility on the fact that they don't want to care for a disabled child.

    As for risking the life of the woman - well, I think it should be treated in the same way as any medical treatment that affects more than one person (eg in the case of Siamese twins), one (usually the weaker) is sacrificed for the stronger. That seems fair enough to me - that's not even abortion as I understand it, even if the proceedure may be identical.
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    What if they don't want to care for a disabled child?

    Not everyone wants to spend their entire lives taking care of someone who will (in the case of some conditions) mentally be a child for their entire life. There's nothing wrong with that. For disabled children, it's even MORE important that they have parents who love them, want them, and can properly care for them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SolInvincitus)
    In that case then the law should limit it to only these two circumstances.
    Like I say, already done.

    The ignorance of many on the subject of the abortion laws at present is quite startling. Although they do seem to be bent and broken by many doctors (I think these things should be reviewed more closely) the law on abortion (or as much of it as I can be arsed posting) it thus---

    Two doctors may agree that abortion can be carried out for one or more of the following reasons:

    -To save the mother's life.
    -To prevent grave permanent injury to the mother's physical or mental health
    -Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the mother
    -Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the existing child(ren)
    -If the child was likely to be severely physically or mentally handicapped.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    98% of all abortions are done for the sake of the mother's mental health. My arse.
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    Not being allowed to make personal choices about your own reproductive system is mentally damaging in 100% of cases.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Just out of interest, has anyone read The Times today. Article states that 50 babies are born alive following botched abortions every year! That's almost ONE A WEEK! After they are born, crying and wriggling, they are not cared for and are left to die. Reports even suggest some are put outside to die of exposure. This can occur as early as 18 weeks. How disgusting is that. They are implying that this is going to lead to murder charges. Damn right too, how awful. The article also says that babies born at 23-24 weeks have an 70-80% chance of survival.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...892696,00.html

    --------------

    Not being allowed to make personal choices about your own reproductive system is mentally damaging in 100% of cases
    Absolute feminist socialist crap. I make that choice everytime I CHOOSE not to sleep with someone or CHOOSE to use contraception. And if I WERE to get pregnant i'd be decent enought to accept the consequnces not sweep it under the carpet (or rather have it sucked down the waste chute).

    --------------

    Maybe in cases where the baby doesnt die, the mother should be allowed to strangle it or something. Actually she should be FORCED to. Afterall, it's her CHOICE isnt it :rolleyes: All becomes a bit too real doesnt it. uking smiley:
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    Good for you, nobody's trying to take that choice away from you. And I'd be decent enough not to bring an unwanted child into the world.

    --------------

    Actually she should be FORCED to. Afterall, it's her CHOICE isnt it
    There no words to express the stupidity in these two statements aligned next to each other.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well what do you suggest then. Here we are, woman chose not to have baby, chose to kill it. Oops didnt quite work, here it is on the bed alive. Oh whatever shall we do with the blasted little inconvenient 'fetus'. What do YOU suggest.

    Because apparently this is happening every week and it appears that infanticide is being carried out every week. But oh no let's not offend the sensitivities of women's choice SHALL WE :rolleyes:
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    You really don't understand the difference between the words "choice" and "forced"?

    --------------

    And I suggest they improve their abortion methods if this is happening.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As long as abortion is allowed, this kind of thing is going to happen. It is just pure evilness fed by the selfish depravity of people's greed and self indulgence and I for one am ashamed to part of a society that sees this kind of barbarism as acceptable.
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    I answered the question. If they improve abortion methods in a way to ensure that this doesn't happen, it won't happen anymore. Obviously nothing can be done about the cases where it already has happened.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah they should chop them up into smaller pieces shouldnt they? God why didnt they think of that?:rolleyes:
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    Would you rather a fetus dies quickly, or a baby is born alive and then is left to die a slow death?

    Some pro-lifer you are...

    --------------

    If you read the article you posted, you'll find that it says:

    Its guidelines say that babies aborted after more than 21 weeks and six days of gestation should have their hearts stopped by an injection of potassium chloride before being delivered. In practice, few doctors are willing or able to perform the delicate procedure.
    Obviously the problem is not in the number of "pieces," but in the fact that doctors are not willing or able to perform this procedure...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Oh for god's sake-

    I WOULD RATHER THEY WERE NOT KILLED IN THE FIRST PLACE

    **note to self**
    Do not come back on this thread. People are selfish and will always be selfish. If they want to create something and kill it then there's nothing you can do about it. Just pity them. No don't pity them, pity the child.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LuverlyLawyer)
    Just out of interest, has anyone read The Times today. Article states that 50 babies are born alive following botched abortions every year! That's almost ONE A WEEK! After they are born, crying and wriggling, they are not cared for and are left to die. Reports even suggest some are put outside to die of exposure. This can occur as early as 18 weeks. How disgusting is that. They are implying that this is going to lead to murder charges. Damn right too, how awful. The article also says that babies born at 23-24 weeks have an 70-80% chance of survival.
    Yeah, it's bloody disgusting. On that note, anyone who's interested, a story of that is recounted in Edwin Morgan (Scotland's national poet)'s poem Stobhill. All weirdly done from five perspectives and some written in dialect, very good though.

    Maybe in cases where the baby doesnt die, the mother should be allowed to strangle it or something. Actually she should be FORCED to. Afterall, it's her CHOICE isnt it :rolleyes: All becomes a bit too real doesnt it. uking smiley:
    Yes, people somehow think that sanitising an act makes them somehow less morally responsible for it. It doesn't.

    (Original post by morningtheft)
    Not being allowed to make personal choices about your own reproductive system is mentally damaging in 100% of cases.
    Bullshít. The law is not there to mollycoddle idiots. If it is possible you'll end up in the loony bin then I can see the justification, but anything less than that which would see you institutionalised or rendered practically catatonic is not a valid excuse in my eyes - or the eyes of the law when it was originally drafted. Unfortunately it has been abused over the years.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    I must say that I don't quite get your wedding analogy? Is it something to do with the relative morality of the two quite separate situations?
    I have read that many feminists complain about the nature of the wedding in terms of procedure when the father of the bride 'passes her over to the soon-to-be-wed husband' claiming it is treating them like mere property such as a pen rather than a person. The same could be argued over their view on abortion. It's just what you could argue.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morningtheft)
    I'm pretty sure the vast majority of scientists who have done research in this area agree that the fetus cannot feel pain until the 26th week or so.
    Yes and scientists also told us that the iguanadon walked on all fours didn't they? Plenty of examples of scientists getting it wrong out there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Yes and scientists also told us that the iguanadon walked on all fours didn't they? Plenty of examples of scientists getting it wrong out there.
    This is why the Law is responsive (though slow) to changes in scientific knowledge and/or technological advances.

    The cut-off rate used to be later than it is now but since foetuses are now viable from about 20-25 weeks, the limit is currently set at 24 weeks, although of course, the argument can be made for bringing it down further to 18-20 weeks.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    This is why the Law is responsive (though slow) to changes in scientific knowledge and/or technological advances.

    The cut-off rate used to be later than it is now but since foetuses are now viable from about 20-25 weeks, the limit is currently set at 24 weeks, although of course, the argument can be made for bringing it down further to 18-20 weeks.
    Yes there are many reasons why the Law is slow and it's annoying for me since I'm in that field. Also, many lawyers are slow in updating themselves over scienfitic and technological advances - when I was at a research lecture last week at the Institute of Advanced Legal Study one of the speakers looked like he didn't know how to use a floppy disk and to find its corresponding drive on the laptop. I guess it's back to the quill!
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
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.