Abortion- Right or Wrong

LovelyHurling

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Anytime before birth, for the reasons I've outlined earlier in the thread.

You know the difference in a newborn's cns development one hour after it exits the birth canal?
It's one hour.

What you suggest here is a ridiculous theory that deems the termination of a severely under-developed 24 week old foetus outside of the womb illegal, but means that the termination of a relatively very very well developed 41 week old about to make its way down the birth canal, with the CNS of a regular newborn, completely legal!

it's about rationally deciding upon a philosophical and ethical framework that's workable.

What you have put forward is not rational. Lets get back to the difference in development between an unborn infant and one that has left the uterus an hour ago. Why exactly, in your opinion, is this one hour so terribly critical? why can't the newborns life be terminated?

Presumably, if it's in the incubator, the parents want it.

Surely that's completely irrelevant. For one thing, they may not want it. it may have been a very premature birth. Furthermore, they are entitled to change their minds. What if they want to terminate the newborn?

I don't pretend to have the answer, and I do believe in allowing abortions, pretty liberally in fact. I'm just not fond of this theory that purports to be logical yet would turn the cut off point into some bizarre stage that revolves solely around, as somebody else has said, where the baby happens to be situated in the world.

JC 2K3

LovelyHurling wrote: »

You know the difference in a newborn's cns development one hour after it exits the birth canal?
It's one hour.

What you suggest here is a ridiculous theory that deems the termination of a severely under-developed 24 week old foetus outside of the womb illegal, but means that the termination of a relatively very very well developed 41 week old about to make its way down the birth canal, with the CNS of a regular newborn, completely legal!



What you have put forward is not rational. Lets get back to the difference in development between an unborn infant and one that has left the uterus an hour ago. Why exactly, in your opinion, is this one hour so terribly critical? why can't the newborns life be terminated?


Surely that's completely irrelevant. For one thing, they may not want it. it may have been a very premature birth. Furthermore, they are entitled to change their minds. What if they want to terminate the newborn?

I don't pretend to have the answer, and I do believe in allowing abortions, pretty liberally in fact. I'm just not fond of this theory that purports to be logical yet would turn the cut off point into some bizarre stage that revolves solely around, as somebody else has said, where the baby happens to be situated in the world.

So what makes the 4th dimension more important than the 3rd dimension?

I don't believe location is as unimportant as you make it out to be.

philologos

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Zygote can't feel pain, zygote can't think, unless you believe in a soul that's meaningless.

Again that's just delegitimizing it as a human life though. It's just a developing human being, less developed than us. That zygote is certainly going to form into a newborn child, it just has stages in growth in it's human life before it gets there.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Jakkass wrote: »

Again that's just delegitimizing it as a human life though. It's just a developing human being, less developed than us. That zygote is certainly going to form into a newborn child, it just has stages in growth in it's human life before it gets there.

Well dehumanizing it from what? Why exactly is that important at the zygote stage?
Unless you're religious it's irrelevent. Most zygotes don't make it into a child anyway.

Are you one of these "people" who consider IVF treatment murder unless all created zygotes are used?

Just for the record I think this is completely nuts

JK 2K3 wrote:

Anytime before birth, for the reasons I've outlined earlier in the thread.

I'm pro abortion up to 15 weeeks, pro-life after that. It would be 18 weeks but use the 3 weeks as a buffer as you obviously can't draw a line in the sand for every case.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

1) If it makes you shudder, the sheer principle of it should make you shudder as well surely? It's either entirely repulsive or it's not in my view anyway.

Well, a high definition CGI movie of a dead baby would make me shudder too. And I'd say most people would shudder if they saw an animal being killed, yet they happily eat meat.

Jakkass wrote: »

2) So wanting something to live or not is at the behest of people?

Pretty much. The fact that the majority of the world are not vegetarians shows that most people accept this.

Jakkass wrote: »

3) Sperm and ova are not fused to make a zygote. They are not a human being, and they cannot ever form to be a human being on their own. That's the key difference.

But why is singularity important? Why aren't they human beings at an earlier stage of development? Why can't you say that if they are killed that they are denied the chance to fuse with a sperm or ova and grow into a person?

LovelyHurling

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I don't believe location is as unimportant as you make it out to be.

Why don't you elaborate on what you seem to perceive as the importance of location, in this case.

Earthhorse

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'm pro abortion up to 15 weeeks, pro-life after that. It would be 18 weeks but use the 3 weeks as a buffer as you obviously can't draw a line in the sand for every case.

What happens after 18 weeks? Not a trick question or anything, genuinely interested.

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

this is no longer a debate about abortion, its become a venue for pro-life ers to bash pro choicers,

horseshit

and yeah yeah yeah zulu, phrase it what way you like, you lost all sense of reason when you posted the baby killer post!

which post was that?

Heres what I REALLY think, in the words of a famous friend " NO UTERUS, NO OPINION" :p:p:p:p:p
Put that in your smoke and pipe it

Wow, really mature argument there. So because of a persons gender they can't make a decision on the society they are a part of?

I had rather hoped our society had progressed past that level of ignorance.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Earthhorse wrote: »

What happens after 18 weeks? Not a trick question or anything, genuinely interested.

Nervous system develops 18-27 weeks

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

1)Well, a high definition CGI movie of a dead baby would make me shudder too. And I'd say most people would shudder if they saw an animal being killed, yet they happily eat meat.


2)Pretty much. The fact that the majority of the world are not vegetarians shows that most people accept this.


3)But why is singularity important? Why aren't they human beings at an earlier stage of development? Why can't you say that if they are killed that they are denied the chance to fuse with a sperm or ova and grow into a person?

1) So you recognise that an aborted baby is just that a baby? Which would mean that it is indeed human life.

2) There is a difference between the sanctity of human life and that of animal life in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. See it's human rights not mammal rights.

3) There is no earlier stage of development from human life. It starts at conception.

Battle_of_Smoke wrote:

Well dehumanizing it from what? Why exactly is that important at the zygote stage?
Unless you're religious it's irrelevent. Most zygotes don't make it into a child anyway.

You got me there considering I am a Christian. I wouldn't consider it irrelevant from the light of current human rights declarations though.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

1) So you recognise that an aborted baby is just that a baby?

No, I recognise that it looks like a baby, or to be more specific, a very young human being on which we confer rights.

Jakkass wrote: »

2) There is a difference between the sanctity of human life and that of animal life in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. See it's human rights not mammal rights.

Well, that's not what you said in what I quoted, and if humans can decide that animals are ok to kill, why can't they decide that unborn humans are too?

Also:

1) The UN Declaration of Human Rights, while a formidible and applaudable document, is not absolute, and it's contents should not be undebatable.
2) It's an unfortunate case of linguistics that it happens to be called the Declaration of Human Rights, because "human" simply means to pertain to anything relating to the human species. If they were called "Person Rights" or something, it would be better. My point here is basically that it's not a valid argument to say you can't debate whether these rights apply to a foetus or not because it's human and they're called human rights.

Jakkass wrote: »

3) There is no earlier stage of development from human life. It starts at conception.

Why? What is so special and important about conception and what is so unimportant and trivial about the development of sperm and ova?

CDfm

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think that's an important point.

No-one should claim that a dictionary manufacturer has the answers to a question that has stumped experts in the field for so long.

But Zulu was accused of using an inappropriate term. he was just showing that some dictionary makers use the same definition. So, it really wasn't an outrageous statement for him to call the unborn child a child.

But one of the main sticking points in the whole abortion argument is when does a child become a child.

Which is why I'd again like to invite anyone to offer up their thoughts on what's an acceptable cut off point for abortions, in terms of gestational age.

I find your posts explanatory and thanks for posting them .This is a part I dont really understand and when it gets to stuff like zygotes and whatever I am completely lost.

The bioligy side of it looses me and Im with the ladybird edition here.

But I think Im getting the hang of sorting out metaphysics from metaphors and now know what CNS is .

What are zygots are they a bioligy term pre sperm and ova.

The term singularity also I dont understand.Do people mean at point of conception or is it baby at birth.

I am not looking for information to use as an argument but really would like to understand a bit more on what is being posted.

JC 2K3

CDfm wrote: »

What are zygots are they a bioligy term pre sperm and ova.

The term singularity also I dont understand.Do people mean at point of conception or is it baby at birth.

Zygotes are what is formed after a sperm and ovum meet and fuse together.

Singularity means the state of being a single entity, and what I mean by it in my arguments is that you could view any sperm-ovum pair which haven't merged yet as a potential person, and if one of them dies then the potential person dies too. I see the progression from existing as two entities, a sperm and an ovum, to one, a zygote, as simply being an arbitrary step in the development process. This is what I mean when I ask why singularity is so important.

CDfm

Many thanks it has explained an awful lot.

Is the zygote what divides it to cells which eventually becomes a foetus?

What is the next step to the foetus ?

Is what your trying to get to is decide a point of conception where life is born or something?

carlybabe1

always a pleasure earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

Why 4 in 10?[/

[

cause thems the figures, for every ten babies born at 24 wks, only four will survive outside the womb in an incubator

What a total load of crap. Most posts on this thread have been completely reasonable. If you don't like a vigorous debate then Humanities is not the place for you.

You've just proved my point here with your reply,jees anyone would think you didnt agree with my opinion

Nobody said it had little or no effect on the feotus.

Eh actually, yeah they did or I wouldnt have posted this info, flick back a few pages before ye get on your high horse (no pun intended)

What about them? You think their lives aren't worthwhile?

On the contrary, my thoughts are how dare the irresponsible adult put an innocent child through the mill,because they have been careless, and continue to be careless towards that child. And its not because of some misplaced morality that junkies dont get abortions, its cause they spend all the money they can get on drugs.

That wasn't Dragan's criteria as far as we can tell from his post.

I wasnt replying to anything in dragans post or Id have quoted him....like I have you

Other cut off points are decided upon in the same way. Really, I don't think your suggestion of abortion until birth is actually workable. I think even most pro-choicers would have problems with it.

No mention of my cut off point??? why's that

That's avoiding the question frankly. It doesn't matter why the baby is in the incubator, what matters is that it is there. This leads us to the question as to why its life is valuable outside the womb and not inside when the same amount of development has taken place or the same time period has elapsed.

Thats the whole basis of his argument, location, and whether the baby is wanted or not

To die naturally and to be killed are not the same thing.

neither is prochoice and proabortion

The point you've picked is really just as arbitrary as everyone elses, you've just given a different weighting to different criteria. Most people recognise that this debate isn't just about a physical stage of development; the problem has always been coming up with a defintion of what it is to be a human being, and thus a point at which we can identify that you have become one, that is satisfactory to all parties.

Eh actually it is, several posts and arguments bare based on when the cut off point should be. If you dont think a cut off point is relevent, and abortion is just wrong no matter when it occurs then it would follow, (in a logical debate) that you must think the morning after pill is murder too???
or do you indeed have a cut off point????

Phototoxin

carlybabe1 wrote: »

always a pleasure earthhorse

Eh actually it is, several posts and arguments bare based on when the cut off point should be. If you dont think a cut off point is relevent, and abortion is just wrong no matter when it occurs then it would follow, (in a logical debate) that you must think the morning after pill is murder too???
or do you indeed have a cut off point????

the morning after pill usually contains an abortificant aswell so that even if it does not cause a miscarrage (also killing the foetus) then it will destroy it.

I would say and believe that using the morning after pill is killing an unborn baby.

carlybabe1

Phototoxin wrote: »

the morning after pill usually contains an abortificant aswell so that even if it does not cause a miscarrage (also killing the foetus) then it will destroy it.

As the morning after pill is only effective for up to 72 hrs after sex there is no feotus present at this time, just a ball of 12-16 cells called the morula

I would say and believe that using the morning after pill is killing an unborn baby.

As that statement has been made with no obvious scientific background, I feel compelled to ask if your against contraception also, on the basis that it is preventing the potential for life of a feotus

LovelyHurling

phototoxin, your central argument, i presume revolves around the premise that if left to its own devices and the natural order of things, the initial blastocyst becomes a human being with thoughts, sentience and self perception with the ability to feel pail and emotion and generally experience life, thus abortion is wrong all along the line from fertilisation onwards. correct?

Well what about the situation where if a non abotificant ecp were used? This would prevent a potential fertilisation taking place which would perhaps other wise have happened, if the couple were to go with nature/ God, whatever. In this case, the zygote that never was could have become a human but didn't because a woman took the morning after pill (ecp).

So do you also oppose these pills even if they are not abortificants, but prevent fertilisation?

And if so, what is your take on the condom?

tallaght01

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Heres an idea, what about a cut off point of 24 wks, as there is a 4 in 10 chance that the fetus can survive outside the womb in intensive care..... No takers?

It's more like 50% nowadays. So, what's your new cut off point now, seeing as 40% was the gold standard?

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Heres the way the law lies in regards to a woman having a miscarriage at the hands of an assault, the perp will only be done for assault because " the feotus needs an independent existence to qualify as a person under common law".

So, the law as it stands should provide the moral framework for this debate?

In that case, seeing as abortion is ilegal in Ireland, it's end of discussion....abortion must be wrong, no?

carlybabe1 wrote: »

As for women who drink/smoke/ take drugs, how can you say that it little or no affect on the feotus??? thats rediculous, for **** sake, we wouldnt be told not to if it had no affect...What about premature babies that have to be weaned off smack in intensive care, that cant stop cryin because they are goin through withdrawls that thier adult parents couldnt stick or they wouldnt be born addicted.... not to mention Feotal Alcohol Syndrome

If this was directed at my post, then re-read it. I said that the majority of people who do the above have structurally normal babies I even specifically mentioned neonatal abstinence syndrome. It's horrific to watch. It doesn't require an intensive care admission, though, on it's own.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Heres what I REALLY think, in the words of a famous friend " NO UTERUS, NO OPINION" :p:p:p:p:p
Put that in your smoke and pipe it

If a woman has a hysterectomy, does that then make her opinions invalid? Your mate can say what she wants, but her opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. I feel I have a professional and moral responsibility to advocate for babies, regardless of what my reproductive organs are.

tallaght01

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Presumably, if it's in the incubator, the parents want it.


.

That's just not true. Preterm babies are often really difficult to look after when they get discharged from hospitals. Many of them get put up for fostering/adoption.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Zygote can't feel pain, zygote can't think, unless you believe in a soul that's meaningless.

So, is the ability to think and feel pain your central criteria. Because there's a lot of debate and unanswered questions about when babies can start to think, and even when they can feel pain. No-one really knows all the answers, when it comes to those questions.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I don't believe location is as unimportant as you make it out to be.

so what os it about location that makes it the important issue?

Earthhorse wrote: »

What happens after 18 weeks? Not a trick question or anything, genuinely interested.

I'd be interested to know this too.

CDfm wrote: »

I find your posts explanatory and thanks for posting them .This is a part I dont really understand and when it gets to stuff like zygotes and whatever I am completely lost.

The bioligy side of it looses me and Im with the ladybird edition here.

But I think Im getting the hang of sorting out metaphysics from metaphors and now know what CNS is .

What are zygots are they a bioligy term pre sperm and ova.

The term singularity also I dont understand.Do people mean at point of conception or is it baby at birth.

I am not looking for information to use as an argument but really would like to understand a bit more on what is being posted.

Apologies if my terminology was too scientific. I think another poster answered the questions you asked. But if I say anyting in the future that I haven't fully explained, please feel free to ask for clarification

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Nervous system develops 18-27 weeks

Well, the nervous system starts developing at week 4 to 5, and it's not finished developing even when the child is born.

carlybabe1

[

quote=tallaght01;57122736]But the vast majority of babies born to, say, junkies, don't have any structural abnormalities. They very often withdraw from the drug for a few days, which is horrific to watch. But most of them come to no long term harm.

really? no cases of hiv or aids, hepatitis or kidney problems?

tallaght01 wrote: »

Most women who drink and smoke during pregnancy don't have babies with any particular structural abnormality either. Though many do.

Wats asthma? feotal alcohol syndrome? renal problems or low birth weight

The adoption issue is, however, available to them of they really didn't want the baby. That's where I'm not sure where a group of women who abuse their bodies during pregnancy really come into the equation. They either want the baby or they don't. If the do, they won't get an abortion anyway. If they don't want it, they can put it up for adoption. This subgroup of women should have little effect ont he overall point of this debate.

They should be able to have an abortion if they so wish, as they are not in a position to look after a child when clearly they cant look after themselves.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think the point that Malari is making is that taking the pregnancy to full term isn't neccesarily going to benefit the child, as some parents can really abuse their bodies while they're pregnant.

I don't agree with the point, though. Parents do all kinds of crazy **** while they're pregnant, and their kids are, by and large, OK. It's once they go home the trouble starts!

What evidence do you base this on, and if they go home to an abusive/neglected home is that ok cause they are no longer your problem?

What about the women who DO take every precaution and still get caught?? Condoms like people are not infallible, the pill while a better option still isnt infallible, so short of sterilisation or total abstinence nothing is 100% babyproof

tallaght01

carlybabe1 wrote: »

really? no cases of hiv or aids, hepatitis or kidney problems?







They should be able to have an abortion if they so wish, as they are not in a position to look after a child when clearly they cant look after themselves.




What evidence do you base this on, and if they go home to an abusive/neglected home is that ok cause they are no longer your problem?

What about the women who DO take every precaution and still get caught?? Condoms like people are not infallible, the pill while a better option still isnt infallible, so short of sterilisation or total abstinence nothing is 100% babyproof

Do you just have an issue witht he word "most" or the phrase "by and large"? Or is the the overall logic that has you stumped.

Let me reiterate for you what I've already said.

Most children of people who drink or smoke or take drugs don't have structural abnormalities.

By and large these children are OK.

These children have horrific lives AFTER they go home...THAT is where te real problems starts. So, the argument is simple....I have no problem with these people taking their baby to term, rather than aborting them. They can then give up a relatively healthy baby for adoption.

I don't see what's so complex about that.

Bringing in HIV/hepatitis is, again, focussing on a very small issue. The vast majority of babies born to, say, HIV positive parents don't go on to contract the disease. In Ireland it's down to about 1% transmission rate.

CDfm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

really? no cases of hiv or aids, hepatitis or kidney problems?







They should be able to have an abortion if they so wish, as they are not in a position to look after a child when clearly they cant look after themselves.




What evidence do you base this on, and if they go home to an abusive/neglected home is that ok cause they are no longer your problem?

What about the women who DO take every precaution and still get caught?? Condoms like people are not infallible, the pill while a better option still isnt infallible, so short of sterilisation or total abstinence nothing is 100% babyproof

carlybabe1 by this logic dont we go into the realm of eugenics where we organise out all societies problems but not thru sterilisation but abortion? is this your proposal with a kind of socio- economic criteria.

So to save the child from this we kill them?

Whats wrong with adoption or fostercare. If the same interest groups pushing abortion decided in the morning to make adoption part of the aims why not. It would be a logical conclusion in the context of child welfare if child welfare is the justification for abortion.(I suspect it would alienate political support so the question is rhetorical if you want it to be - but I would like to hear your take on it).

thats ( abortion on socio-economic grounds) is a very arbitrary decision to make and who makes it? Do we appoint an Abortion Ombudsman to make a decision on who to abort?( I suppose you would see yourself in that role)

The point being you are using the exceptions to create the rule which seems to be what has happened in other countries.Many people in those countries disagree with practice as it has developed but are desensitised to it and many of the laws have developed not as intented.

Im a guy or sorry a uterus challenged person .

eveie

i havent posted in the last few days and i dont have time yo look at all the posts.
ok carlybabe i have a MAJOR problem with your attitude towards me, please point out where i suggested that women who have abortions are BAD people? i never once said that not once, i do not judge people but i can judge actions as i judge my own actions on an on going basis.
if you are soooooooo pro-choce about everything then i presume you are pro-choice about rape, murder etc, you did say that you do not have the right to judge anyone.
i dont kow what age you are carlybabe and im trying not to sound patronising although i know it will come across that way but maybe just maybe you will chance your mind on this.
and again just because im pro-life does not directly mean that i attribute my beliefs on the back of some religion. i dont need religion to know what is right or what is wrong.

eveie

can i just say some arguments here are ridiclious, i mean a baby would talk more sense
"Well, that's not what you said in what I quoted, and if humans can decide that animals are ok to kill, why can't they decide that unborn humans are too?" jc2k3
now come on!!!!!! what seperates us from animals is that we have a conscience, wanna argue with that one too? an animal will eat its own ****, will kill for survival, will piss up against your leg, it doesnt have a conscience, and if you argue that we are no better then animals then you can let out all the rapist, murderers, abusers etc from prision because we must not have a conscience therefore we know not what we did

Nevyn

Phototoxin wrote: »

the morning after pill usually contains an abortificant aswell so that even if it does not cause a miscarrage (also killing the foetus) then it will destroy it.

It does not if it did it would not be legal.

Phototoxin wrote: »

I would say and believe that using the morning after pill is killing an unborn baby.

The medical and legal institution and profession disagree with you.

tallaght01 you asked about statstics for % of what week gestation abotions were being carried out.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_085508

Key facts

In 2007, for women resident in England and Wales:

* the total number of abortions was 198,500, compared with 193,700 in 2006, a rise of 2.5%

* the age-standardised abortion rate was 18.6 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44, compared with 18.3 in 2006

* the abortion rate was highest at 36 per 1,000, for women age 19

* the under-16 abortion rate was 4.4 and the under- 18 rate was 19.8 per 1,000 women, both higher than in 2006

* 89% of abortions were funded by the NHS; of these, just over half (57%) took place in the independent sector under NHS contract

* 90% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation; 70% were at under 10 weeks

* medical abortions accounted for 35% of the total compared with 30% in 2006

* 1,900 abortions (1%) were under ground E, risk that the child would be born handicapped

Blazer

Right and Wrong.

Right for when girl is sexually abused as in rape/incest etc.
Wrong for all other cases and this includes disabilities etc.

eveie

thedydal if you are of the beliefe that conception is the begining of a life then the m.a.p is a form of abortion, not always it depends on weather conception/implantation has taken place but it can destroy the zygote and it can also prevent implantation, so its hit and miss to be honest, no one can say for sure weather or not the m.a.p always induces abortion

Nevyn

eveie wrote: »

thedydal if you are of the beliefe that conception is the begining of a life then the m.a.p is a form of abortion, not always it depends on weather conception/implantation has taken place but it can destroy the zygote and it can also prevent implantation, so its hit and miss to be honest, no one can say for sure weather or not the m.a.p always induces abortion

Again The medical and legal institution and profession disagree with you.

eveie

thedydal im not arguing with you over this point im just stating that if you believe that from the moment of conception that a life is created then m.a.p can sometimes be clasified as a very early abortion. i am aware that the medical profession do not agree with this

eveie

thedydal ive heard statistics that are not in line with the ones you gave now i am not saying that your ones are false but there is some mis-leading information our there, however the statistics ive heard may be wrong

Dragan

CDfm wrote: »

Whats wrong with adoption or fostercare. If the same interest groups pushing abortion decided in the morning to make adoption part of the aims why not. It would be a logical conclusion in the context of child welfare if child welfare is the justification for abortion.(I suspect it would alienate political support so the question is rhetorical if you want it to be - but I would like to hear your take on it).

I'd like to see some links or numbers around how long these kids end up waiting around, how many moves from foster homes, later mental health etc.

Why? Because i'm curious. Any links would be appreciated.

Also, i see nothing wrong with adoption or foster care, perfect options for those who want it.

tallaght01

Thaedydal wrote: »

It does not if it did it would not be legal.



The medical and legal institution and profession disagree with you.

tallaght01 you asked about statstics for % of what week gestation abotions were being carried out.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_085508

Key facts

In 2007, for women resident in England and Wales:

* the total number of abortions was 198,500, compared with 193,700 in 2006, a rise of 2.5%

* the age-standardised abortion rate was 18.6 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44, compared with 18.3 in 2006

* the abortion rate was highest at 36 per 1,000, for women age 19

* the under-16 abortion rate was 4.4 and the under- 18 rate was 19.8 per 1,000 women, both higher than in 2006

* 89% of abortions were funded by the NHS; of these, just over half (57%) took place in the independent sector under NHS contract

* 90% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation; 70% were at under 10 weeks

* medical abortions accounted for 35% of the total compared with 30% in 2006

* 1,900 abortions (1%) were under ground E, risk that the child would be born handicapped

I think I was more talking about the statistics relating to when women find out they're pregnant....BUT the above stats beg an interesting question......

You see how they talk about "ground E" above?....
well this relates to the grounds upon which it is legal for a woman to have an abortion in the UK. Ground E refers to the possibility of the child being born handicapped etc. I've listed the "grounds for abortion" in the UK below:

Statutory grounds for abortion

4.2.1 A legally induced abortion must be
certified by two registered medical
practitioners as justified under one or more
of the following grounds:


A the continuance of the pregnancy
would involve risk to the life of
the pregnant woman greater than
if the pregnancy were terminated
(Abortion Act, 1967 as amended,
section 1(1)(c))


B the termination is necessary to
prevent grave permanent injury to
the physical or mental health of
the pregnant woman (section
1(1)(b))


C the pregnancy has not exceeded its
twenty-fourth week and that the
continuance of the pregnancy
would involve risk, greater than if
the pregnancy were terminated, of
injury to the physical or mental
health of the pregnant woman
(section 1(1)(a))


D the pregnancy has not exceeded its
twenty-fourth week and that the
continuance of the pregnancy
would involve risk, greater than if
the pregnancy were terminated, of
injury to the physical or mental
health of any existing children of
the family of the pregnant woman
(section 1(1)(a))


E there is a substantial risk that if
the child were born it would suffer
from such physical or mental
abnormalities as to be seriously
handicapped (section 1(1)(d))
or in an emergency, certified by the
operating practitioner as immediately
necessary:


F to save the life of the pregnant
woman (section 1(4))


G to prevent grave permanent injury
to the physical or mental health of
the pregnant woman (section 1(4))

So, if we look at the above reasons, we can see the circumstances under which you're allowed have an abortion in the UK.

98% are based on option C.

the pregnancy has not exceeded its
twenty-fourth week and that the
continuance of the pregnancy
would involve risk, greater than if
the pregnancy were terminated, of
injury to the physical or mental
health of the pregnant woman

This is the claim made by most women who get an abortion.

Do the pro-choice people believe that the majority of women who get an abortion really do risk injury to their physical or mental health that is greater than if they carried the pregnancy to term?

My experience tells me that people take the piss with this loophole. But that's my opinion. It's not more valid than anyone else's. But I'm curious as to whether people think most women really, genuinely fall intot his category.

Dragan

eveie wrote: »

thedydal ive heard statistics that are not in line with the ones you gave now i am not saying that your ones are false but there is some mis-leading information our there, however the statistics ive heard may be wrong

I work with statistics to make my bread and butter. You either make them up or they are right.

It's advisable to check sources very well with these things tbh.

tallaght01

Dragan wrote: »

I'd like to see some links or numbers around how long these kids end up waiting around, how many moves from foster homes, later mental health etc.

Why? Because i'm curious. Any links would be appreciated.

Also, i see nothing wrong with adoption or foster care, perfect options for those who want it.

You wouldn't believe how little exists in the way of proper government stats on fostered and adopted kids. It's shocking. They're not a powerful lobby. They have no political sway, and they're not a trendy group to be associated with, so there's no real interest in them, though that has been changing a bit over the last few years. But not much, sadly.

eveie

your opinion is right and no one can argue with it, countless women have abrotions where there is no risk to thier health be it physical or mental.

tallaght01

eveie wrote: »

your opinion is right and no one can argue with it, countless women have abrotions where there is no risk to thier health be it physical or mental.

That's a very entrenched stance.

Of course people can argue with it. Maybe it's better to have a loophole like this than to allow women who will be mentally damaged by their birth carry a baby to term? How do we police the "risk of mental illness" criterion too?

All difficult questions, unfortunately.

JC 2K3

eveie wrote: »

can i just say some arguments here are ridiclious, i mean a baby would talk more sense
"Well, that's not what you said in what I quoted, and if humans can decide that animals are ok to kill, why can't they decide that unborn humans are too?" jc2k3
now come on!!!!!! what seperates us from animals is that we have a conscience, wanna argue with that one too? an animal will eat its own ****, will kill for survival, will piss up against your leg, it doesnt have a conscience, and if you argue that we are no better then animals then you can let out all the rapist, murderers, abusers etc from prision because we must not have a conscience therefore we know not what we did

I would, but I've had enough of this thread at this stage, and while an external observer might not agree with my views, they certainly would be able to take them seriously, with you I'm not so sure about that. I'd advise you to argue in a more calm and rational fashion and without putting words in others' mouths.

Nevyn

Really eveie can you cite studies that show that continuing an unwanted pregnany has no ill effects what so ever on a woman ?

Dragan

eveie wrote: »

your opinion is right and no one can argue with it, countless women have abrotions where there is no risk to thier health be it physical or mental.

Now that my dear is what we call a leap of logic.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Course I dont think women are stupid

I never said you think women, in general, are stupid.

Your posts strongly implied that you think some women are either too stupid or too lazy to bother using contraception, and as such they shouldn't have an abortion simply because they were stupid/lazy to take responsibility the first time round. Abortion should be used as a form of contraception! and all that jazz.

Is that an incorrect representation of your position?

CDfm wrote: »

Early or late abortions all boil down to one thing. When you see foetus I see baby

Well that depends on your definition of "baby". Most uses of the term that I'm aware of imply a stage in human develop after birth, but if you want to call a zygote a "baby" I'm not going to stop you. Its rather immaterial, only someone arguing from a position of emotion would think that the term "baby" has a lot of relevant. If you think the zygote is a baby then I'm all for killing babies.

CDfm wrote: »

What Im saying there are loads of contraceptive options available up to and including the morning after pill and loads of ways of having sex that wont result in pregnancy.

The term pro-choice and the way you use it is pro baby killing so you can do what you want just dont kill any babies OK.

Well yes, but "pro-baby-killing.com" was already taken, so we had to go with pro-choice.

eveie

ok please do not shoot me down here, but are there any statistics available for this argument that many women will face mental problems if they go through with the birth,i know a women who becomes pregnant through incest/rape will face serious mental implications but how about a women who is just shell we say "un-lucky"
as in is the reprocushions of giving birth greater then the reprocushions after a termination

eveie

thedydal im looking for that evidence. but if you try to deny that many women have abortions because its just not the right time or crap i dont wanna ruin my figure well then i dont see how that can be considered mental issues.
jc2k3 i havent put words in anyones mouth although many have mis represented me

Malari

eveie wrote: »

ok please do not shoot me down here, but are there any statistics available for this argument that many women will face mental problems if they go through with the birth,i know a women who becomes pregnant through incest/rape will face serious mental implications but how about a women who is just shell we say "un-lucky"
as in is the reprocushions of giving birth greater then the reprocushions after a termination

There are some studies, but have shown conflicting results. Also they are hard to come by for obvious reasons and often misquoted. The Canadian Medical Journal did a quick review a few years ago: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/168/10/1257.pdf and found that there was no psychological effect in women with 1st trimester abortions.

tallaght01

eveie wrote: »

thedydal im looking for that evidence. but if you try to deny that many women have abortions because its just not the right time or crap i dont wanna ruin my figure well then i dont see how that can be considered mental issues.
jc2k3 i havent put words in anyones mouth although many have mis represented me

You won't find any good evidence to answer that question one way or the other.

There was a paper a few years ago where women anonymously answered questionnaires long after their abortion, and were asked genuinely whether they believed their state of mind would have been compromised. Lots said no. But it was a really small study, and questionnaire studies make very unreliable evidence.

I think many women will undergo a lot of trauma by having a baby. But to say the trauma would be more than that of having an abortion suggests to me that many of them haven't really thought that through.

seamus

eveie wrote: »

as in is the reprocushions of giving birth greater then the reprocushions after a termination

Repercussions of giving birth:
Possibility of physical disfigurement, requiring surgery and recovery period
Reduced Libido
Increase in personal costs, both in terms of time and money
Increased stress
Reduced rest

Repercussions of termination
Remote chance of infertility

Feel free to add. Let's ignore any "mental anguish" argument, because they differ wildly from person to person and situation to situation.

tallaght01

Malari wrote: »

There are some studies, but have shown conflicting results. Also they are hard to come by for obvious reasons and often misquoted. The Canadian Medical Journal did a quick review a few years ago: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/168/10/1257.pdf and found that there was no psychological effect in women with 1st trimester abortions.

That paper was just an opinion piece.

They've also misrepresented the stance of, for eg, the surgeon general of america. They seem to be interpreting

"There is no good evidence. The best we have only follows women for 2 years post-abortion. A proper study would require about 100 million dollars and a huge support staff to pull off, so we really can't make any conclusions about the mental health of these women" (my summary/my words).....as

"There are no adverse mental health effects on women who have had 1st trimester abortions".

Malari

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think many women will undergo a lot of trauma by having a baby. But to say the trauma would be more than that of having an abortion suggests to me that many of them haven't really thought that through.

I don't know if that's quite fair. Most women have to think about the consequences of becoming pregnant and if they don't want to have a baby an unplanned pregnancy would be traumatic. An abortion early on in the pregnancy must, in many circumstances, be less traumatic for these women than carrying a pregnancy to term.

tallaght01

seamus wrote: »

Let's ignore any "mental anguish" argument, because they differ wildly from person to person and situation to situation.

I can't believe someone has actually said that. And then added the "increased stress" and "reduced libido" tags tot he pregnancy population!

Malari

tallaght01 wrote: »

That paper was just an opinion piece.

They've also misrepresented the stance of, for eg, the surgeon general of america. They seem to be interpreting

"There is no good evidence. The best we have only follows women for 2 years post-abortion. A proper study would require about 100 million dollars and a huge support staff to pull off, so we really can't make any conclusions about the mental health of these women" (my summary/my words).....as

"There are no adverse mental health effects on women who have had 1st trimester abortions".

I didn't say it was hard and fast evidence. It was compiling the few studies that were there, and found them inconclusive. But as they mention, unless you randomly select a group of women who become unintentionally pregnant and force half of them to carry to term and half to have abortions, you will never get a proper sample.