Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Sarky

You're lying, christmas2012. Stop lying.

eviltwin

christmas2012 wrote: »

and eviltwin NO you dont get pain medication all you get is concious sedation i hate to burst your abortion bubble..

I'm speaking from experience, I had an abortion in 2008. I was sedated but I chose to be and yes I was offered pain medication, it was left for me in a little cup beside my bed along with a jug of water but I guess you would say I imagined that :rolleyes:

old hippy

christmas2012 wrote: »

and eviltwin NO you dont get pain medication all you get is concious sedation i hate to burst your abortion bubble..

LIES :mad:

Bannasidhe

christmas2012 wrote: »

and eviltwin NO you dont get pain medication all you get is concious sedation i hate to burst your abortion bubble..

What part of 'I had an abortion in a UK clinic. I was asked making the appointment if I wanted to be awake or sedated. It was my choice and made no difference to the cost.' did you not understand?

eviltwin has lived through this and you have the audacity to tell her what happened to her?

Have you had an abortion?

Sonics2k

Basically christmas2012 right now

christmas2012

I have went over to the UK myself,and know all about it,even rang around a few places looked up 'options' too,and if you knew about the procedure you would know a lot more in detail the horror and pain of the procedure..Its not some little fantasy abortion,where everything is a-ok,its real its horrific and it has you in a lot of pain afterwards,in the UK,there not regular doctors there abortionists,they dont do general anaethetic its illegal for them to do so,they do a form of sedation it is called conscious sedation..And NO you dont get pain medication afterwards,i know a lot of people who like to claim they have had abortions and you know what i think it is SICK.

aidan24326

Zillah wrote: »

The rights of a living, breathing, thinking human being with a personality vs the rights of a minuscule blob of goo with no more sentience than my phone. This is an easy choice for me. I think early term abortions should be entirely at the woman's discretion.

But again, where does the line get drawn? Define 'early term'?

I agree that a very early embryo is effectively a blob of goo, yet you and I were that same blob of goo once.

Every person is a unique combination of DNA from two parents, and you only get one chance to be here. So with abortion you're removing the only chance that person (in the potential sense) ever had or ever will have of experiencing human life.

BTW I'm still pro-choice and not anti-abortion but I do think there's a case to be argued on both sides, and it's not quite as simple as saying 'a woman can do whatever she likes with her body'.

Was the 5 month old foetus me? Was the 5 year old kid me? The 10 year old kid? Seen as the actual matter that makes up my body and mind now is almost entirely different and I'm only the same person in the continuity sense (except bone marrow I think). Until we define what actually makes a person a person then we can't even begin to tackle the abortion issue. I think it's a question that doesn't really have a right answer one way or the other.

Some people would argue that it's fine to abort a 6 week embryo but not a 6 month foetua but if you think about it there's no really good reason why that should be the case. One may be sentient and the other perhaps isn't but then again humans have never really considered sentience when it comes to killing things.

Mark Hamill

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If women has the choice to opt-in or opt-out without any repercussions to their health that would be wonderful but we don't

Women do opt in, they opt to have sex, they just try to change the odds of the outcome of that sex.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

just as we don't have the technology you refer to so I don't really see the point of 'what if' tbh.

Well you claim (in that post) a baby is not the same as a foetus because its dependence can be transferred to anyone. I am asking if we could do the same with a foetus, would they be equivalent? Do you think we could never get to the stage where we could transfer a foetus from one person to another?

old hippy

christmas2012 wrote: »

I have went over to the UK myself,and know all about it,even rang around a few places looked up 'options' too,and if you knew about the procedure you would know a lot more in detail the horror and pain of the procedure..Its not some little fantasy abortion,where everything is a-ok,its real its horrific and it has you in a lot of pain afterwards,in the UK,there not regular doctors there abortionists,they dont do general anaethetic its illegal for them to do so,they do a form of sedation it is called conscious sedation..And NO you dont get pain medication afterwards,i know a lot of people who like to claim they have had abortions and you know what i think it is SICK.

How dare you.

You've been told but you persist with your mistruths and scaremongering. How fecking dare you?

eviltwin

christmas2012 wrote: »

I have went over to the UK myself,and know all about it,even rang around a few places looked up 'options' too,and if you knew about the procedure you would know a lot more in detail the horror and pain of the procedure..Its not some little fantasy abortion,where everything is a-ok,its real its horrific and it has you in a lot of pain afterwards,in the UK,there not regular doctors there abortionists,they dont do general anaethetic its illegal for them to do so,they do a form of sedation it is called conscious sedation..And NO you dont get pain medication afterwards,i know a lot of people who like to claim they have had abortions and you know what i think it is SICK.

Who did you ring?

For the record I did have an abortion, I'm not lying, my post history will show that. I've always spoken about it openly since the day I joined boards.

And just to add I had it done in a bog standard NHS clinic, not some high end private place where they have a higher standard of care.

Sonics2k

christmas2012 wrote: »

not regular doctors there abortionists,they dont do general anaethetic its illegal for them to do so,

http://www.bpas.org/bpasknowledge.php?page=164

Says right here they give you a general anesthetic.

doctoremma

christmas2012 wrote: »

Thats bullsh!t of the first order,tell me after you have had your abortion those facts,you only get concious sedation as they are not legally allowed to put any woman under general anaesthetic for the procedure they are abortionists and not qualified to do so

I'm sorry but this is quite simply not true. I hope it is from ignorance rather than dishonesty.

General anaesthetic is always given as a option. In fact, most BPAS abortions are carried out under general.

Abortion clinics employ trained anaesthetists/anaesthesia nurses for this job.

"Abortionists" are more usually referred to by clinical speciality, usually gynaecology.

christmas2012 wrote: »

and NO i know first hand you dont get pain medication after wards, i know this for a fact and if you research any clinic in the UK ,you will know this also

Again, not true. Again, I hope from ignorance rather than dishonesty.

Bannasidhe

christmas2012 wrote: »

I have went over to the UK myself,and know all about it,even rang around a few places looked up 'options' too,and if you knew about the procedure you would know a lot more in detail the horror and pain of the procedure..Its not some little fantasy abortion,where everything is a-ok,its real its horrific and it has you in a lot of pain afterwards,in the UK,there not regular doctors there abortionists,they dont do general anaethetic its illegal for them to do so,they do a form of sedation it is called conscious sedation..And NO you dont get pain medication afterwards,i know a lot of people who like to claim they have had abortions and you know what i think it is SICK.

You 'rang some places' and they told you no sedation, no painkillers, half dead babbies are allowed to suffocate plopped on a table? Riiigggghhhhhtttt.

Did you make these phone calls before 1967 by any chance?

What is sick is your determination to ignore people's life experiences to push your lies.

Mark Hamill

christmas2012 wrote: »

i know this for a fact and if you research any clinic in the UK ,you will know this also

Should be easy for you to link to some clinic websites with the relevant information then?

christmas2012

There is NO mistruth in saying 1. they use concious sedation

2. no pain relief
3. foetus can get torn inside you or intact left on a table to die for hours

4. risk of infection and miscarriage later in life
5. it is a horribly invasive and painful procedure

robindch

Folks --

Look, I really don't want to spend my day removing inflammatory text from this thread and it was doing so well until a short while ago.

My options are: (A) keep on deleting unhelpful stuff -- hey, I've got a real job and real schedules! (B) deleting unhelpful posts and putting up with people's subsequent unhappiness; (C) shutting the thread down; or (D) keep on asking people to keep a lid on it as best they can and dropping in from time to time to make sure that things are in order.

So far, a combo of (a) + (d) has been mostly working. I'd prefer to avoid (b) but it looks like I'm going to have to. And I'll resort to (d) when it finally spirals out of control as it looks like it might.

Can people please try to debate this topic as calmly as possible?

Here's the rule: If you don't have something positive or at least not unhelpful to contribute, then please keep yer hands in yer cotton-pickin' pockets.

iguana

christmas2012 wrote: »

First off there not fevered imaginings,it looks like its you whos running off on the keyboard..Look them up if you dont believe me..Just because it doesnt sit with your worldview doesnt mean you get to discredit the truth of the situation..

I have looked them up and posted the actual facts on this thread in response to you. But you have of course ignored all of that in favour of continuing to rant a whole load of out and out nonsense.

Honestly christmas, any point that you have to make will never, ever be taken seriously while you carry on like you do on any abortion thread I've ever seen you post on. As soon as people read the first few lines of what is quite clearly nonsense they will dismiss anything else you have to say immediately. You are seriously underestimating the people who are posting here or on the other forums, for the most part we know what's factual and what isn't and when we don't know, we know how to find out. (And I'm including posters like Professore and Sin City, etc, here, not just posters who I am in agreement with.) You on the other hand have either had an unusual experience which has left you with some messed up ideas of what other people go through or you have been badly taken in by the lies that some pro-life organisations put about.

For some reason I suspect that you have had an abortion in the past and have never been able to come to terms with it. Or else someone close to you has and you don't 'forgive' them. I suggest that maybe you might benefit from counselling of some sort, especially if it is you who had the bad experience, there are plenty of free options out there if you need them. But if you want to stand any chance of making people understand your viewpoint you will need to change tack. If you have a story to tell that you think will make an impact on how others will view this issue, then consider telling that. Or if you don't have a story, or don't want to tell it, then go do some research and make your arguments based on how things are, not on how you imagine them to be. Because the fact is most of what you post as fact is complete nonsense.

UDP

christmas2012 wrote: »

I have went over to the UK myself,and know all about it,even rang around a few places looked up 'options' too,and if you knew about the procedure you would know a lot more in detail the horror and pain of the procedure..Its not some little fantasy abortion,where everything is a-ok,its real its horrific and it has you in a lot of pain afterwards,in the UK,there not regular doctors there abortionists,they dont do general anaethetic its illegal for them to do so,they do a form of sedation it is called conscious sedation..And NO you dont get pain medication afterwards,i know a lot of people who like to claim they have had abortions and you know what i think it is SICK.

How are you to know who had an abortion or not so who are you to call them sick.

The information is presented to those making the decision. Its not sugar coated. See what the NHS say here:
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortion/Pages/How-is-it-performed.aspx
The amount of pain according that page varies according to the stage of the pregnancy the abortion happens.

It clearly states that General Anaesthetic is used during certain procedures which clearly shows that you are wrong in saying that they do not use it as they are not doctors but "abortionists".

Bannasidhe

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Women do opt in, they opt to have sex, they just try to change the odds of the outcome of that sex.


Well you claim (in that post) a baby is not the same as a foetus because its dependence can be transferred to anyone. I am asking if we could do the same with a foetus, would they be equivalent? Do you think we could never get to the stage where we could transfer a foetus from one person to another?

So having sex = pregnancy (have I wandered back into a gay marriage debate by accident?).
By choosing to do one, one is also choosing to do the other?
Does this apply only to women... will men's bodies endure anything similar by way of a consequence of choosing to have sex?

As I said - I can have all the sex I want as no sperm is involved. If I get pregnant due to sex I assure you - I will not have chosen to have sex with that person.

The point was made that there is no difference between an embyro and a new born. Yes there is. That is what I was responding to.

robindch

MagicMarker - that's one post of your toasted four minutes after my most recent warning.

This thread will be shut down if any significant level of unhelpful posts appear from now on.

For the avoidance of doubt, that includes personal comments, whines, moaning, finger-pointing, finger-wagging or anything that's designed, intentionally or unintentionally, to get somebody's goat up.

Gongoozler

It's hard to believe that abortion would be ever voted in by the country, especially considering the last census showed something like 84% still call themselves Roman Catholics.

It may have been in AH, can't quite remember where I read it, but the statistics for UK abortions showed that the amount of abortions on (is that the right word?) women from Ireland was only a fraction of abortions on those actually resident in the UK. Now this is obviously going to happen, but my point being that you can't really make the argument that more abortions wouldn't happen if it was available here. Just sayin like.

I agree that it should be available here btw. I just suppose I'd hate to see teen pregnancy become a major issue, as is in the UK. As to whether or not the availability of abortion is a contributing factor to that, I have no idea.

Zillah

christmas2012 wrote: »

I have went over to the UK myself,and know all about it,even rang around a few places looked up 'options' too,and if you knew about the procedure you would know a lot more in detail the horror and pain of the procedure..Its not some little fantasy abortion,where everything is a-ok,its real its horrific and it has you in a lot of pain afterwards,in the UK,there not regular doctors there abortionists,they dont do general anaethetic its illegal for them to do so,they do a form of sedation it is called conscious sedation..And NO you dont get pain medication afterwards,i know a lot of people who like to claim they have had abortions and you know what i think it is SICK.

There's something really extraordinary happening here. I'm not sure what, exactly, but it just goes to show that conservatives generally have issues integrating new facts into their world view, with steadily increasing levels of anger and a drop in the veneer of civility.

You get the exact same thing with gay marriage ("I don't mind gay people but they shouldn't redefine marriage" eventually becomes "Filthy queers!"), drug use ("each to their own, but I don't think it should be legalised" eventually degrades to "junkie working-class scum stoners!") and immigration ("I'm concerned about a large influx of unskilled labour flooding the market" turns into "Another bloody Pole behind the counter!"). Apparently with abortion it goes from "But it is dangerous and unpleasant for the mother" to "You people are sick and disgusting stop murdering babies!".

Sin City

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. A new born is reliant. Any adult will do.



And yes - newborns do have personalities who pretty quickly demonstrate they are aware of and interacting with the world -'I'm hungry' - WAAAHHHHH!
'I'm tired- WAAAAHHHH!!!'

Sin City - since you are go determined to protect the unborn, may I ask if you are a pacifist? Does your concern to preserve life extend to the born?

new borns develop personalities , they intialy just react. (or sleep.lol ) yes the right to life does extend to the.unborn .,as for a pacifist , I would like to think I am but I am not naieve enough to think I wouldn't want justice/vengence if someone hurt or killed any of my.loved ones

Bannasidhe

Sin City wrote: »

new borns develop personalities , they intialy just react. (or sleep.lol ) yes the right to life does extend to the.unborn .,as for a pacifist , I would like to think I am but I am not naieve enough to think I wouldn't want justice/vengence if someone hurt or killed any of my.loved ones

I disagree. Having held a number of quite literally newborn babies in my arms they already have personalities. My son was born 'cranky' - 28 years later he's still cranky.

Mark Hamill

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So having sex = pregnancy (have I wandered back into a gay marriage debate by accident?). By choosing to do one, one is also choosing to do the other?

No, pregnancy is just a possible outcome of having sex (with a member of the opposite sex). By choosing to do one, one is (or should) accepting the possibility of the other.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Does this apply only to women... will men's bodies endure anything similar by way of a consequence of choosing to have sex?

No, but not because of any conscious choice made by men, its just biology.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As I said - I can have all the sex I want as no sperm is involved. If I get pregnant due to sex I assure you - I will not have chosen to have sex with that person.

I am only talking about sex between (consenting) heterosexual couples.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The point was made that there is no difference between an embyro and a new born. Yes there is. That is what I was responding to.

But not necessarily in the way presented. Both are absolutely dependent on others. The baby is indiscriminate in its dependence, as its not biologically attached to anyone, while the foetus/embryo is not indiscriminate, as we don't have the technology to transfer foetus. Neither one chooses to be that way, they are dependent, or not, because of unconscious biological actions instigated by someone else.

eviltwin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I disagree. Having held a number of quite literally newborn babies in my arms they already have personalities. My son was born 'cranky' - 28 years later he's still cranky.

Agree. Its not always obvious when they are so small but when they grow up and you look back at how they were in their babyhood often you can see signs of the child they were to become. And no two newborns are the same.

Sin City

Zillah wrote: »

There's something really extraordinary happening here. I'm not sure what, exactly, but it just goes to show that conservatives generally have issues integrating new facts into their world view, with steadily increasing levels of anger and a drop in the veneer of civility.

You get the exact same thing with gay marriage ("I don't mind gay people but they shouldn't redefine marriage" eventually becomes "Filthy queers!"), drug use ("each to their own, but I don't think it should be legalised" eventually degrades to "junkie working-class scum stoners!") and immigration ("I'm concerned about a large influx of unskilled labour flooding the market" turns into "Another bloody Pole behind the counter!"). Apparently with abortion it goes from "But it is dangerous and unpleasant for the mother" to "You people are sick and disgusting stop murdering babies!".

funnily enough I support
gay marraige 100% I have had a few.posts.on that thread

Sin City

eviltwin wrote: »

Agree. Its not always obvious when they are so small but when they grow up and you look back at how they were in their babyhood often you can see signs of the child they were to become. And no two newborns are the same.

still it could.be seen.that there was no personality untill you looked back and inserted a personality to match its reaction

beerbuddy

Stark wrote: »

Dunno what the religious objection is. According to the Bible, an infant under one month old isn't considered a person. Though I guess it helps if you only use the Bible to pick and choose what pieces suit your agenda. Killing newborn babies? That's obviously too ridiculous to be taken literally. Obscure reference to homosexuality? Word of God is absolute.

can you tell us where it says this .....

Penn

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, pregnancy is just a possible outcome of having sex (with a member of the opposite sex). By choosing to do one, one is (or should) accepting the possibility of the other.


No, but not because of any conscious choice made by men, its just biology.


I am only talking about sex between (consenting) heterosexual couples.


But not necessarily in the way presented. Both are absolutely dependent on others. The baby is indiscriminate in its dependence, as its not biologically attached to anyone, while the foetus/embryo is not indiscriminate, as we don't have the technology to transfer foetus. Neither one chooses to be that way, they are dependent, or not, because of unconscious biological actions instigated by someone else.

Mark, I understand your points and you've made them well, but at the same time I think that an important distinction needs to be made in when the foetus becomes a person. People can have sex hundreds of times taking all precautions possible, then the next time using the same precautions, the woman accidentally becomes pregnant. Yes, it's a consequence of their actions, they knew it was a risk etc, but it happened anyway and now they have to deal with it.

But if there is a way out of that, without causing any pain to a body in development (ergo not actually a person yet) which has no discernible rights, then why should that not be allowed?

Again, a key point in this debate is at what point does the fertilised egg become a person? Because in my mind, until it becomes a person, it does not have rights, and provided the abortion can be carried out in such a way that the foetus would not suffer in any measurable way, then no harm has been done.