Turn on thread page Beta

Abortion watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we change the current abortion limit of 24 weeks?
    Abortion should be illegal under all circumstances!
    16
    5.08%
    Abortion should be illegal, except in certain cases such as rape, a threat to the mother's life and etc.
    65
    20.63%
    It should be reduced to 12 weeks
    44
    13.97%
    It should be reduced to 20 weeks
    48
    15.24%
    The current 24 week limit is fine!
    91
    28.89%
    Abortion should be legal should up to 28 weeks!
    20
    6.35%
    Abortion should be legal throughout the entire pregnancy!
    27
    8.57%
    Not sure!
    4
    1.27%

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Apologies if this question has already been asked, but why do only a few of the poll options contain a "!" after them?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Having to have an abortion is a pretty nasty consequence. It doesn't sound pleasant. It can affect your future fertility and chances to conceive.
    Very good point indeed.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Jennybean)
    Take it that means you couldn't understand a word of it I would expect nothing less from a Catholic
    I do understand the language since I am from a medical background - but many readers on this thread don't - it is patronising to them. And an arrogant means of trying to win debate.

    Your 'emocion' does nothing to lesson your offensiveness.



    So I think, I think...what you will find you meant to say is: "SOME scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of a human life." You will notice that your quotation does not include every notable scientist in the world and therefore you cannot state, as if it is irrefutable, that conception is the beginning of human life and "this is agreed on by science blablabla". It's just not true. In fact, all those big scarey sciencey words I used were quoted indirectly from a piece published in The Times the other week, written by a top embryologist and explaining to Joe Public why Britain's scientists find it acceptable to indulge in stem cell research and how the cut off point for experimentation was reached.
    "Clutching at straws" springs to mind. I have seen no other notable scientist refute that human life does not begin at conception. Have you?

    Your piece is a defence of stem-cell research using such euphemisms as pre-embryo and embryo as an attempt at defence. It still doesn't detract from the point that human life begins at conception.

    GOD I hate pro-lifers.
    You have undermined your argument all by yourself with this sentiment. :cool:
    Offline

    13
    Originally Posted by Zoecb
    Having to have an abortion is a pretty nasty consequence. It doesn't sound pleasant. It can affect your future fertility and chances to conceive.

    (Original post by Tufts)
    Very good point indeed.Abortion can produce many serious medical problems.
    Indeed. Apart from the obvious one of killing a human life, abortion also; significantly raises the rate of breast cancer.

    The statistics on abortion complications and risks are often understated due to the inadequate means of gathering data.

    The true risks of abortion are rarely explained to women by those who perform abortions.

    The various abortion procedures are often both difficult and painful for women.

    Abortion is often difficult and painful for fathers, grandparents, and siblings of the aborted child.

    Abortion is often difficult and painful for clinic workers.

    Abortion is difficult and painful for the unborn child.

    Even if abortion were made easy or painless for everyone, it wouldn't change the bottom-line problem that abortion kills children.

    And legalised abortions between 20 and 24 weeks mean either the dismemberment of the baby limb by limb to extract it from the uterus (if the mother is not going to deliver the baby in the normal way through 'labour') or partially delivering the baby and then using an instrument to pierce the skull so as the brain can be vacuumed out after the rest of the body.

    Not nice, eh?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I do wonder how it gets that out of hand - how stupid do people have to be to not notice they're pregnant after so many weeks? Or how in denial??? (Even more stupid).

    Unless it's one of those freaky situations where you continue to have periods anyway (in which case wouldn't that mean there was something wrong with your pregnancy?) then you really should have noticed WAY before that number of weeks, got a test, and sorted it out, simple miscarriage-pill style, long before they have to resort to surgery or delivering the foetus (surely one of the reasons you want an abortion is to avoid such measures???).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)

    Abortion is difficult and painful for the unborn child.
    ha ha you think it's a child. *points and laughs*
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Abortion is difficult and painful for the unborn child.
    No... if it was, I wouldn't agree with it. Embryos do not have the capabilities to feel pain.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Yawn, I find it deeply ironic that you would accuse me of clutching at straws before using the rather weak phrase " I have seen no other notable scientist refute that human life does not begin at conception. Have you?" Seeing as the person I quoted speaks on behalf of the GMC to explain their stance on stem cell research I think we can safely assume that many notable scientists are of the same opinion, don't you? I already said that my point was not really anything to do with abortion and even less to do with changing your mind, but I really do wish pro-lifers would refrain from quoting a select few (pro-life) scientists and claiming that they then have science or medicine on their side. Clearly to try and argue that medicine as a whole finds against abortion is nonsensical seeing as on the recommendations of many professionals, the practice is still legal, and to try and claim that science has reached a definite consensus on when life begins is even more ridiculous; it's a huge bone of contention in the scientific world and a hotly debated topic all over the world. All you did was quote one side of the argument and say "See! A scientist said it so it must be true!" Poor debating indeed. Furthermore whatever you might say about having a medical background I have noticed a frightening number of pro-lifers using medical or embryological terms to argue their case when it is transparently obvious they have no clue what they are talking about, but are just repeating something someone cleverer than them has said. They do not have the necessary comprehension of the subject to put the terms into context so it just becomes pseudoscience and I strongly believe you fall firmly in this camp. Hence, see below.

    (Original post by Zoecb)
    I do wonder how it gets that out of hand - how stupid do people have to be to not notice they're pregnant after so many weeks? Or how in denial??? (Even more stupid).

    Unless it's one of those freaky situations where you continue to have periods anyway (in which case wouldn't that mean there was something wrong with your pregnancy?) then you really should have noticed WAY before that number of weeks, got a test, and sorted it out, simple miscarriage-pill style, long before they have to resort to surgery or delivering the foetus (surely one of the reasons you want an abortion is to avoid such measures???).
    On a point of information, a healthy pregnancy can go full term while the mother continues to menstruate normally. It's very unusual but does not necessarily signal a problem with the pregnancy itself. Additionally, what Yawn conveniently forgot to tell you is that only 1% of abortions are carried out after 20 weeks, mostly for health reasons e.g. a severely disabled child or the mother's life being at risk. Plus, with D&E the foetus' heart is stopped before the abortion is carried out. It isn't literally torn limb from limb while it's still alive :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tufts)
    ha ha you think it's a child. *points and laughs*


    yawn, I wouldn't say it was "difficult and painful" for the organism. That's all it is, an organism. The fact is, it can't be "difficult" for it since it's not exactly in a position to make a consciosus decision and weight up the possibile consequences, and it's not painful because the organism doesn't feel pain:

    http://www.medicalabortionconsortium...fetal_pain.pdf

    How Does Pain Become Possible?

    Continued brain development
    - Frontal cortex and stranger anxiety / memory
    - Coordinated motor movements and motor cortex

    Representational Memory

    Through discoveries made in action and in patterns of mutual adjustment and interaction between infant and caregiver

    Conclusion

    - Fetal pain is a moral blunder based on a false equivalence between observer and observed that misses the process of development beyond the womb

    - Distinguishing sensations from thoughts, emotions, or each other requires a conceptual basis on which the distinction is drawn

    - We easily forget that this conceptual basis is needed and view pain development as merely about hooking ‘‘alarms’’ up to ‘‘buttons’’, forgetting that it is also about subjective experience
    In other words, the foetus cannot feel pain because its brain does not associate the sensations received by the nerve endings (many of which haven't developed anyway) with pain since it has yet to experience it.

    Yet many people think "I'm a human and feel pain, it looks human so it must feel pain too" without realising that it has to develop outwith the womb before its brain can determine what pain is.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jennybean)
    Additionally, what Yawn conveniently forgot to tell you is that only 1% of abortions are carried out after 20 weeks, mostly for health reasons e.g. a severely disabled child or the mother's life being at risk. Plus, with D&E the foetus' heart is stopped before the abortion is carried out. It isn't literally torn limb from limb while it's still alive :rolleyes:
    Thank you for that information. I have this problem where I don't care enough about this thread to bother looking it up, you see
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Thank you for that information. I have this problem where I don't care enough about this thread to bother looking it up, you see
    S'alright, I know what you mean. Abortion threads are just so circular and pro-lifers do have a rather unpleasant habit of either misrepresenting facts or giving a very selective version of the truth. Also maybe you'll find this interesting:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6560827.stm

    It's about the reasons people gave for leaving abortions as late as they did. As pro-choice as I am, I was tempted to agree with you that some people are just really stupid and leave it far too late, which is obviously not conducive to minimising distress to all parties concerned. But then I considered that most abortions are carried out amongst 20-25 year olds and realised that for a young girl who finds herself pregnant and feels she really can't keep it, it must be so frightening that I'm not surprised so many people either kid themselves and live in denial for a few weeks or just don't know what to do.

    Following on from what King Hippo very wisely pointed out, I do think pro-lifers get their knickers in a twist about the aborted foetus going through this horrible, painful experience when what we do know for certain about pain kind of points in the opposite direction to this sort of conclusion. I have a lecture right here in front of me to quote from actually: "Pain is not a quantifiable entity, it is a subjective experience, the animal's perception of which is usually formed through learnt association." Many people have the ability to completely "turn off" the perception of pain so I find it perfectly feasible that a foetus, especially before 20 weeks, is simply not capable of feeling pain.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Thank you for that information. I have this problem where I don't care enough about this thread to bother looking it up, you see
    Regardless of whether it is 1% or 10%, it is still indefensible, unless the mother's life is in grave danger, since the only one to die in this case is the child.

    Incidentally, the figure is between 1% and 2% for pendantry's sake.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Regardless of whether it is 1% or 10%, it is still indefensible, unless the mother's life is in grave danger, since the only one to die in this case is the child.

    Incidentally, the figure is between 1% and 2% for pendantry's sake.
    Most of the time, it is because the mother's life is in grave danger, as I've already said. In fact I personally know of a doctor who would refuse permission for an abortion after 20 weeks unless the mother's life was at risk.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Jennybean)
    Most of the time, it is because the mother's life is in grave danger, as I've already said. In fact I personally know of a doctor who would refuse permission for an abortion after 20 weeks unless the mother's life was at risk.
    If a woman's life is in grave danger, the law allows that her life is saved...as I said, it does not require an Abortion Act to countenance it.

    I'll pre-empt any further "what if..."What about a woman whose unborn baby is diagnosed as deformed or handicapped?"

    The doctor's diagnosis is sometimes wrong. Often the child's deformity is minor. Medical tests for deformity may cause as many problems as they detect.

    Then of course there is the fact that handicapped children are often happy, always precious, and usually delighted to be alive. Handicapped children are not social liabilities, and bright and "normal" people are not always social assets.

    Using dehumanising language may change our thinking, but not the child's nature or value. I do believe that our society is hypocritical in its attitude toward handicapped children.

    Then of course there's the possibility that the adverse psychological effects of abortion are significantly more traumatic for those who abort because of deformity.

    The arguments for killing a handicapped unborn child are valid only if they also apply to killing born people who are handicapped. Or are advocates of abortion also advocates of killing these people too?

    Abortions due to probable handicaps rob the world of unique human beings who would significantly contribute to society...and abortions due to imperfections have no logical stopping place; they will lead to designer babies, commercial products to be bred and marketed, leaving other people to be regarded as inferior and disposable.

    Now, I could stoop to jeering at those who advocate and support abortions but I do not, since I have no need as my premiss is undeniable...despite semantics employed by some.

    Abortion kills human life!

    I think we've covered every conceivable argument on this thread now...you might want to check back over my threads, Jenny and see that I have not missed anything.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Tufts)
    ha ha you think it's a child. *points and laughs*
    How old are you, Tufts?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    No... if it was, I wouldn't agree with it. Embryos do not have the capabilities to feel pain.
    You entirely miss the point, Zoe.

    But then you most probably would, if you think that human life begins and ends here, and that we have no awareness after death.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly Yawn, I find your use of the word "handicapped" deeply offensive (this is not a joke about political correctness, I am deadly serious). Using that word became unacceptable a long time ago, it has very nasty connotations. The correct term is "a person with a disability", or at the very least a "disabled person".

    In address of your actual point, you have managed to take a very real concern of potential parents - that is, that their child may have disabilities - and portrayed it as a selfish, consumerist notion. Whether or not children with disabilities are social liabilities has nothing to do with it. I would certainly never think of another person, howsoever they appear or act, in terms of how well they fit in with society's norm. May I ask, have you ever spent time with someone who wasn't in full possession of the physical and mental faculties we as able-bodied people take for granted?

    I have worked extensively with children whose mental disabilities have included autism and learning difficulties ranging from moderate to severe and whose physical disabilities have ranged from limited manual dexterity to being unable to move any part of their body without assistance. I developed an immense fondness for every child I worked with and an enormous admiration for their parents. Each child was an individual and each parent was invariable hugely proud of their offspring. And here's the thing: not one of those parents ever expressed regret at bringing their child into the world other than because they felt it had been selfish and for the benefit of themselves and not the child.

    When you have seen the anger in a disabled child's face because they are unable to even stop dribbling, when you have seen the frustration that they cannot get up, walk, run, kick a ball about, ride a bike, when you have seen the sadness in their eyes when they can't even speak a single word despite having a normal mental capacity, when you have seen the awful embarrassment on a twelve year old's face that they cannot visit the toilet unaided and probably never will be able to, then you can come back and start preaching about people not wanting to give birth to a severely disabled child because they don't think the child will be up to scratch. I know that if I found out my offspring was to be born with a severe disability, I would terminate the pregnancy for the good of the child, not for any other reason. I find your insinuations absolutely vile.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    How old are you, Tufts?
    This from someone who tells an atheist, in her best condescending tone, that they're silly to believe we have no awareness after death. This from someone who believes unfailingly in what is essentially an imaginary friend...
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Jennybean)
    This from someone who tells an atheist, in her best condescending tone, that they're silly to believe we have no awareness after death. This from someone who believes unfailingly in what is essentially an imaginary friend...
    I do wish that you would read things in context, rather that put your own spin on them. And the question was not addressed to you, unless you have two accounts in two different names.

    You might find the use of the word 'handicapped' offensive, but you would be in agreement with a child that has a disability being killed in the uterus!!

    That seems to be hugely hypocritical, does it not?

    The pro-abortion movement consistently caricatures and misrepresents prolifers and their agenda...and think they have the monopoly on compassion.

    When you have seen the anger in a disabled child's face because they are unable to even stop dribbling, when you have seen the frustration that they cannot get up, walk, run, kick a ball about, ride a bike, when you have seen the sadness in their eyes when they can't even speak a single word despite having a normal mental capacity, when you have seen the awful embarrassment on a twelve year old's face that they cannot visit the toilet unaided and probably never will be able to, then you can come back and start preaching about people not wanting to give birth to a severely disabled child because they don't think the child will be up to scratch. I know that if I found out my offspring was to be born with a severe disability, I would terminate the pregnancy for the good of the child, not for any other reason. I find your insinuations absolutely vile.
    Very passionate...yet talking of the exceptions rather than the rule. We cannot legislate for exceptions, particularly when doctors have no way of knowing in advance, the level of severity of disability. If you make subjective judgements on quality of life, you will come to the conclusions that you have.

    I have been involved with charities that care for children like you describe. If the child is treated with compassion, love, respect and the knowledge that it is a privilege rather than a burden to help them, this anger, frustration and embarassment just doesn't arise. It is the attitude of the carers towards the children that impact on their coping with their disability that has been with them since birth.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    But then you most probably would, if you think that human life begins and ends here, and that we have no awareness after death.
    Actually I'm a theist and I do believe in an afterlife of some kind/reincarnation.

    What on earth does that have to do with fetal development?
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
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.