Abortions

[solentstars]

Mrs D here so this is a female point of view. Like ESB's good lady I was a geriatric mother for my last pregnancy. I too was offered all the tests going but declined every one. For me personally, there are no circumstances under which I would agree to an abortion. Luckily our daughter was born perfectly healthy but if that was not the case she would still have been loved and welcomed.

 

There are certain cases, such as rape, in which I think abortion is justified but as a life style choice? Forget it.

 

Glad it worked out for you and you had the choice to come to your own personel dession.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

[pap]

Our new ( and definitely not improved ) health secretary has weighed into this debate on the eve of the Tory Party conference. He supports a ban after 12 weeks. Bit silly really - as a dad myself I know that a lot of the pre-natal health tests ( such as for Downs, etc ) take place at around 20 weeks.

[Frank's cousin]

Our new ( and definitely not improved ) health secretary has weighed into this debate on the eve of the Tory Party conference. He supports a ban after 12 weeks. Bit silly really - as a dad myself I know that a lot of the pre-natal health tests ( such as for Downs, etc ) take place at around 20 weeks.

 

Difficult issue that - is downs a reason to abort?

 

This should never be a black and white issue - yes it should be legal, but the cut off point needs to be brought down IMHO.... But the question I always had was what is it with the 'need' for one in the first place? Why is there this oft spouted ****** that it will 'ruin' someones life to have a child at the 'wrong' time... just seems a bit of an odd thing that we seem to accept that within our society as a valid reason ... yes it changes thing, as any parent will tell you, but it doe not stop you 'having a life' or doing the things you always wanted, you just have to adapt and maybe take your time over it...

 

... and te fact that we still have the highest level of teenage abortion within the EU is disgusting - I cant believ that our teenagers ae that much more stupid on teh whole, so it must be our crap sex education

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

If you really understood what it means to perform a late abortion - this can sometimes involve the physical dismembering of a living and recognizable human baby - then you should also understand why so many people of conscience want to see the abortion time limit drastically reduced. I have no idea how the medical staff who perform these procedures reconcile what they are doing, with the oath they have taken to do no harm.

 

This weeks awful news from Wales demonstrates clearly enough that in other circumstances society sees the killing of children as a terrible crime. If that reaction is right - and surely it is - then the same principle should be applied to all our children, whether they be pre or post natal.

 

There are certain situations when killing can be morally justified - in time of war, self defence, or the merciful ending of intolerable suffering perhaps - but mere parental inconvenience should never find a proper place on that list.

[pap]

If you really understood what it means to perform a late abortion - this can sometimes involve the physical dismembering of a living and recognizable human baby - then you should also understand why so many people of conscience want to see the abortion time limit drastically reduced. I have no idea how the medical staff who perform these procedures reconcile what they are doing, with the oath they have taken to do no harm.

 

This weeks awful news from Wales demonstrates clearly enough that in other circumstances society sees the killing of children as a terrible crime. If that reaction is right - and surely it is - then the same principle should be applied to all our children, whether they be pre or post natal.

 

There are certain situations when killing can be morally justified - in time of war, self defence, or the merciful ending of intolerable suffering perhaps - but mere parental inconvenience should never find a proper place on that list.

 

Had a nephew born at 25 weeks who didn't make his first day, so I can fully appreciate the state of foetal development at that point. I don't think that anyone is saying that this limit should be the norm. I appreciate your views, Charlie - but equally, I'm thinking of what most parents say when you ask them whether they want a boy or girl.

 

"I don't care, as long as it is fit and healthy".

 

Frank's cousin was right to ask whether Downs is a compelling enough reason to abort at that stage. I can't say whether that is right or wrong, but data from the United States suggests that at least 2/3rds of foetuses detected with Down's syndrome are terminated. Irrespective of whether you or I agree with that, it is the option that at least two thirds of prospective parents choose.

 

Please correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but it sounds as if you would prefer that these foetuses all went to term. I have to wonder what consequences that would bring about. Could we have potentially vulnerable children being looked after by parents who do not want them? Would these kids be dumped on the state wholesale, to spend a lifetime in institutions?

 

I've seen the Hippocratic Oath being put into conflict with abortion before and I have never been sure that it's a relevant comparison. For one, Hippocrates was from a culture which widely practised infanticide ( technically, it was just abandonment of the baby to the elements - the end result was the same ). Second, he documented a procedure on obtaining abortion through bloodletting. Finally, he offered abortions to his own patients.

 

Hippocrates' concerns centred on the living and Ancient Greece ( and Rome ) had different ideas to us as to what constitutes a living person. Typically, the baby's father got to decide whether his offspring was a real person or not, making the call on whether the child would be raised or "exposed" ( abandoned ). If we're to take the Hippocratic Oath literally, I think some understanding of the social context it was written in is helpful.

[Sheaf Saint]

This ever-sensitive issue has provoked some thoughtful responses regarding the overall rights and wrongs of abortion. Not being a parent myself it is difficult for me to hold any real strong view about the legality of it, but I do believe the current legal limit of 24 weeks does need to be addressed. The reason being that a few years ago some friends of mine had a premature baby at 23 weeks - he was no bigger than my mate's hand at birth - and legally the medical team could have chosen not to resuscitate him at less than 24 weeks. It was touch and go for a long time and he needed an oxygen ventilator for the first couple of years because of his under-developed lungs, but he has grown to be a perfectly healthy boy.

 

Going back a few years, this would not have been possible. The hospital would not have had the skills or the resources to care for him and keep him alive following such a premature birth and he would have been simply allowed to die, but his case is not unique by any means. More and more babies born at this term are surviving now thanks to advances in medical technology and understanding. So this is why I believe that the law allowing a mother to terminate a pregnancy at a stage where the baby could be born, survive and go on to lead a perfectly normal, healthy life needs to be urgently reviewed.

[Frank's cousin]

Had a nephew born at 25 weeks who didn't make his first day, so I can fully appreciate the state of foetal development at that point. I don't think that anyone is saying that this limit should be the norm. I appreciate your views, Charlie - but equally, I'm thinking of what most parents say when you ask them whether they want a boy or girl.

 

"I don't care, as long as it is fit and healthy".

 

Frank's cousin was right to ask whether Downs is a compelling enough reason to abort at that stage. I can't say whether that is right or wrong, but data from the United States suggests that at least 2/3rds of foetuses detected with Down's syndrome are terminated. Irrespective of whether you or I agree with that, it is the option that at least two thirds of prospective parents choose.

 

Please correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but it sounds as if you would prefer that these foetuses all went to term. I have to wonder what consequences that would bring about. Could we have potentially vulnerable children being looked after by parents who do not want them? Would these kids be dumped on the state wholesale, to spend a lifetime in institutions?

 

I've seen the Hippocratic Oath being put into conflict with abortion before and I have never been sure that it's a relevant comparison. For one, Hippocrates was from a culture which widely practised infanticide ( technically, it was just abandonment of the baby to the elements - the end result was the same ). Second, he documented a procedure on obtaining abortion through bloodletting. Finally, he offered abortions to his own patients.

 

Hippocrates' concerns centred on the living and Ancient Greece ( and Rome ) had different ideas to us as to what constitutes a living person. Typically, the baby's father got to decide whether his offspring was a real person or not, making the call on whether the child would be raised or "exposed" ( abandoned ). If we're to take the Hippocratic Oath literally, I think some understanding of the social context it was written in is helpful.

 

Very difficult question really - I dont really have the answer. Most parents of Downs babies that go full term with pre knowledge, or without will tell you their children are loving and amazing kids. The problem I have with abortion due to detected genetic abnormalities is that in theory, where does it stop? Higher risk of cancer? With new biomarkers for these things being discovered all the time as well as the genes that increase risk etc... I guess ultimately, it should be about the quality of life teh child will have, rather than that of the parents IMHO, but it is a difficult one.

 

I think we do need to very careful and differentiate clearly between abortion that is in effect a 'lifestyle' decision, and one in which there are strong medical reasons to either the health of the baby or mother (these cases areusually thsoe where the parents are pretty devastated in hearing news that there are problems etc).

 

As a solution to unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, is where the debate is probably most fierce - and one in which I feel more should be done to a) educate kids better that the rate of unwanted pregancy comes down considerably b) combat the attitude that its somehow a negative thing - an inconvenience that can be put right by abortion.

 

Remember, the reason so many young women originally went down this route in secret, illegally, dangerously and at great risk to tehir own lives in some cases, was not beacsue it was the 'wrong time' or an inconvenience but because of cultural 'shame' of unmarried mothers - thankfully that archaic attitude is gone form most western societies, yet seems to have been replaced by a slightly more selfish attitude, that its the wrong 'time' or will mess with my career type stuff. I just think Abortions are too freely available for those reasons.

 

Maybe its simply because I am a parent - as you get older you realise that all the other guff like career, travel, money is pretty insignificant as part of life - the kids make it all worth while and give you a far better perspective on what really matters in life - I became a lot less selfish and a better person for it... the perfect time for kids is when they arrive!

[Essruu]

...if it is so "traumatic" to have an abortion, why are there now recorded cases of some women having had NINE abortions ?

 

One abortion for reasons including rape, too young, husband not the father, living on benefits with 4/5/6/7 existing kids is one thing. Two abortions is pushing it. If someone goes in for their third abortion, then a summary hysterectomy should be performed instead, as they're clearly not fit to be a parent.

[JPTCount]

One abortion for reasons including rape, too young, husband not the father, living on benefits with 4/5/6/7 existing kids is one thing. Two abortions is pushing it. If someone goes in for their third abortion, then a summary hysterectomy should be performed instead, as they're clearly not fit to be a parent.

 

bad birth control = bad parenting...?

[Frank's cousin]

bad birth control = bad parenting...?

 

...know what you are trying to say, but you could argue that if they are intelligent enough to recognise that another child would be impossible to manage, they shoudl be intelligent enough to seek out proper advice on contraception?

[JPTCount]

Of course the difference was down to the illegal abortions that were happening!

 

great logic.

 

it's actually down to the fact that alot of mothers who want abortions are not in the best position to raise a child, and are aware of it. it could be anything like a low income, still studying, an absent father. and its these children who often end up becoming crime statistics through lack of support, both financially and paternally (sic).

[JPTCount]

...know what you are trying to say' date=' but you could argue that if they are intelligent enough to recognise that another child would be impossible to manage, they shoudl be intelligent enough to seek out proper advice on contraception?[/quote']

 

and u could also argue that some women are allergic to latex, or spermicide, or hate injections, or forget to take a pill. or ur ****ing a guy with super sperm :-) and sometimes ppl just get drunk and forget...

 

getting pregnant too much is not a correlating factor to how good a parent ur going to be. no amount of evidence will ever support this.

 

and with this idea the u force ppl into giving birth now or never again. why does an unborn fetus have more rights than a living human being?

[Whitey Grandad]

and with this idea the u force ppl into giving birth now or never again. why does an unborn fetus have more rights than a living human being?

Because a foetus is a living human being. If not, at what stage do you consider it to be one?

[Frank's cousin]

and u could also argue that some women are allergic to latex, or spermicide, or hate injections, or forget to take a pill. or ur ****ing a guy with super sperm :-) and sometimes ppl just get drunk and forget...

 

getting pregnant too much is not a correlating factor to how good a parent ur going to be. no amount of evidence will ever support this.

 

and with this idea the u force ppl into giving birth now or never again. why does an unborn fetus have more rights than a living human being?

 

I agree with the reasons why... but its also about responsibilty, which too often is ignored... if you understand the implications of sex and consider yourself mature and repsonible enough to have it, surely that imploies you need to take responsibilty for the consequences?

 

I was not supporting the idea of sterilization - far from it, but there are far too many abortions performed as a lifestyle choice or as a final 'contraceptive' strategy IMHO. These are unnecessary given the availabilty of contraception...education...social support....

[solentstars]

I believe the law is right and must be a hard choice Togo for a abortion and believe its a women right to choose.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

[JPTCount]

Because a foetus is a living human being. If not, at what stage do you consider it to be one?

 

I'm no way accredited enough to comment on that but when is a building no longer a construction site?

 

obviously theres a cut off, just for the medical implications. but how far do u take it back? is a morning after pill ok? or can u still say no after uve seen the glint in the postmans eye?

 

I'm pro choice as imo most ppl who dont want a kid have taken precautions bit ultimately **** still happens, and most realise within a cpl of months and take measures. there should be a window of opportunity for this.

[buctootim]

If premature babies born at 23 weeks are frequently surviving then an abortion limit of 24 weeks is clearly wrong. Personally I'd go for a limit of something like 16 weeks unless there was a massive abnormality.

[JPTCount]

I agree with the reasons why... but its also about responsibilty, which too often is ignored... if you understand the implications of sex and consider yourself mature and repsonible enough to have it, surely that imploies you need to take responsibilty for the consequences?

 

I was not supporting the idea of sterilization - far from it, but there are far too many abortions performed as a lifestyle choice or as a final 'contraceptive' strategy IMHO. These are unnecessary given the availabilty of contraception...education...social support....

 

yes it's about responsibility but there are plenty of ppl out there not using contraception andgetting pregnant and opting not to have abortions and raising lowlife scum.

 

ultimately its a personal decision and the only ppl they are harming are themselves and thier unborn child. I can imagine it's a pretty harrowing experience to go through, most ppl probably dont make a snap decision on it. why should anyone care, really?

 

and the sterilization was in the idea.

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm no way accredited enough to comment on that but when is a building no longer a construction site?

 

obviously theres a cut off, just for the medical implications. but how far do u take it back? is a morning after pill ok? or can u still say no after uve seen the glint in the postmans eye?

 

I'm pro choice as imo most ppl who dont want a kid have taken precautions bit ultimately **** still happens, and most realise within a cpl of months and take measures. there should be a window of opportunity for this.

Yes, it's a difficult decision. We were told that the foetus was fully formed at three months which would be about 13 weeks. From then on it's physical development.

 

Whilst we're on the subject, I hear people saying that they got pregnant accidentally. Do me a favour.

 

(My mother always says that I was a mistake. The surgeon had told her that she wouldn't have any more children and then I came along about 6 years later when she was thirty. My younger sister followed when she was 36.)

[aintforever]

I think abortion is necessary, I don't buy this right to life nonsense for a bunch of cells inside someone's body. I'm of the opinion you have rights as soon as you are a fully developed person.

 

It is disgusting and wrong how some people use it as contraception, though it wold be difficult to stop this. Maybe if someone has had an abortion through carelessness they should not be allowed another one for the same reason.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I think abortion is necessary, I don't buy this right to life nonsense for a bunch of cells inside someone's body. I'm of the opinion you have rights as soon as you are a fully developed person .....

 

 

Sometimes it is necessary, more often than not it is just expedient if we are honest about it. I don't claim to have all (indeed any) of the answers, I might even support a daughter of mine who took a 'morning after' pill, or had a early abortion. That acceptance of expediency over any moral considerations would make me a terrible hypocrite because we should all practice what we preach. But this world is a difficult place full of Human weakness and compromise.

 

The language we employ in this debate is so very telling is it not? Whenever people resort to the use of technical/medical terminology that's a pretty reliable indication that they want to mask a unpalatable truth behind a shield of language. What in other circumstances would be routinely referred to as a 'Baby' suddenly becomes a 'Feotus' in this context. When for some reason we decide to end the life of the said feotus we don't 'kill' it, we 'terminate' it - as if a human life were a mere corrupt computer programe or a workplace sacking.

 

When does your "bunch of cells" become a human being? A age old question for sure, but the only answer that makes any damn sense to me is at the moment of contraception. Scientifically and morally from that awesome moment on a true Human Life has been created, and Human life should be both cherished and protected. If a man were to kick a heavily pregnant women in the tummy and 'terminate' her 'feotus' then (as I understand the law) the law could not charge him with that killing. Well I think that is wrong, any human baby should enjoy the protection of the law both before, and after, it is born in my view.

 

The issue of Downs Syndrome children has been raised. The children in my life have been blessed with good health I'm happy to say, and I just don't know if I could cope with a disabled or chronically sick child. I do know however that the Nazis had these children quietly murdered because they were a too much trouble and might even 'pollute' the gene pool. I've just committed the terrible Internet crime of breaking Godwin's Law I know, but please forgive me because I use Nazi Germany as a sure guide of what not to do or think.

 

How will the future judge us I wonder? We habitually sneer at the cruel excesses of the past and congratulate ourselves on our civilized state. The things we do in the name of expediency, something tells be that one day we too might be seen as a bunch of barbarians.

[Frank's cousin]

Sometimes it is necessary, more often than not it is just expedient if we are honest about it. I don't claim to have all (indeed any) of the answers, I might even support a daughter of mine who took a 'morning after' pill, or had a early abortion. That acceptance of expediency over any moral considerations would make me a terrible hypocrite because we should all practice what we preach. But this world is a difficult place full of Human weakness and compromise.

 

The language we employ in this debate is so very telling is it not? Whenever people resort to the use of technical/medical terminology that's a pretty reliable indication that they want to mask a unpalatable truth behind a shield of language. What in other circumstances would be routinely referred to as a 'Baby' suddenly becomes a 'Feotus' in this context. When for some reason we decide to end the life of the said feotus we don't 'kill' it, we 'terminate' it - as if a human life were a mere corrupt computer programe or a workplace sacking.

 

When does your "bunch of cells" become a human being? A age old question for sure, but the only answer that makes any damn sense to me is at the moment of contraception. Scientifically and morally from that awesome moment on a true Human Life has been created, and Human life should be both cherished and protected. If a man were to kick a heavily pregnant women in the tummy and 'terminate' her 'feotus' then (as I understand the law) the law could not charge him with that killing. Well I think that is wrong, any human baby should enjoy the protection of the law both before, and after, it is born in my view.

 

The issue of Downs Syndrome children has been raised. The children in my life have been blessed with good health I'm happy to say, and I just don't know if I could cope with a disabled or chronically sick child. I do know however that the Nazis had these children quietly murdered because they were a too much trouble and might even 'pollute' the gene pool. I've just committed the terrible Internet crime of breaking Godwin's Law I know, but please forgive me because I use Nazi Germany as a sure guide of what not to do or think.

 

How will the future judge us I wonder? We habitually sneer at the cruel excesses of the past and congratulate ourselves on our civilized state. The things we do in the name of expediency, something tells be that one day we too might be seen as a bunch of barbarians.

 

Fantastic post - genuine insight and compassionate, yet balanced opinion. I just wish I had the skill in prose to get my POV across as eloquantly, so thanks for sharing that.

 

Some have argued that its the point at which consciousness arrises that a 'life' becomes a life, but as that moments is still very much open to debate, I dont think that is the answer - and whilst I totally agree with your points made in the first paragraph - and indeed, I would also support my daughter in whatever decision she came to under those circumstances, I do still feel that in part as a society we have created an environment that accepts abortion as an expedient too often - maybe a legacy or reaction to the legacy of days gone by when women had no rights and no choice but either 'shame' or risk their own lives and future fertility in some darkend celler of the illegal practioner - thankfully, the legality at least ensures that way is no longer necessary. I just feel its such a shame that some women do take this option, for no other reason than inconvenience and despite the soul seraching and difficulty in reaching such a decision, its the fact that often what I regard as more trivial things... career, money or 'its not the right time' takes precedence over what is quite frankly a pretty amazing miracle.

 

Maybe we simply dont place enough emphasis on the amazingness of pregnancy and new life within our 'modern' culture - it seems to play second fiddle to those 'more important' things.

 

Its certainly not for me to determine how individuals make life choices, but I just feel that if as a society we maybe judged our 'success' more on how we bring up our children, and less on the material gains or promotion, or even when younger 'freedom to have a laugh', the decsion to keep a child would be so much easier than the one to abort.

 

So yes I am pro choice - we have to have that option available and it is down to the individual to make it... just maybe if anything should be 'preached' its that pretty much nothing comes close to bringing a child in this world and nuturing a new person - no living it large holifay with your mates, no promotion, no big house or flash car, nothing - even when its tough financially - its still teh most amazing thing IMHO.

[Guan 2.0]

Sometimes it is necessary, more often than not it is just expedient if we are honest about it. I don't claim to have all (indeed any) of the answers, I might even support a daughter of mine who took a 'morning after' pill, or had a early abortion. That acceptance of expediency over any moral considerations would make me a terrible hypocrite because we should all practice what we preach. But this world is a difficult place full of Human weakness and compromise.

 

The language we employ in this debate is so very telling is it not? Whenever people resort to the use of technical/medical terminology that's a pretty reliable indication that they want to mask a unpalatable truth behind a shield of language. What in other circumstances would be routinely referred to as a 'Baby' suddenly becomes a 'Feotus' in this context. When for some reason we decide to end the life of the said feotus we don't 'kill' it, we 'terminate' it - as if a human life were a mere corrupt computer programe or a workplace sacking.

 

When does your "bunch of cells" become a human being? A age old question for sure, but the only answer that makes any damn sense to me is at the moment of contraception. Scientifically and morally from that awesome moment on a true Human Life has been created, and Human life should be both cherished and protected. If a man were to kick a heavily pregnant women in the tummy and 'terminate' her 'feotus' then (as I understand the law) the law could not charge him with that killing. Well I think that is wrong, any human baby should enjoy the protection of the law both before, and after, it is born in my view.

 

The issue of Downs Syndrome children has been raised. The children in my life have been blessed with good health I'm happy to say, and I just don't know if I could cope with a disabled or chronically sick child. I do know however that the Nazis had these children quietly murdered because they were a too much trouble and might even 'pollute' the gene pool. I've just committed the terrible Internet crime of breaking Godwin's Law I know, but please forgive me because I use Nazi Germany as a sure guide of what not to do or think.

 

How will the future judge us I wonder? We habitually sneer at the cruel excesses of the past and congratulate ourselves on our civilized state. The things we do in the name of expediency, something tells be that one day we too might be seen as a bunch of barbarians.

 

Ha, what a ****ing tool. Moment of conception I think you'll find, not moment of contraception. As a man, you'll never have to go through it, but most importantly, the reason we use scientific language in such matters rather than emotional and 'belief' based language is that it is based on scientific processes and judgements.

 

A quick question for the poster and anyone who think along similar lines as above. If women continue to have abortions along current guidlines, which of the following will happen? A) Women will have abortions, and it won't affect you. B) Sharks will develop into bipedal land breathing deadly fish, and eat us for our inhumanity. C) Anyone who has had an abortion or supported a womens right to one, will be sent to Nazi hell with the and only the above posters and J. Hunt will surviving.

 

Mods, can we have a poll please?

[Frank's cousin]

Ha, what a ****ing tool. Moment of conception I think you'll find, not moment of contraception. As a man, you'll never have to go through it, but most importantly, the reason we use scientific language in such matters rather than emotional and 'belief' based language is that it is based on scientific processes and judgements.

 

A quick question for the poster and anyone who think along similar lines as above. If women continue to have abortions along current guidlines, which of the following will happen? A) Women will have abortions, and it won't affect you. B) Sharks will develop into bipedal land breathing deadly fish, and eat us for our inhumanity. C) Anyone who has had an abortion or supported a womens right to one, will be sent to Nazi hell with the and only the above posters and J. Hunt will surviving.

 

Mods, can we have a poll please?

 

WTF are you on about? Anyone could see what he meant - typos happen... and yes I doesnot effect me/you or anyone else, but why should that stop discussion about it?

[Guan 2.0]

WTF are you on about? Anyone could see what he meant - typos happen... and yes I doesnot effect me/you or anyone else' date=' but why should that stop discussion about it?[/quote']

 

FC, I don't know what was more stupid in his post, the 'aww gee' style language, the 'all life is beautiful' fallback, or the deliberate confusion of medical torture which the Nazi's performed in the name of eugenics ( a bit like saying that Soviet Russia under Stalin was 'Communist' as Marx would understand it). Or not only the invoking of Godwins law, but the use of an implied ****ty sllogism (all nazi's are evil, nazi's supported abortions, so all abortions =)

 

I'm sure all the rape victims, women who got pregnant through lack of responsible planning and don't want children, and women who have just been told their child will only be able to count up to potato, would welcome a reduction or outright ban on abortion to protect them from "Human weakness and compromise". I just hope he informs us whether he believes "Children are our future" next.

[alpine_saint]

I am against...right to life and all that.

 

Too many women use them as contraception.

 

 

Agree with the sentiments in principle, especially the retroactive contraception issue; apparently there are women known to the NHS who have had 8+ abortions.

 

But I am against banning them because they are a necessary evil for some cases, and because some women would go after back-street dangerous solutions anyway.

 

However, 24 weeks limit is far too high. Medical advancements mean babies are now viable at 24 weeks. Limit needs dropping to 18 or 16 weeks.

 

Describing babies as a blob of cells is appalingly cold; we were all such blobs at some point. I also hate the way the fate of innocent lives has become the battlefield for the PC and feminist movements.

 

Abortion is murder - the premeditated termination of a life - whether some people like it or not.

[jawillwill]

I think abortion is necessary, I don't buy this right to life nonsense for a bunch of cells inside someone's body. I'm of the opinion you have rights as soon as you are a fully developed person.

 

 

You're just a "bunch of cells" too. What do you consider fully developed?

By 18 weeks, a foetus is not just a clump of tissues. Once the nervous system has developed in about the 6th week of pregnancy, the child has sentience and can feel pain. If a light is shone at a mother’s womb, the child will react and turn away. The child has a complete skeleton and reflexes and pumps 50 about pints of blood a day. Seems fairly well developed to me.

 

I have my own personal reasons for being quite strongly against abortion in most cases, but can see why some people consider it a necessary evil. I am by no means ready to have a child of my own, but I'd like to think if a girl I'm with ever got preggers anytime soon, we would consider all other avenues before abortion. I know that I would feel highly uncomfortable for the rest of my life if I ever supported an abortion of my own unborn child...and I don't consider (most) medical reasons as valid justification or abortion.

[suewhistle]

Agree with the sentiments in principle, especially the retroactive contraception issue; apparently there are women known to the NHS who have had 8+ abortions.

 

Apparently there are men known to the NHS who have had children by at least 8 women. What are we going to do about them?

 

This argument is appalling and I've rarely been so angry. Glib statements by men (and sorry Alps, I'm not particularly picking on you here) who are pontificating as if it were nothing to do with them. Do you really think someone who has had 8 abortions (even if such is true) is somebody with adequate mental capacity to make any decision (such as saying no to an abusive guy), let alone deal with the consequences of a full term? What are you going to do about the fathers? And is that an example that you would wish to bring in to a serious debate?

 

What I've noticed with this debate is a serious detachment about the state of pregnancy to the act which actually caused it..Again I'm not suggesting names here.. those who are against abortions are generally against social assistance in general. It reminds me of a story about the war in ex-Jugoslavia: a woman gave birth to a war rape baby - she looked at gently it as it was born and then.. gently smothered it.

 

The current government are cutting back on assistance for people with disability and their ***** of a minister is suggesting shortening the period for abortions to 12 weeks. My nephew's wife has just had a scan at that period: thank goodness all is well; and any baby is going to be loved to bits by her aunty, whatever her state. But I'd love to run amok with a castrating knife amongst those who think abortion is normally an easy option for any woman.

 

Bastards.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

FC, I don't know what was more stupid in his post, the 'aww gee' style language, the 'all life is beautiful' fallback, or the deliberate confusion of medical torture which the Nazi's performed in the name of eugenics ( a bit like saying that Soviet Russia under Stalin was 'Communist' as Marx would understand it). Or not only the invoking of Godwins law, but the use of an implied ****ty sllogism (all nazi's are evil, nazi's supported abortions, so all abortions =)

 

I'm sure all the rape victims, women who got pregnant through lack of responsible planning and don't want children, and women who have just been told their child will only be able to count up to potato, would welcome a reduction or outright ban on abortion to protect them from "Human weakness and compromise". I just hope he informs us whether he believes "Children are our future" next.

 

Wowzers! I can only apologize for my typo but you do seem to have gone a bit OTT in your reaction. To address the issues however:

 

Are you really quite this utterly sure that that basic mainstay of feminist ideology - a womans 'right to choose' - must always come before a child's 'right to life' ? You accuse me of a simplistic take on this matter, but some might say your view might be a better fit for the term. For that matter this question is surely a problem for all society to consider, rather than relegating half of us to the status of mere disenfranchised bystanders? The last time I checked men do still have some role to play in the propagation of mankind.

 

Re Godwins Law, I actually don't think you have read my post. I didn't say "Nazi's support abortion" - far from it. They were actually fervently against abortion because they desperately wanted an increased supply of healthy Germanic children to populate and expand the Reich. The point you seem to have entirely missed somehow is that they saw no value in providing for existing disabled children, and therefore had them murdered. This is obviously not at all the same as saying that those who support abortion must be Nazis!

 

If society values Human life - and a Human life starts at the moment of conception - then it must be wrong to take it without some overwhelming justification. I don't happen to think that a women simply presenting herself and demanding a abortion because it is expedient to her amounts to a 'overwhelming justification'. Now if that seems too simple a viewpoint for your sophisticated tastes .. well then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Finally, although I might not have put it quite that way, I am sentimental about kids and I do believe that 'children are our future'. Now if I'm wrong in that then perhaps you could explain to the forum what future we have without them?

Edited 6 October, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[aintforever]

You're just a "bunch of cells" too. What do you consider fully developed?

By 18 weeks, a foetus is not just a clump of tissues. Once the nervous system has developed in about the 6th week of pregnancy, the child has sentience and can feel pain. If a light is shone at a mother’s womb, the child will react and turn away. The child has a complete skeleton and reflexes and pumps 50 about pints of blood a day. Seems fairly well developed to me.

 

I have my own personal reasons for being quite strongly against abortion in most cases, but can see why some people consider it a necessary evil. I am by no means ready to have a child of my own, but I'd like to think if a girl I'm with ever got preggers anytime soon, we would consider all other avenues before abortion. I know that I would feel highly uncomfortable for the rest of my life if I ever supported an abortion of my own unborn child...and I don't consider (most) medical reasons as valid justification or abortion.

 

I think there is definitely a valid argument for bringing the cut-off down from 24 weeks but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If you go down the 'every sperm is sacred' route and ban it altogether you create a whole load of other problems like backstreet abortions, abortions only available to those who can get it done abroad, and unwanted kids brought up in unsuitable environments.

[pap]

Wowzers! I can only apologize for my typo but you do seem to have gone a bit OTT in your (over)reaction. To address the issues however:

 

Are you really quite this utterly sure that that basic tenant of feminist ideology - a womans 'right to choose' - must always be paramount above any other consideration? You accuse me of a simplistic take on this matter, but some might say that view might be a better fit for the term. For that matter this question is surely a problem for all society to consider, rather than relegating half of Humanity to the status of mere disenfranchised bystanders? The last time I checked men do still have some role to play in the propagation of mankind.

 

Re Godwins Law, I actually don't think you have read my post. I didn't say "Nazi's support abortion" - far from it. They were actually fervently against it because they desperately wanted an increased supply of healthy Germanic children to populate and expand the Reich. The point you seem to have entirely missed somehow is that they saw no value in providing for living disabled children, and therefore had them murdered. This is obviously not at all the same as saying that those who support abortion must be Nazis!

 

If society values Human life - and a Human life starts at the moment of conception - then it must be wrong to take it without some overwhelming justification. I don't happen to think that a women simply presenting herself and demanding a abortion because it is expedient to her amounts to a 'overwhelming justification' in any sense that I understand the term. Now if that seems too simple a viewpoint for your sophisticated tastes .. well then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Finally, although I might not have put it quite that way, I am sentimental about kids and I do believe that 'children are our future'. Now if I'm wrong in that then perhaps you could explain to the forum what future we have without them?

 

Chapel End Charlie - as I remarked before, I do feel that you've taken a very modern approach on the Hippocratic Oath, which I don't ever believe covered abortion.

 

With that plinth out of the structure of the debate, I feel it's important that we begin to approach the bigger point; when does a person become a person?

 

Does it start at the point of conception? And if so, what's really so special about that? What do you say to someone who has just banged one off into a sock? Has he just murdered hundreds of millions of potential life forms?

 

What about miscarraiges? These too would break the life starts at conception argument. Qualifying this as much as humanly possible, it could be argued that the only difference between a miscarraige and an abortion is the level of consciousness it takes place.

 

In a miscarraige, the body makes the decision. The baby and/or environment are either good enough or they're not. At some point, the body will make that determination.

 

In an abortion, a human makes the decision. There may well be cases of women using abortion as a belated contraception, but in my genuine experience, I know quite a few women who have had abortions. It was a big deal for all of them.

 

I would robustly challenge the notion that abortion is some kind of alternative to contraception. I can't say that there are no people who feel this way, but I can say that this attitude certainly hasn't been present in the people I've met who have been brave enough to share their experiences with me. Normally,it's something that stays with them forever, something that keeps them up at night.

 

This notion that much of it is down to a lifestyle choice is accurate to a point, but often, that lifestyle choice is a toss-up between being able to support yourself or living off the state in perpetuity. These girls can't win. Damned if they become a state-sponsored single mum, damned if they make the choice that their finances dictate.

 

I do wonder how some of us all-knowing men would cope in similar circumstances.

[Frank's cousin]

I dont think anyone is suggesting that there are swathes of women who have abortions as a last form of cntraception... but I would argue that there are many more case in the which the reason is NOT rape, or medical dangers to child/mother or the ethical dilemma of say something like Downs....

 

Firstly as mentioned before, I am pro Choice - it is afterall an individuals right to choose.

 

Secondly, the issue of term is an important one... as science moves forward we get to a point where babies/foetuses (still the same thing whatever we call them) routinely survive when born before the legal cut off point - to me that cant be right? But that is a seperate issue

 

But, surely as a society we should question what DRIVES people to make that decison, and whether its the nature of our perhaps somewhat 'selfish; society that people often feel comfortable terminating due to 'timing'?

 

Maybe its just me, but had I been 17, 27 or 37 - I would like to think that being a father would be more imporatnt than anything else - depsite what hardships and restrictions that responibilty may throw at me... I guess I am just asking maybe why that is maybe not such a common view?

 

I am am not judging the individuals who make thos decsions, but asking a question as to whether the way society has gone, makes those decisons easier.. and whether that is a good thing?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Chapel End Charlie - as I remarked before, I do feel that you've taken a very modern approach on the Hippocratic Oath, which I don't ever believe covered abortion.

 

With that plinth out of the structure of the debate, I feel it's important that we begin to approach the bigger point; when does a person become a person?

 

Does it start at the point of conception? And if so, what's really so special about that? What do you say to someone who has just banged one off into a sock? Has he just murdered hundreds of millions of potential life forms?

 

What about miscarraiges? These too would break the life starts at conception argument. Qualifying this as much as humanly possible, it could be argued that the only difference between a miscarraige and an abortion is the level of consciousness it takes place.

 

In a miscarraige, the body makes the decision. The baby and/or environment are either good enough or they're not. At some point, the body will make that determination.

 

In an abortion, a human makes the decision. There may well be cases of women using abortion as a belated contraception, but in my genuine experience, I know quite a few women who have had abortions. It was a big deal for all of them.

 

I would robustly challenge the notion that abortion is some kind of alternative to contraception. I can't say that there are no people who feel this way, but I can say that this attitude certainly hasn't been present in the people I've met who have been brave enough to share their experiences with me. Normally,it's something that stays with them forever, something that keeps them up at night.

 

This notion that much of it is down to a lifestyle choice is accurate to a point, but often, that lifestyle choice is a toss-up between being able to support yourself or living off the state in perpetuity. These girls can't win. Damned if they become a state-sponsored single mum, damned if they make the choice that their finances dictate.

 

I do wonder how some of us all-knowing men would cope in similar circumstances.

 

I've said (twice) now that I'm not dogmatically against all abortion. There are certain circumstances when it might be possible to justify the taking of a Human life in this context. For instance, if carrying the baby to term would entail a substantial risk to the mental or physical heath of the mother, then that's a reasonable justification many would say. If the developing baby is so very malformed that he/she could never enjoy a tolerable standard of life, then that too is a perfectly valid argument. Now clearly abortion decisions made on these grounds remove the child's right to life without the child ever having a say in the matter - we should all feel uncomfortable about that - but on the principle of always choosing the 'lesser of two evils' we can perhaps make a pragmatic choice here.

 

I say that justifications given to end a Human life that are invalid, or at least morally questionable, include:

 

The relationship between the parents breaking down - if a meaningful one ever existed in the first place.

As a form of pseudo post-conception contraception.

A parental change of mind re the desirability of parenthood

The arrival of a newborn interfering with the career prospects of the parent(s)

If the mother is unwilling to endure the heavy burden of carrying and delivering the child.

 

Of course accidents happen and that's a shame, but if the birth parents are unwilling (or unable) to take proper care of their children then there is a near inexhaustible supply of other people ready and willing to foster or adopt. Failing that society must step in a take care of these children, and with proper safeguards in place, I see no good reason to believe this situation must always descend into some Dickensian nightmare of old. In general if you are mature enough to have sex then you better be mature enough to live with the consequences. These are my personal opinions of course and I'm fully aware that society as a whole takes a rather different view.

 

Now I must insist that life does indeed begin at the point of conception because countless attempts to arbitrarily invent some other stage during feotal development are never intellectually satisfactory, or in the final analysis scientifically accurate. Inconvenient or not, it is a biological fact of life that once conception has occurred a new life (related to, but separate from, its parents) has commenced. I say this new life should be both valued and protected - inside or outside the womb.

[saint boggy]

I would like to add a slightly different perspective to this debate, one of that from a womann who has had an abortion. It was absolutely NOT something that i went into lightly, or that I ever wish to repeat. Some people on here seem to think that abortions are handed out like sweets, I can assure you that they are not. From the time i confirmed my pregnancy at just 4 weeks gestation, to the time I had the termination ,it had taken 5 heartwrenching weeks and numerous visits to doctors/nurses and counsellors. I knew from the moment i took the test that I could not keep the life that was growing inside of me. I already had 2 children, both by my husband of 7 years. My marriage had ended 3 months previously and I'd met a man (a rebound relationship, if you will) and had only known him for a few weeks when i fell pregnant. I was on the pill (and YES, i did take it properly, just as i had done without hitch for the umpteen years I'd been taken it BEFORE my husband and i tried for a family), so was absolutely devastated.Sadly, for whatever reason the contraceptive that had served me so well for 15 years had let me down. I had had 2 children with a man i had loved and had built a life with, and although we were no longer together, our love for those children was immeasurable. The man i had fallen pregnant by ,this time, was a completely different kettle of fish. I had no feelings of love for him, and knew that our relationship was going to be short-lived (even without the pregnancy). I had no doubt whatsoever that an abortion was the right thing for me, and the right thing for my 2 children. Since splitting from my husband I had worked part-time, and so was self-sufficient and did no want or need benefits ( i have worked ever since leaving school, and the thought of being on benefits ,frankly, sickens me).And before anyone starts spouting that i put my career ahead of a human life, I did not...i worked just a few hours a day ,whilst my children were at playschool/school) Had i proceeded with this pregnancy ,I would've had to give up work and become a beneficiary of the state .......that was NOT an option for me. The father of this child lived 60 miles away , so would not be on-hand to help out at all so, we were both in agreement that neither of us were in a position financially, emotionally or geographically to be the best parents that we can be. That doesn't mean that it was an EASY decision but it was UNQUESTIONABLY, the right one for me . Selfish perhaps,yes but we must all live our lives by doing what we feel is right, and I can tell you one thing, I do not regret my decision one bit, it was without doubt, the right thing for me,my family and my financial stability at the time.

Now, I have read on here some fairly strong opinions,both for and aginst abortion/right to choose/right to life etc, and i would love to be able to say who is right and who is wrong but I can't,everybody is entitled to their own viewpoint.... but I just felt that perhaps some people on here might have benefitted from hearing a 'personal' account of the human-factor of the abortion debate.

I have no doubt that there will be some on here that will pick holes in my reasons, and berate me for daring to have sex with someone without the use of 5 condoms(just in case!!)If that happens,then so be it.My reasons are MY reasons,and no-one will convince me that i made a wrong/immoral choice. I am not trying to justify myself to anyone,(i dont need to)merely just trying to put a human-face to this thread, as a lot of the talk was becoming very generalistic and clinical. I am sure that there are MANY women who use abortion as a form of contraception, but for the majority, that simply isn't the case.

NOW, as for the abortion limit, I DO feel that the 24 week threshold is VERY excessive. As many have stated, babies are being born and surviving at that age, due to medical advances. The sad fact is that many women do not even realise they are pregnant until round about 8-10 weeks or so (later ,if they have irregular periods ). And ,going by my experience (althought that was 5 years ago now ), it can take 4-5 weeks to go through the whole process, which can take people FAR past the 12 week cut-off point that some on here have suggested. I really dont know what the answer is, that should be left to the experts in the field, I am not qualified enough to make a judgement.

And, one more thing. For those on here who have said "the mother should have the child and hand it over for adoption/fostering, coz there are people crying out for babies" , would you mind explaining to me,if that IS the case,why we have THOUSANDS of children in Social Care, some of which have been there from the time they were born? And why EVERY WEEK we see adverts stating FOSTER CARERS URGENTLY NEEDED........perhaps because the numbers of babies/children far exceeds the numbers of families who are able/willing to take them in? just a thought

[Frank's cousin]

Saint boggy - thanks for posting that and providing your insight. I dont believe anyone should start 'picking holes' in your reasoning - it is your choice and one that ony you can and should make a decsion on. I guess my problem is that there are those whose reasons (not in your case) seem entirely driven, perhaps by society's attitudes. Many abortions do seem to be based on reasons that if within a different set of cultural ideas, might not happen - I am talking about the **** poor levels of sex education, that see us have the highest teenage preganancy rate in Europe - and highest teen abortaion rate - we cant prevent 100% with contraception, as you hae sadly found out, nothing is 100%, but we could at least ensure youngster are using it and properly in the first place. Thats the main area where we will have to disagree - 'thousands of children in social care' - is not IMHO a reason to jsutify abortion - its a reason to try and educate better to prevent pregnancy when not wanted, for sure and its sad that we have such a poor record in this area... mainly because the moment someone suggests a more graphic and detailed Sex education program introduced at a younger age (as they have in those countries with the lowest rates) some jumped up Tory daily mail reading moralist insists its some sort of perverted indoctrination....

 

Perhaps the area that is most diffcult to understand - and maybe this is just me - but I never undestood those young healthy folk in a stable relationship, that made the decision on timing or some other reason that was truely selfish (I dont think you were being selfish buy the way, you state yourself that you had to think about your children first and what wa sright for your familiy unit ) but I do know of examples of where this has happened both whilst at University and later with folk in first jobs at start of careers - in both these cases, a child will have slowed things down and as always changed perspectives, but would not have prevented these peole from going on and still doing things they wanted to do... especially as in both cases the partners were very positive and supportive about a future with person and with a child... I dont know what the answer is, I certainly dont believe in changes in legislation, apart from bringing the limit for elective intervention down to no more than 16 weeks or so (with the caveats that there is no delay that takes it over this time caused by the NHS or private practice -AND imprtantly that non-elective termination on medical advice is possible at any stage).

 

The more difficult are those situations where there is a detected genetic abnormality - whether Downs or some other condition - where the kids can grow up to lead happy fullfilling lives. The paralympics showed what is possible for many of these kids... I dont know what I would have done in that situation... or whether I would have tired to persude my wife one way or another... a moral and ethical minefield, yet I guess if you take all the personal reasons out of the equation (which I appreciate you cant) , should not the real question just be quite simple: Would this collection of cells/foetus/child have a chance of a happy and as healthy as can be expected, life?

[alpine_saint]

I would like to add a slightly different perspective to this debate, one of that from a womann who has had an abortion. It was absolutely NOT something that i went into lightly, or that I ever wish to repeat. Some people on here seem to think that abortions are handed out like sweets, I can assure you that they are not. From the time i confirmed my pregnancy at just 4 weeks gestation, to the time I had the termination ,it had taken 5 heartwrenching weeks and numerous visits to doctors/nurses and counsellors. I knew from the moment i took the test that I could not keep the life that was growing inside of me. I already had 2 children, both by my husband of 7 years. My marriage had ended 3 months previously and I'd met a man (a rebound relationship, if you will) and had only known him for a few weeks when i fell pregnant. I was on the pill (and YES, i did take it properly, just as i had done without hitch for the umpteen years I'd been taken it BEFORE my husband and i tried for a family), so was absolutely devastated.Sadly, for whatever reason the contraceptive that had served me so well for 15 years had let me down. I had had 2 children with a man i had loved and had built a life with, and although we were no longer together, our love for those children was immeasurable. The man i had fallen pregnant by ,this time, was a completely different kettle of fish. I had no feelings of love for him, and knew that our relationship was going to be short-lived (even without the pregnancy). I had no doubt whatsoever that an abortion was the right thing for me, and the right thing for my 2 children. Since splitting from my husband I had worked part-time, and so was self-sufficient and did no want or need benefits ( i have worked ever since leaving school, and the thought of being on benefits ,frankly, sickens me).And before anyone starts spouting that i put my career ahead of a human life, I did not...i worked just a few hours a day ,whilst my children were at playschool/school) Had i proceeded with this pregnancy ,I would've had to give up work and become a beneficiary of the state .......that was NOT an option for me. The father of this child lived 60 miles away , so would not be on-hand to help out at all so, we were both in agreement that neither of us were in a position financially, emotionally or geographically to be the best parents that we can be. That doesn't mean that it was an EASY decision but it was UNQUESTIONABLY, the right one for me . Selfish perhaps,yes but we must all live our lives by doing what we feel is right, and I can tell you one thing, I do not regret my decision one bit, it was without doubt, the right thing for me,my family and my financial stability at the time.

Now, I have read on here some fairly strong opinions,both for and aginst abortion/right to choose/right to life etc, and i would love to be able to say who is right and who is wrong but I can't,everybody is entitled to their own viewpoint.... but I just felt that perhaps some people on here might have benefitted from hearing a 'personal' account of the human-factor of the abortion debate.

I have no doubt that there will be some on here that will pick holes in my reasons, and berate me for daring to have sex with someone without the use of 5 condoms(just in case!!)If that happens,then so be it.My reasons are MY reasons,and no-one will convince me that i made a wrong/immoral choice. I am not trying to justify myself to anyone,(i dont need to)merely just trying to put a human-face to this thread, as a lot of the talk was becoming very generalistic and clinical. I am sure that there are MANY women who use abortion as a form of contraception, but for the majority, that simply isn't the case.

NOW, as for the abortion limit, I DO feel that the 24 week threshold is VERY excessive. As many have stated, babies are being born and surviving at that age, due to medical advances. The sad fact is that many women do not even realise they are pregnant until round about 8-10 weeks or so (later ,if they have irregular periods ). And ,going by my experience (althought that was 5 years ago now ), it can take 4-5 weeks to go through the whole process, which can take people FAR past the 12 week cut-off point that some on here have suggested. I really dont know what the answer is, that should be left to the experts in the field, I am not qualified enough to make a judgement.

And, one more thing. For those on here who have said "the mother should have the child and hand it over for adoption/fostering, coz there are people crying out for babies" , would you mind explaining to me,if that IS the case,why we have THOUSANDS of children in Social Care, some of which have been there from the time they were born? And why EVERY WEEK we see adverts stating FOSTER CARERS URGENTLY NEEDED........perhaps because the numbers of babies/children far exceeds the numbers of families who are able/willing to take them in? just a thought

Thanks for finding the strength to share your story with us.

 

I do find it regrettable that the potential and wonder of a new life has been destroyed through what sounds mainly like practicalities though. However, I do respect your desire and principles to stand on your own two feet in life; well done. My wife gave birth to our 4th son in May, and we are a long way from family support which means it is currently hell with just the two of us since our 3rd is going thru terrible twos and the first has just hit puberty, but we dont regret it for a moment, he is such a lovely little chap. Also to be fair your rebound relationship sounds like it was ill-considered from the start.

 

Regards your comments about adoption/care, my understanding is that the number of children in care from just after birth is a low proportion of the total number of children in care BUT it is growing because of all the damned red tape the Government has put in place about the adoption procedure, which sounds nothing less than torture nowadays. I believe the vast majority of children in care are, to use a somewhat vulgar and tragic euphemism, "damaged goods" which are very difficult for anybody to take on long-term

Edited 9 October, 2012 by alpine_saint

[Frank's cousin]

Thanks for finding the strength to share your story with us.

 

I do find it regrettable that the potential and wonder of a new life has been destroyed through what sounds mainly like practicalities though. However, I do respect your desire and principles to stand on your own two feet in life; well done. My wife gave birth to our 4th son in May, and we are a long way from family support which means it is currently hell with just the two of us since our 3rd is going thru terrible twos and the first has just hit puberty, but we dont regret it for a moment, he is such a lovely little chap. Also to be fair your rebound relationship sounds like it was ill-considered from the start.

 

Regards your comments about adoption/care, my understanding is that the number of children in care from just after birth is a low proportion of the total number of children in care BUT it is growing because of all the damned red tape the Government has put in place about the adoption procedure, which sounds nothing less than torture nowadays. I believe the vast majority of children in care are, to use a somewhat vulgar and tragic euphemism, "damaged goods" which are very difficult for anybody to take on long-term

 

Think you meant to quote Saint Boggy there Alps - but fair comments none-the-less - Highlights really how complex an issue this is... was once asked why I am pro choice and for legal abortions, when I am so obviously keen on trying to reduce the number tha happen.... my response was simple; I have a daughter and whilst I would like to think she will always be able to come to me or her mum with her issues and problems, kids and even teh best teenagers often never know where to turn - if she ended up pregnant at 15 and made teh worng choice (eg not confiding in her parents), and took her decision to abort, would much rather she was in the capable hands of the NHS or at least a decent private clinic, than taking a chance with some back street type as in the old days - the legality brings with it safety - even if there are unanswered questions and other dilemmas .

[pap]

This issue has just become huge again.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/14/savita-halappanavar-medically-unnecessary-death

[Hamilton Saint]

Obviously, abortion is a delicate moral issue. Both parties involved in the pregnancy ought to be involved in the decision, but ultimately it is the women's right to choose - especially since she is often left alone to deal with the problems of an unwanted pregnancy (i.e., the man abandons her).

 

Other thoughts:

 

There needs to be a time cut-off - a stage in the pregnancy beyond which abortion, in most cases, ought not to be allowed.

 

Abortion should also not be used as a form of gender-selection.

 

Those who say that people use abortion as mere contraception have probably not faced the situation. Regardless of one's religious or philosophical view on the issue, getting an abortion is not a pleasant experience. People can get pregnant even though they use contraception carefully.

 

Those who argue that life begins at conception, and that life is sacred, are bound to argue, therefore, that rape victims, or victims of incest, must be obliged to continue their pregnancies to term.

[pap]

Excerpt from the link I posted, about a woman that was 17 weeks pregnant in an Irish hospital, suffering from complications.

 

"This is a Catholic country," was what Irish doctors told Savita Halappanavar after she learned she was miscarrying her pregnancy and asked for an abortion to avoid further complications. She spent three days in agonising pain, eventually shaking, vomiting and passing out. She again asked for an abortion and was refused, because the foetus still had a heartbeat.

 

 

Then she died.

 

 

She died of septicaemia and E Coli. She died after three and a half days of excruciating pain. She died after repeatedly begging for an end to the pregnancy that was poisoning her. Her death would have been avoided if she had been given an abortion when she asked for it – when it was clear she was miscarrying, and that non-intervention would put her at risk. But the foetus, which had no chance of survival, still had a heartbeat. Its right to life quite literally trumped hers.

 

[BigShadow]

Excerpt from the link I posted, about a woman that was 17 weeks pregnant in an Irish hospital, suffering from complications.

 

This is a heart-breaking story that will no doubt anger a lot of people - but given the capacity of journalists to sensationalise a tragedy, I can only hope they have overlooked some mitigating facts that would have justified the doctors refusal to terminate on the grounds of her health. They may have got it wrong - but I hope there is more to this than just -'Its a Catholic Country' so can't terminate even though they know the baby won't survive anyway. Very sad.

[Smirking_Saint]

Excerpt from the link I posted, about a woman that was 17 weeks pregnant in an Irish hospital, suffering from complications.

 

If true I hope those involved are struck off

[Saint137]

Growing up I was 100% in favour of abortion, and felt it was an issue for women to decide on, not blokes. Like many my attitude has changed somewhat as I've grown to understand what life means, particularly as medical technology has advanced. But ultimately I'm still in favour of it for the right reasons as long as the woman is given sufficient high-quality counselling on what it means.

 

My missus had an abortion at 17 after being raped. She says part of her died when she had it, and still regrets it. Made worse by subsequently having a child years later who died young. She had poor advice and with hindsight sometimes feels she should have kept the child. At the time she felt it was impossible - she was responsible for care of her father and had a full-time job as well. Doesn't stop her from being haunted by her decision.

 

As a prospective father if I was put in the position where the woman carrying my child wanted an abortion I think I'd find that very hard to accept. Probably only on the grounds of such severe disability that it would mean that the child would have no quality of life. Certainly not for genetic conditions like Downs. And certainly not for the reason "we only wanted a healthy child". Only other grounds would be if the health of the mother was in danger for the simple fact that if the mother dies the baby dies too. With the advent of the morning after pill there is very little scope for accidental pregnancy in my book.

 

It has to be made to be hardest decision in the world to make, I think its far too easy for younger women to choose it as an option, and one that they will regret later in life.

[Halo Stickman]

This is a fascinating thread with some truly excellent contributions from all sides of the 'debate'.

 

For me, abortion is such a difficult, complicated and personal issue that I would be reluctant to offer my opinions even to my sons’ girlfriends – I haven’t got daughters – let alone strangers. I think everyone has the right to make their own decisions based upon their own personal circumstances; it’s really not up to others to advise or to judge them.

 

There is, however, one thing of which I am more certain: years of studying the development of the human mind and body has led me to the same conclusion as CHAPEL END CHARLIE, namely, that life begins at the moment of conception.

 

For me, life’s journey begins with the fertilised egg, complete with its full complement of DNA inherited from its father and mother. Others may chose to see life beginning at some point further down the line; for instance, the first heartbeat or when the body is first fully formed. But, in my opinion, these are just arbitrary milestones that could just as easily be extrapolated beyond birth. For example, why not chose the first signs of self-awareness that don’t occur until a child is several months old?

 

By the same token, terms such as ‘viable human being’ and ‘independently life-sustaining’ are misnomers that could be applied, not just to the unborn child, but also to the very young and, in some cases, to the sick, handicapped or to the very old.

 

I realise only too well that belief in life beginning at the point of conception raises difficult questions, not just for abortion, but also for the morning after pill and IVF treatment etc, but does this mean I condemn people practicing any of these things? No, it most definitely does not! Like I say, people must be afforded the freedom to make their own decisions in their own good time.

[Sheaf Saint]

I know this doesn't really add anything to the debate, but I thought I would share it with you as it is relevant...

 

Yesterday I went to my other half's graduation ceremony at Sheffield City Hall, and I was privileged to hear an address from the Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University - none other than the TV science presenter and world-renowned fertility specialist Robert Winston. He was very frank with his opinions on the current debate and expressed great concern about the health minister's recent announcement about reducing the cut-off point for termination, insisting that politics has no place in such matters and that any decision regrading terminations should be purely between 'doctor and patient', for which he received a heartfelt round of applause.