Baby lives 45 minutes after legal abortion in UK

Stark

It's worth reading this article: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/rick_santorum_and_prenatal_testing_i_would_have_saved_my_son_from_his_suffering_.html before deciding whether it's right or wrong to abort a baby you know is going to be born severely handicapped.

blatantrereg

Seachmall wrote: »

People are entitled to hold racist views, it's when they begin spouting their BS in a way that makes life uncomfortable for others that it crosses the line.

The difference between abortion and being racist is the factor of a person effected by your actions.


And before anyone says it: a clump of cells or tissue is not a person.

But we're not talking about a clump of cells. We're talking about late-term foetuses. IE: foetuses that are as developed as babies. In fact, what provoked the hostile responses was apologism for actual infanticide. It's incorrect to colour someone as reactionary or judgemental for being outraged by such a thing.

sara025

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

MOD

Do the "you should have been aborted" thing again, and I'll ban you.

Ok, fair enough, I'll do a 44leto on it & get my kicks from talking about younger humans being aborted, I get it its not fair to say it about anyone older than...24 weeks old in utero, warning taken on board apologies

prinz

Seachmall wrote: »

The difference between abortion and being racist is the factor of a person effected by your actions..

I don't recall being asked to show how judge's pay affected me personally the last time I voted. Were you? What right have I then to vote on the matter? Not going to get into it much, but I just remember fondly the moment a friend of mine told me I had no right to vote on abortion because I told her I wouldn't support abortion on demand. Democracy, heh. You only have the right of opinion if you agree with us.

44leto

sara025 wrote: »

I'm talking about choosing to abort after the clump of cells & tissue becomes a person...I'm not a pro-choice basher due to believing in life being life before conscious thought etc...I have a background in cell biology I understand how it works

But do have a background in consciousness, because that is really the question, that "clump of cells" is not conscious and hardly human.

Humans are not conscious till we can verbalize our thoughts, as for feeling that is still being debated, 24 weeks is the last i heard.

Ellis Dee

One of the arguments laboured to death by the anti-choice zealots in Ireland used to be "hard cases make bad law". That should be borne in mind in this case as well. Unfortunate, but hardly a typical case. The conclusion to be drawn from it, and something that was known anyway, is that the regulations and procedures applying to something as emotive as abortion need to be constantly monitored and everything possible done to avoid such regrettable albeit exceptional events. However, it should not be used as ammunition by the religious fundamentalists who would love to go back to the days when a pregnant 14-year-old rape victim was effectively "interned" in Ireland.

There seems to be an agenda in the UK right now by some religious nutbars who would like to turn the place into something like 1930s Ireland. But I don't think they'll succeed.:rolleyes:

sara025

44leto wrote: »

But do have a background in consciousness, because that is really the question, that "clump of cells" is not conscious and hardly human.

Humans are not conscious till we can verbalize our thoughts, as for feeling that is still being debated, 24 weeks is the last i heard.

jesus man read back a few steps there would you? It'll save me from having to spell everything out for you...I just said I wasn't a pro-choice basher...this discussion came from the argument of abortion after 24 weeks & your views on infanticide, which is what i don't agree with...I'm not interested in the whole 'life begins at conception' bull

opinion guy

44leto wrote: »

Humans are not conscious till we can verbalize our thoughts

Where did you pull that definition from ? Are you saying mutes, coma patients and all children not yet able to speak aren't human ?

44leto

sara025 Your an oddity, I assume you are a woman and a so called "pro lifer"

I always have these blood curdling exchanges with guys, always guys, then those arguments always descend into pro choice is just another feminist argument.

It is easy for a guy to be pro life, they get to feel good about being on moral high ground, while they will never have to make that choice.

Seachmall

prinz wrote: »

I don't recall being asked to show how judge's pay affected me personally the last time I voted. Were you? What right have I then to vote on the matter? Not going to get into it much, but I just remember fondly the moment a friend of mine told me I had no right to vote on abortion because I told her I wouldn't support abortion on demand. Democracy, heh. You only have the right of opinion if you agree with us.

Laws are primarily there to protect society as a whole or individuals from others.

Suggesting they should be used to enforce the majority's opinion on the minority when it affects nobody but the person opting into the decision is pretty frustrating, democracy or not.

Democracy is obviously the best approach but it gets obnoxious when it's abused to enforce abstract ideologies or morals, even if the majority hold them (think racial segregation and the likes).

I appreciate the idea that laws should be representative of the people, or most of the people, but I don't want 51% of people deciding how I can cut my hair and how I can't.

44leto

opinion guy wrote: »

Where did you pull that definition from ? Are you saying mutes, coma patients and all children not yet able to speak aren't human ?

Mutes can still verbalize their thoughts not using language but as someone coined a term for the mental language "mentalese" they are still conscious with-in. We all use this language with=in our heads, to think solely in language would be to cumbersome and slow. But we verbalize it with meanings and that is consciousness.

Coma patience and people in deep sleep are not conscious, infants have also an awareness but not the one of those that can communicate.

44leto

sara025 wrote: »

jesus man read back a few steps there would you? It'll save me from having to spell everything out for you...I just said I wasn't a pro-choice basher...this discussion came from the argument of abortion after 24 weeks & your views on infanticide, which is what i don't agree with...I'm not interested in the whole 'life begins at conception' bull

That post I gave was a brief history of infanticide in human history, I never really said i was for it.

But you answered very aggressively and I responded.

sara025

44leto wrote: »

sara025 Your an oddity, I assume you are a woman and a so called "pro lifer"

I always have these blood curdling exchanges with guys, always guys, then those arguments always descend into pro choice is just another feminist argument.

It is easy for a guy to be pro life, they get to feel good about being on moral high ground, while they will never have to make that choice.

I couldn't give a sh*t about all these labels, pro-choice, pro-life, feminism...I usually don't argue a side when it comes to these things as I am aware of the many complex avenues each side can go down, like that person a few posts back mentioning the age old 'when a 14 year old gets raped & gets pregnant' argument, and I believe that taking one side in the abortion argument is not entirely possible...

But your opinions on life after 24 weeks in utero & infanticide are what got me started on here...hence my comments on how lucky you were to not be murdered after this stage in your development (note to that mod earlier: thats not another 'comment' on 44leto's mother)...your opinions on infanticide & 'empathy' towards women who do make this decision after 24 weeks is what unsettles me..........need me to explain it any more? Do you get it now that its nothing to do with your 'pro-abortion labels'?

blatantrereg

44leto wrote: »

sara025 Your an oddity, I assume you are a woman and a so called "pro lifer"

I always have these blood curdling exchanges with guys, always guys, then those arguments always descend into pro choice is just another feminist argument.

It is easy for a guy to be pro life, they get to feel good about being on moral high ground, while they will never have to make that choice.

Your trolling skills are well developed. There's zero humour in how you do it though, just a warped delight. Nothing more than an expression of rage really.

cofy

This is absolutely horrifying. My daughter was born prematurely at 26 weeks and survived. This baby could have survived had there been attempts to resuscitate. There were no signs of abnormalities when she was born. Should this not have indicated that there was a problem with the diagnosis?

44leto

sara025 wrote: »

I couldn't give a sh*t about all these labels, pro-choice, pro-life, feminism...I usually don't argue a side when it comes to these things as I am aware of the many complex avenues each side can go down, like that person a few posts back mentioning the age old 'when a 14 year old gets raped & gets pregnant' argument, and I believe that taking one side in the abortion argument is not entirely possible...

But your opinions on life after 24 weeks in utero & infanticide are what got me started on here...hence my comments on how lucky you were to not be murdered after this stage in your development (note to that mod earlier: thats not another 'comment' on 44leto's mother)...your opinions on infanticide & 'empathy' towards women who do make this decision after 24 weeks is what unsettles me..........need me to explain it any more? Do you get it now that its nothing to do with your 'pro-abortion labels'?

See above this post and I wasn't really insulted by YORE MA comment, so at this stage i agree to differ.

cassi

sara025 wrote: »

So you have empathy for other murderous minded people...what a man you are.
Anyway, what you said about 'not knowing any different if your mother did the right thing deed while pregnant with you'...that hardly makes it ok, jesus you could say that about everyone who gets murdered, they hardly know anything about it after they're dead do they? You need a better response than that if you want to justify calling yourself Pro-choice.

I think you are just mad at not being able to partake in murder without being sent to prison...I bet you think every day "damn, why couldn't I be born a woman!"

Jes, talk about an over-reaction!

44leto

blatantrereg wrote: »

You're trolling skills are well developed. There's zero humour in how you do it though, just a warped delight. Nothing more than an expression of rage really.

HUH

What on earth is trolling in that post you quoted I am just giving an opinion based on my experience.

But you do seem to troll me. Do you know you can turn my comment off and you will never have to read them.

You should do that. That is just a suggestion and not meant to be humerous, or enrage you.

suicide_circus

44leto wrote: »

Humans are not conscious till we can verbalize our thoughts

Ehh....
So a baby of 2 who cant verbalisze yet has no consciousness? Or a person who is dumb (unable to speak) is not conscious?

sara025

My girl was in ICU for weeks after she was born only 8 weeks premature, I remember a baby being in who was born at 26 weeks, incredibly tiny, its obvious this baby had very similar 'feelings' 'emotions' 'consciousness' whatever people want to call it, as she was upset & comforted just like a newborn would be, responded to touch/sound etc...but there are people out there who make themselves feel better by putting those things down to being 'just reflexes'.

I think the longer we let lives be taken after 24 weeks the more desensitised we become to human life being taken

opinion guy

44leto wrote: »

Coma patience and people in deep sleep are not conscious,

Not true. Advanced imaging studies in recent years have shown that many of them are aware of what is going on around them.

infants have also an awareness but not the one of those that can communicate.

Don't avoid the issue. Do you consider them human ?

sara025

cassi wrote: »

Jes, talk about an over-reaction!

It was sarcasm cassi, chill

blatantrereg

44leto wrote: »

HUH

What on earth is trolling in that post you quoted I am just giving an opinion based on my experience.

But you do seem to troll me. Do you know you can turn my comment off and you will never have to read them.

You should do that. That is just a suggestion and not meant to be humerous, or enrage you.

You're twisting things and trying to provoke people in a subtle manner. You're doing this to try to make them look foolish.

sara025

44leto wrote: »

See above this post and I wasn't really insulted by YORE MA comment, so at this stage i agree to differ.

Right....

I'm not really sure what you're going on about any more to be honest...I'm not sure you do either...hence the trolling comment...maybe we should leave it at that...It'd make me weary arguing in circles with you

44leto

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ehh....
So a baby of 2 who cant verbalisze yet has no consciousness? Or a person who is dumb (unable to speak) is not conscious?

Just because you can't speak does not mean you can't communicate on the outside and on the inside, in a maturing brain you acquire that, you are not born with it, but it will occur naturally and with nurture it will develop normally.

A baby of 2 would have a developing sense of it and yes would be conscious. Dolphins even have it, but other animals do not.

sara025

44leto wrote: »

Just because you can't speak does not mean you can't communicate on the outside and on the inside, in a maturing brain you acquire that, you are not born with it, but it will occur naturally and with nurture it will develop normally.

A baby of 2 would have a developing sense of it and yes would be conscious. Dolphins even have it, but other animals do not.

???!!! lol, this just gets better & better

44leto

opinion guy wrote: »

Not true. Advanced imaging studies in recent years have shown that many of them are aware of what is going on around them.

some are it depend on what part of the brain was affected it is like when you are asleep, you are not conscious but you are still aware of your surrounds.

Don't avoid the issue. Do you consider them human ?

I didn't realise that was the issue but off course they are human. are they human in the womb not quite they are still very much part of the womans body, be it with a separate genes.

Seachmall

sara025 wrote: »

???!!! lol, this just gets better & better

If you have a response to 44leto's post I'd love to hear it.

What defines a person is a debate that's been going on for many years, 44leto's argument is a pretty substantial one in that debate, so if you can answer it I'm sure we'd all love to hear what you have to say.

Or are your irritating posts because you're not quite sure what's going on?

sara025

Seachmall wrote: »

If you have a response to 44leto's post I'd love to hear it.

What defines a person is a debate that's been going on for many years, 44leto's argument is a pretty substantial one in that debate, so if you can answer it I'm sure we'd all love to hear what you have to say.

Or are your irritating posts because you're not quite sure what's going on?

Well yes, as I said earlier I am unsure as to what 44leto is going on about anymore as I am sure he doesn't really know either...I have yet to get a response from him regarding this question...but seeing as you are so close to his ar*se maybe you can enlighten me as to all things 44leto?

philologos

Seachmall: You are a clump of cells also. I guess you're not a person either.

bluewolf: Life as a general concept began before conception. Life in the case of a particular human life, begins at conception. Surely this is hardly a fantastic argument. You're simply obscuring the general and the particular.

Seachmall

sara025 wrote: »

Well yes, as I said earlier I am unsure as to what 44leto is going on about anymore as I am sure he doesn't really know either...I have yet to get a response from him regarding this question...but seeing as you are so close to his ar*se maybe you can enlighten me as to all things 44leto?

You have such a way with words.


On a basic level we're only animals, that's obvious. I believe 44leto is questioning on what basis do we distinguish ourselves from other animals and do those distinguishing characteristics apply to the unborn?

Most people when asked would talk about consciousness, self-awareness, the ability to comprehend abstract ideas and the ability to communicate those ideas. They can be argued to be valid distinguishing characteristics that make a person a person. However is a fetus conscious? Is it self-aware? Can it comprehend abstract ideas? Can it communicate them? So if you take those arguments how do you then extend them to a fetus? If you don't accept those arguments than what other arguments are there? Do they extend to a fetus?

At least that's what I think 44leto is getting at.

philologos,
Actually I'm an organism that consists of clumps of cells.

sara025

Seachmall wrote: »

However is a fetus conscious? Is it self-aware? Can it comprehend abstract ideas? Can it communicate them? So if you take those arguments how do you then extend them to a fetus? If you don't accept those arguments than what other arguments are there? Do they extend to a fetus?

So in that regard the difference between a newborn and a 24+ week foetus is...?

My main argument with 44leto was (as I said many times earlier) he hasn't distinguished the difference in his opinion on the killing of a foetus at 24+ weeks (abortion) and a newborn (infanticide)

philologos

Seachmall: I still don't get the distinction that you're trying to make. A foetus also is an organism as far as I can tell.

It seems like you pick an arbitrary point at which you decide that life is actually significant. Likewise, I could decide that life only becomes significant when you can juggle 562 oranges while playing the xylophone whilst riding a unicycle. That to me could be the clear point when a person really exists.

It's irrelevant in so far as we know when human life begins and ends biologically.

Seachmall

sara025 wrote: »

So in that regard the difference between a newborn and a 24+ week foetus is...?

That's the question.

philologos wrote:

I still don't get the distinction that you're trying to make. A foetus also is an organism as far as I can tell.

Yes, they are. My "clump of cells" comment was (preemptively) addressing abortion in general. I have no opinion on/no idea when they could be classified as a "person". But I think it's more complicated than when they become an organism, although they do become human at that stage and would, in my opinion, inherit a right to live. I don't know when that stage is though, I'm guessing it's 20+ weeks.

It seems like you pick an arbitrary point at which you decide that life is actually significant. Likewise, I could decide that life only becomes significant when you can juggle 562 oranges while playing the xylophone whilst riding a unicycle. That to me could be the clear point when a person really exists.

It's irrelevant in so far as we know when human life begins and ends biologically.

I don't think it's irrelevant, I think the biological definitions are a good starting point as to when an unborn foetus/child may become a person.

I don't think anything before that can be argued soundly.

ed2hands

44leto wrote: »

Humans are not conscious till we can verbalize our thoughts

Is that so doctor 44leto?

:rolleyes:

Oh ffs.

MagicMarker

philologos wrote: »

Life in the case of a particular human life, begins at conception.

In your opinion.

philologos

^^ It's biological that that is the case. It's when an individual grows, and develops to birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death. It's an appropriate place to start.

It would be honest for the pro-choice lobby to accept that abortion is essentially killing an unborn human life.

sara025

Seachmall wrote: »

That's the question...

Um..no question there when we are talking about our regard for human life...At 24 weeks I could feel baby somersault and stretch its legs and arms inside me...start kicking in response to my husbands voice after not hearing him all day...get startled at sudden loud noises...calm with the kicking when I rubbed a foot, her back or whatever lumpy bit was protruding past my ribs etc...So she cant speak yet (she will cry out as soon as she is born), I have not seen her in the flesh...so I should assume she is not a conscious being...that if I kill her at this stage it is not taking a human life in the same way as infanticide?

That (after all the bullsh*t back & forwards insults) is what I have been saying from the start...and what 44leto cannot seem to answer...hence the trolling I assume he is guilty of.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

^^ It's biological that that is the case. It's when an individual grows, and develops to birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death. It's an appropriate place to start.

It would be honest for the pro-choice lobby to accept that abortion is essentially killing an unborn human life.

Saying it's a person or human at conception is biologically incorrect and disingenuous.

Yes, it can develop into a human but it is not a human. The same way a child can develop into an adult but if you kill a 5 year old you have not killed an adult.

@sara025,
It's the question I posed in the post you responded to.

You asked me to clarify what I believed 44leto's point to be and I did. I'm not here to argue his points.

Amalgam

There's material on YouTube with a doctor casually pointing out the various organs and a (seemingly) beating heart (the skin is just a tad translucent at that point), to a student I think, the aborted fetus\foetus\baby is in a kidney dish, with signs of life.

Utterly utterly grim viewing, pro choice or not. One of those clips you wish you could 'unview'.

MagicMarker

philologos wrote: »

^^ It's biological that that is the case. It's when an individual grows, and develops to birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death. It's an appropriate place to start.

It would be honest for the pro-choice lobby to accept that abortion is essentially killing an unborn human life.

Just because you put the word ''biological'' in your post doesn't make it anything more than just your opinion.

sara025

MagicMarker wrote: »

In your opinion.

MagicMarker wrote: »

doesn't make it anything more than just your opinion.

Yes MagicMarker, I'm sure we all know at this stage that these are each our own individual opinions...we don't really need to start every sentence with "In my opinion..." do we?

Seachmall

sara025 wrote: »

Yes MagicMarker, I'm sure we all know at this stage that these are each our own individual opinions...we don't really need to start every sentence with "In my opinion..." do we?

Well, it helps to distinguish between

• Human life does not start at conception (biological fact)

And

• Human life does start at conception (opinion)

sara025

Amalgam wrote: »

There's material on YouTube with a doctor casually pointing out the various organs and a (seemingly) beating heart (the skin is just a tad translucent at that point), to a student I think, the aborted fetus\foetus\baby is in a kidney dish, with signs of life.

Utterly utterly grim viewing, pro choice or not. One of those clips you wish you could 'unview'.

yeah... don't go looking for stuff like that online, its gruesome!
I don't know how pictures/videos of things like that can be put up so publicly without major outcry over our ability to take a life and get away with it like nothing is wrong

Seachmall

Seachmall wrote: »

sara025 wrote: »

Yes MagicMarker, I'm sure we all know at this stage that these are each our own individual opinions...we don't really need to start every sentence with "In my opinion..." do we?

Well, it helps to distinguish between

• Human life does not start at conception (biological fact)

And

• Human life does start at conception (opinion)

What ? When does it start then ? Hardly rocket science here ?

MagicMarker

sara025 wrote: »

Yes MagicMarker, I'm sure we all know at this stage that these are each our own individual opinions...we don't really need to start every sentence with "In my opinion..." do we?

He was very clearly expressing his opinion as fact, I was just reminding him that it's not.

Seachmall

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

What ? When does it start then ? Hardly rocket science here ?

When it becomes an organism.

I'm not sure of the exact week but it's definitely not at conception.

philologos

I don't see how it is "biologically incorrect" to say that life begins when growth is first exhibited. Let me know how. I don't see why we should have a different criteria for human life over other forms of life. Even the term "foetus" in Latin means "young one".

It is a human life from that point on. Unless you're saying that what is dead, grows and develops towards birth, and ultimately death. The argument simply doesn't hold together.

I think the pro-choice side of this argument should be open and honest about what they are actually asking for. That is the right to put an unborn child to death.

sara025

Seachmall wrote: »

Well, it helps to distinguish between

• Human life does not start at conception (biological fact)

And

• Human life does start at conception (opinion)

And at what stage in your many years of medical training & research did you come up with the 'biological fact' that human life does not start at conception? I mean conception is the fertilisation of the human egg by the human sperm therefore can be argued as being human...but a human being can be referred to as an embryo that has made it to the stage of foetus...I have a feeling you are looking to argue everything I say/respond to everyone I quote, as opposed to having a non-vague, seperate opinion of your own

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how it is "biologically incorrect" to say that life begins when growth is first exhibited. Let me know how. I don't see why we should have a different criteria for human life over other forms of life. Even the term "foetus" in Latin means "young one".

It is a human life from that point on. Unless you're saying that what is dead, grows and develops towards birth, and ultimately death. The argument simply doesn't hold together.

I think the pro-choice side of this argument should be open and honest about what they are actually asking for. That is the right to put an unborn child to death.

Are you against the morning after pill then ?