Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Dave!

I don't have particularly strong views on this, think I need to educate myself a bit more on the medical/biological side of things.

My current thinking is that I don't think there's a "person" automatically created at the point of conception, but obviously after 9 months what comes out is a person, so at some point within the 9 months in the womb the bunch of cells becomes human enough that we have to afford it rights. Where that line is, I don't know, but it means that in principle I'm pro-choice; there are certainly a few weeks at the start of a pregnancy where you don't have anything that qualifies as a person.

Morgase

Dave! wrote: »

I don't have particularly strong views on this, think I need to educate myself a bit more on the medical/biological side of things.

My current thinking is that I don't think there's a "person" automatically created at the point of conception, but obviously after 9 months what comes out is a person, so at some point within the 9 months in the womb the bunch of cells becomes human enough that we have to afford it rights. Where that line is, I don't know, but it means that in principle I'm pro-choice; there are certainly a few weeks at the start of a pregnancy where you don't have anything that qualifies as a person.

That's a very good point, I think that a lot of people just don't understand development. Not through any real fault of their own, I didn't really know much about it until I did a developmental biology module at college.

Penn

Personally, I'd draw the line at where a foetus is old enough to feel pain, which I think is at around the 20 or 21 week mark. Before that, while there is some semblance of brain activity in terms of controlling the organs, I don't believe the foetus is "alive" enough to be considered a person.

So I would say that until the 20 week mark, the rights of the mother would trump the rights of the foetus and that the foetus has not yet reached a stage where is could be considered to be a different person to the mother.

professore

joseph brand wrote: »

Exactly.

I have no intention of getting a tattoo. Other people want them. Go ahead.
Same with piercings. Not my thing. Who am I to judge?

Those above examples affect only the person making the decision. They don't affect a defenceless third party.

Gurgle

MagicMarker wrote: »

So why is it okay to kill a human being under extreme circumstances such as rape (I assume this is the kind of circumstance you refer to) but it's not okay under other circumstances? Surely it's not the human being's fault that it was conceived because of a rape?

(Don's flame retardant overcoat)
I don't accept rape as a circumstance where abortion should be an option.

Only where there is a real medical danger to the mother's life or where the baby has no chance of surviving.

Whats missing from the whole system in this country is a working adoption service. Also counseling and sex education. And all forms of contraception should be easily and cheaply available.

-edit- actually, everything is missing except for over-zealous advocates for both sides

(Yes, I'm intractably stuck on this point. Yes, I know people who have had abortions. Yes, I understand why. No, I don't judge them for it.)

professore

Zamboni wrote: »

Just because something shares the odd characteristic does not mean it's the same. By that logic I can say that you are the same as a 2 month old baby because you both have noses. Your logic is flawed.

Not the same thing at all. They clearly do not share the "odd characteristic". In terms of self awareness they are identical.

Point out the differences then between a 2 month old fetus and a 2 month old baby that gives one a right to life and the other not.

professore

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why do you see no difference between a baby and an 8 week old fetus, but a 7 year old fetus is okay to abort?

What's the difference between a 7 week old fetus and an 8 week old fetus?

Conceptually, very little. However a line has to be drawn somewhere or we're back to "Every sperm is sacred".

UDP

professore wrote: »

Point out the differences then between a 2 month old fetus and a 2 month old baby that gives one a right to life and the other not.

The 2 month old fetus cannot live outside of the womb thus is 100% dependant on the mother.

professore

A lot of people on here are just attacking other posters arguments without providing an alternative point of view themselves.

iguana

christmas2012 wrote: »

not everything,and no they dont talk you through it - they ask you for a few hundred sterling before you walk into the clinic to wait for an hour or two the clinics are packed as ever,and not everyone in that room has made the right decision..there are a few exceptions rape victims,incest victims,those who bear handicaps,and those incompatible with life etc,but abortion for everyone is not the right message to send out,it sends out a message you can do what you want and not face consequences,sooner or later it will catch up with them by way of std or what not..

You don't have the first clue about what you are talking about, what you have posted here is nothing but a work of fiction. Here's a tip; imagining that something is a certain way ≠ the way it actually is. Doing some research, even a cursory amount, will show up just how wrong your imagination is.

Considering that you have mentioned the Sterling currency in your ramblings I'm concluding that you are talking about British clinics. First off the vast, vast majority of abortions carried out in Britain (96% in 2011) are done so by the NHS, ergo nobody asks anybody for several hundred pounds. It's a free service which is part of the universal healthcare provided by the state.

There is no abortion on demand in Britain. That's nothing but the product of feverish imaginations. To procure an abortion in Britain the woman must be interviewed separately by two doctors. Each doctor must go through the risks of the procedure with her and determine that the abortion is in her best interests. If for some reason one of them decides that an abortion is not in her best interest, if they feel she is being forced to do it or does not truly understand the procedure, they will not certify her for the procedure.

Women who are having an abortion because the foetus is incompatible with life or disabled go through a very different process to those women who are having an abortion because they do not want a baby. They sure as shít don't sit in the same waiting rooms as them. In large part because up until very recently almost all abortions that happen due to foetal anomaly happen after 20 weeks, something that requires an entirely different type of surgery that is not carried out in standard clinics. Even now that certain conditions are diagnosable earlier in pregnancy, few foetal abnormality abortions happen before 14 weeks at which point less than 10% of abortions are carried out, and not all clinics will/can perform abortion post 12 weeks gestation. Then even beyond the fact that the procedures are not medically the same, few clinics would sit women who were choosing an abortion because they were not ready for parenthood, in the same room as women who were ready for parenthood and were emotionally invested in their baby, because they generally aren't staffed by the insensitive money-grabbing morons of your imaginings.

Lastly all of the women are offered extensive, free, post abortion counselling and medical care. And there are no 'abortions for all' I moved to the UK while pregnant and nobody hustled me in for an abortion, instead they just slotted me in for some truly excellent, highly personal, maternity care because I was many weeks beyond the point where they would ever even consider performing an abortion, so even if I'd wanted an abortion and begged and pleaded and offered them tens of thousands of pounds Sterling, I wouldn't have been given one.

christmas2012 wrote: »

tell that to me again AFTER you get an abortion,they use conscious sedation,and it is painful and invasive..the child is torn apart,or if comes out intact is left on a table to suffocate,you dont like the facts then think about what youre saying..and the impact of what you are saying..

Well your imagination sure has gotten fevered here, hasn't it. Again I refer you to what I advised further up; just because you think it, doesn't make it so.

Nearly half of all abortions in Britain (47%) are medical abortions. This means the woman who's pregnancy is at less than 7 weeks gestation, takes two medications over a 48 hour period which will force the womb lining to break down and cause a miscarriage. She can then continue to miscarry naturally or have a D&C/ERPC, just like a woman who is having a spontaneous miscarriage. At no point is the embryo torn apart or left to suffocate, the last part is especially true as the embryo does not have any lungs.

For surgical procedure the most common kind is a ventouse procedure. No 'child' is torn apart. The embryo/foetus is sucked out of the womb along with the womb lining and the sac/placenta. Abortions where the foetus is dismembered as part of the procedure account for quite a lot less than 9% of abortions. In those cases, a surgical D&E, the 'D' stands for dilation, where gel is applied to the cervix causing it to open and the woman's body to stop supporting the pregnancy. In a lot of cases the foetus has stopped functioning before the surgery and in most cases where the foetus still lives, it is no longer viable, as the cervix has opened.

In late term abortions, 20-24 weeks, almost always occurring due to foetal abnormality or to save the mother's life, the foetal heartbeat is stopped by medication or injection in the 48 hours proceeding the surgery or induced still birth.

professore

UDP wrote: »

The 2 month old fetus cannot live outside of the womb thus is 100% dependant on the mother.

So you're saying a 2 month old baby isn't? Leave one alone in a house for a week and see what happens.

MagicMarker

Gurgle wrote: »

(Don's flame retardant overcoat)
I don't accept rape as a circumstance where abortion should be an option.

Only where there is a real medical danger to the mother's life or where the baby has no chance of surviving.

Whats missing from the whole system in this country is a working adoption service. Also counseling and sex education. And all forms of contraception should be easily and cheaply available.

-edit- actually, everything is missing except for over-zealous advocates for both sides

(Yes, I'm intractably stuck on this point. Yes, I know people who have had abortions. Yes, I understand why. No, I don't judge them for it.)

Does all forms of contraception include the MAP?

professore wrote: »

Not the same thing at all. They clearly do not share the "odd characteristic". In terms of self awareness they are identical.

Point out the differences then between a 2 month old fetus and a 2 month old baby that gives one a right to life and the other not.

Point out the difference between a 7 week old fetus and an 8 week old fetus that gives one the right to life and the other not.

professore

MagicMarker, what's your view? I've given mine.

Gurgle

MagicMarker wrote: »

Does all forms of contraception include the MAP?

Yes, of course.

And just in case you (or another reader) learned about contraception from a strange man dressed in a black suit with a white collar, read this before you hit reply.

Zamboni

professore wrote: »

A lot of people on here are just attacking other posters arguments without providing an alternative point of view themselves.

I'm all for abortion. The majority of the electorate of the current society needs to decide on the point at where it is deemed acceptable and where it isn't.
There is no right/wrong answer on this topic.

UDP

professore wrote: »

So you're saying a 2 month old baby isn't? Leave one alone in a house for a week and see what happens.

[DELETED] I am talking about 100% physically dependant on the mother i.e. if the mother dies the fetus dies with no chance of survival for the fetus. You question\statement doesn't make sense considering a baby born does not need the mother any more to survive. The baby can manage quite fine with any other adult including the father.

Zamboni

Gurgle wrote: »

(Don's flame retardant overcoat)
I don't accept rape as a circumstance where abortion should be an option.

Only where there is a real medical danger to the mother's life or where the baby has no chance of surviving.

You would force a raped woman to bear the child of the rapist?
To what end?

professore

UDP wrote: »

[DELETED] I am talking about 100% physically dependant on the mother i.e. if the mother dies the fetus dies with no chance of survival for the fetus. You question\statement doesn't make sense considering a baby born does not need the mother any more to survive. The baby can manage quite fine with any other adult including the father.

Yes I'm for real. This is a genuine question. In the case of the fetus if the mother does nothing, it will come to term. In the 2 month old baby case, the mother (or someone else) has to actively take care of it to make sure it lives. So in fact the 2 month old baby is LESS capable of independent life than the fetus.

Sin City

Zamboni wrote: »

You would force a raped woman to bear the child of the rapist?
To what end?

who is.forcing.?

this is a debate , no one.is.forcing anyone

you gave an emotive scenario so how about this

girlfriend is.pregnant ,she hears a rumour that bf has been unfaithful so decides to terminate baby , finds.out the rumour was wrong ,.is devastated

Zamboni

Sin City wrote: »

who is.forcing.?

this is a debate , no one.is.forcing anyone

you gave an emotive scenario so how about this

girlfriend is.pregnant ,she hears a rumour that bf has been unfaithful so decides to terminate baby , finds.out the rumour was wrong ,.is devastated

Nobody has said abortion should be frivilous. It should be treated with the same level as ant invasive surgery.

Nodin

Sin City wrote: »

who is.forcing.?

this is a debate , no one.is.forcing anyone

you gave an emotive scenario so how about this

girlfriend is.pregnant ,she hears a rumour that bf has been unfaithful so decides to terminate baby , finds.out the rumour was wrong ,.is devastated

Moral of the story - woman wrecks own head due to stupidity. I don't see how that should impact on others, tbh.

MagicMarker

Gurgle wrote: »

Yes, of course.

And just in case you (or another reader) learned about contraception from a strange man dressed in a black suit with a white collar, read this before you hit reply.

Well, unless your idea of conception is different to every single other pro-lifer I've talked to then I don't see how you're in favour of the MAP.

professore wrote: »

MagicMarker, what's your view? I've given mine.

You've given your view but it doesn't really make sense, in fact it's highly contradictory.

In your view it's wrong to abort an 8 week old fetus, but it's not wrong to abort a 7 week old fetus. You see absolutely zero difference between an 8 week old fetus and a 8 week old baby, but yet a 7 week old fetus is fair game.

I'm sorry, it just does not make sense. It's either wrong or it's not, this line you've drawn totally undermines your whole argument tbh.

Penn

Sin City wrote: »

who is.forcing.?

this is a debate , no one.is.forcing anyone

But the woman would be forced to carry the child (not that there'd be armed guards around her or anything). If there was no possibility of abortion, the woman would have no other choice but to carry the child of her rapist to term, against her wishes.

Sin City wrote: »

you gave an emotive scenario so how about this

girlfriend is.pregnant ,she hears a rumour that bf has been unfaithful so decides to terminate baby , finds.out the rumour was wrong ,.is devastated

That's hardly comparable, but in that instance, it's the girl's fault for being so rash and not investigating the rumour first. But at the same time, she can't just pop down to the local Abortions R Us and get an abortion.

Any woman who has an abortion has to live with their actions. Same with most things in life. If she got an abortion and realises she made a mistake, then that's unfortunate. However, what if the scenario was reversed. What if the boyfriend was cheating on her and she no longer wanted the baby, but abortions were not available. She'd have to spend the next few months of her life carrying the child to term, a child she doesn't even want, and then give it up for adoption. What if a few years after that, she regrets that but the child is with a new family. What if she gets back together with the boyfriend but now she's given away the child? What if she keeps the child after birth in the hopes she might get back with the boyfriend, never does and is stuck as a single mother for the next 18 years?

There are a huge number of scenarios both for and against abortion that simply cannot be taken into account because they are far too vague. What matter is; at what point does a foetus become a separate individual from the mother, and does the mother's rights trump the child's rights as the child has not fully developed into a person?

professore

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well, unless your idea of conception is different to every single other pro-lifer I've talked to then I don't see how you're in favour of the MAP.



You've given your view but it doesn't really make sense, in fact it's highly contradictory.

In your view it's wrong to abort an 8 week old fetus, but it's not wrong to abort a 7 week old fetus. You see absolutely zero difference between an 8 week old fetus and a 8 week old baby, but yet a 7 week old fetus is fair game.

I'm sorry, it just does not make sense. It's either wrong or it's not, this line you've drawn totally undermines your whole argument tbh.

Not everything in life is black or white. In fact most things are not. In that case legally you have to draw a line somewhere, and this is really what the abortion debate should be about. Again I ask - what's your opinion of where to draw the line that's right? If you feel unable to answer that then it's not much of a debate, is it?

iguana

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What deeply disturbs me about a lot of the debates about abortion is that women are reduced to being little more than mobile incubators with personal control over their own bodies becoming a matter of debate.

I can only assume that anyone who thinks that the right to life of the embryo/foetus trumps the right to the right of the woman to bodily integrity is also in favour of mandatory blood, bone marrow and kidney donations. Because there are people, who unlike the unborn have been born and are inarguably alive, who will die without those donations and it is nothing more than selfishness for the rest of us not to make them. Never mind that there is pain, discomfort and occasional long-term health risks associated with making those donations, nobody should have the right to bodily integrity if it means someone else not living.

I'm pregnant now and this pregnancy along all with previous ones have been planned and wholey wanted. This is the only pregnancy I've had that's come close to term, the others ending early due to a medical condition. I've found miscarrying to be far more devastating than I ever could have imagined and I had major surgery in order to make it possible for me to complete a pregnancy. Finally getting to a point where the odds are that I will be a parent soon has made me happy in a way that's indescribable, I love feeling my baby move and planning our future together. However, that doesn't mean that pregnancy itself isn't awful. Absolutely stinkingly terrible.

On a physical level it's close to unendurable. I hurt all the time. Many days I can barely walk from pelvic pain. I can't catch my breath any more. I can't sleep for more than an hour or two at a time. I'm always tired. I have to work incredibly hard to control my emotional state and fail to far more than I like. I can't eat many foods I love because they could result in harm to my baby and on top of that I can't eat dairy at all as my digestive system has slowed down too much to handle it, or anything spicy because of the heartburn. All of which is better than the first 4 months of pregnancy where I threw up so much I burst blood vessels in my sinuses causing nose bleeds, the whites of my eyes to fill with pools of blood and severe migraines that I couldn't take proper medication for as that would harm the baby. It's been less than 7 months but it feels like a thousand years. If I didn't love my baby as much as it's possible to love anything I could not and would not go through this as it's absolute hell.

I know that not all women find pregnancy this hard but I also know that for others it's much, much worse. No one should ever have to go through a pregnancy for any reason other than they really want to. Whether that reason is because they want their own baby, they want to have a baby to give for adoption or they are a surrogate for a loved one or are hired to be one, is all valid. But if they do not make the choice not to continue with the pregnancy then that's valid too because pregnancy is a really, really big deal that takes a lot of a woman, requires a lot of sacrifices and can have long-term physical consequences. And if anyone feels like condemning her for not making those sacrifices then maybe they should first consider all of the ways that they could have saved someone's life these last 9 months but didn't choose to.

UDP

professore wrote: »

(or someone else)

There ya go. That is the massive difference right there.

Sin City

Penn wrote: »

But the woman would be forced to carry the child (not that there'd be armed guards around her or anything). If there was no possibility of abortion, the woman would have no other choice but to carry the child of her rapist to term, against her wishes.



That's hardly comparable, but in that instance, it's the girl's fault for being so rash and not investigating the rumour first. But at the same time, she can't just pop down to the local Abortions R Us and get an abortion.

Any woman who has an abortion has to live with their actions. Same with most things in life. If she got an abortion and realises she made a mistake, then that's unfortunate. However, what if the scenario was reversed. What if the boyfriend was cheating on her and she no longer wanted the baby, but abortions were not available. She'd have to spend the next few months of her life carrying the child to term, a child she doesn't even want, and then give it up for adoption. What if a few years after that, she regrets that but the child is with a new family. What if she gets back together with the boyfriend but now she's given away the child? What if she keeps the child after birth in the hopes she might get back with the boyfriend, never does and is stuck as a single mother for the next 18 years?

There are a huge number of scenarios both for and against abortion that simply cannot be taken into account because they are far too vague. What matter is; at what point does a foetus become a separate individual from the mother, and does the mother's rights trump the child's rights as the child has not fully developed into a person?

Ill admit its more suited to the plotline for a soap or something but it does exist. I know most women who have abortion may agonise over their decison , was it the right one etc, you wouldnt be human otherwise.But under that scenario you could get an abortion, probably saying that it would be psychololgicaly damaging if she doesnt.

As for the reverse, In my opinion why should the child or pp be exceuted because of the sins of the father? At least if the child is adopted there is more chance to reconcile any mistake later on in life , this wont happen with an abortion


Abortions R Us psml

MagicMarker

professore wrote: »

Not everything in life is black or white. In fact most things are not. In that case legally you have to draw a line somewhere, and this is really what the abortion debate should be about.

Well, if you're so against abortion, then legally why don't you draw the line at no abortions for anyone unless the mother's life is at stake or the potential child has a disorder meaning they would not survive more than a few hours of intense pain after birth? This, to me, seems like a perfectly logical line to draw for someone who is against abortion generally.

But your line isn't logical, it's completely illogical, in fact it's completely different from what you said earlier in the thread...

professore wrote: »

They can put the child up for adoption. As an atheist I am convinced of the preciousness of human life since you only get one, you should do all you can to respect other peoples.

Abortion should only be considered under the most extreme circumstances, i.e. unviable fetus or mother's life in danger. Why stop at "unwanted" babies? Why not unwanted old folks, travellers, criminals? That's my reason for being anti-abortion.

..... "convinced of the preciousness of human life".... but only when the fetus is at least 8 weeks old.

MisterEpicurus

professore wrote: »

Yes I'm for real. This is a genuine question. In the case of the fetus if the mother does nothing, it will come to term. In the 2 month old baby case, the mother (or someone else) has to actively take care of it to make sure it lives. So in fact the 2 month old baby is LESS capable of independent life than the fetus.

Just out of curiosity - if a woman decided to have an abortion and had one, do you think she's a criminal and should be incarcerated in the same way a murderer is punished?

Sin City

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Just out of curiosity - if a woman decided to have an abortion and had one, do you think she's a criminal and should be incarcerated in the same way a murderer is punished?

You mean should she get 20 years and out in 6 months?