Abortion Discussion

Brown Bomber · 16-08-2013 7:40pm

Mardy Bum wrote: »

As Bannisdhe has said the fetus is dead.

The limit is 24 weeks in Britain and you have given one example of a child being viable at 23. The number of abortions that take place after 22 weeks is tiny. The number of fetuses viable after 23 is miniscule. Statistically the number of fetuses aborted that would be viable is tiny.

It's not "tiny". In the UK in 2012 there were 556 äbortions at 23 weeks. Of these 80% were "surgical" i.e. D&E . Statistically 1 in 5 would have survived at this age. That is 110 killed. This is more than 5 times the number of children killed at Sandy Hook.

Brown Bomber · 16-08-2013 7:42pm

[QUOTE=DaisyPro38;86035193 Do not forget that women do not take abortion lightly; [/QUOTE]
Some don't. Some do...

NHS figures disclose 33 women have had at least nine abortions

Dozens of women have had at least nine abortions - with more than one in three terminations now carried out on those who have previously had the procedure, new figures disclose.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/laura-donnelly/10174465/NHS-figures-disclose-33-women-have-had-at-least-nine-abortions.html

lazygal · 16-08-2013 7:44pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's not "tiny". In the UK in 2012 there were 556 äbortions at 23 weeks. Of these 80% were "surgical" i.e. D&E . Statistically 1 in 5 would have survived at this age. That is 110 killed. This is more than 5 times the number of children killed at Sandy Hook.

How do you feel about abortion before 23 weeks?

Bannasidhe · 16-08-2013 7:44pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Given that the fetus is already dead by the time this 'crushing and ripping' that you are fixated upon to the point of fetishising - no.

I put the already born first every time.

Now - unless I misunderstood, you think those 3 things I referred to are deplorable - so what is your solution?

BB - any chance of an answer?

Nodin · 16-08-2013 7:45pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Some don't. Some do...

NHS figures disclose 33 women have had at least nine abortions

..........

Out of how many million women capable of bearing children?

How do you know those abortions aren't medically nessecary?

lazygal · 16-08-2013 7:45pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Some don't. Some do...

NHS figures disclose 33 women have had at least nine abortions

Dozens of women have had at least nine abortions - with more than one in three terminations now carried out on those who have previously had the procedure, new figures disclose.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/laura-donnelly/10174465/NHS-figures-disclose-33-women-have-had-at-least-nine-abortions.html

Is there something wrong with a woman who has no regrets about abortion? Do you know why women might have more than one? Do you care?

Mardy Bum · 16-08-2013 7:49pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

l" i.e. D&E [/URL][/B]. Statistically 1 in 5 would have survived at this age.

Reference?

Brown Bomber · 16-08-2013 7:53pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

BB - any chance of an answer?

If a woman has created a life that she doesn't want then there is no "solution". It is wrong to enforce her carrying her own child against her will while at the same time also wrong to kill off the life she has created.

lazygal · 16-08-2013 7:55pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If a woman has created a life that she doesn't want then there is no "solution". It is wrong to enforce her carrying her own child against her will while at the same time also wrong to kill off the life she has created.

So what should she do?

Turtwig · 16-08-2013 8:16pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Some don't. Some do...

NHS figures disclose 33 women have had at least nine abortions

Dozens of women have had at least nine abortions - with more than one in three terminations now carried out on those who have previously had the procedure, new figures disclose.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/laura-donnelly/10174465/NHS-figures-disclose-33-women-have-had-at-least-nine-abortions.html

There are couple of things from that article. The implication, if true, that women are using abortion as means of contraception is a bit startling. More education definitely needed there. The second thing is the article doesn't really list the specific reasons for each abortion. It seems logical to me that if a woman has an abortion for reasons due to poor health then it's more likely she'll encounter a similar scenario again. Hopefully if the child is wanted it won't require an abortion. Not always possible though. There's also another link there too, I suspect that women who experience one foetal abnormality have a higher risk of a recurrence. It's just the rule with health : Once you experience one complication you are generally statistically more likely to have another. Then there is the social aspects. Many people get trapped in the same social circumstances for decades! So sadly, that means some may suffer more than one nightmare pregnancy in their lifetime.

Bannasidhe · 16-08-2013 10:01pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If a woman has created a life that she doesn't want then there is no "solution". It is wrong to enforce her carrying her own child against her will while at the same time also wrong to kill off the life she has created.

That is not answering the question I asked.

gaynorvader · 17-08-2013 1:29pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Where have you got 5% from?

up to 20% of UK abortion clinics pre-signing abortion approval forms isn't widespread to you?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18811705

{...}
Ministers asked for over 300 private and NHS clinics to be inspected over concerns doctors were signing forms before a woman had been seen.
{...}
As a result of these unannounced inspections, the CQC has identified evidence of pre-signing at 14 locations
{...}

The article you linked used weasel-speak to sensationalise the statistic. Such as "It is thought that 15-20% of clinics are doing this" (paraphrased). Who thinks? The writer? It's not representative of the facts.

Cabaal · 17-08-2013 4:50pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If a woman has created a life that she doesn't want then there is no "solution". It is wrong to enforce her carrying her own child against her will while at the same time also wrong to kill off the life she has created.

So what about a rape case, it's ok to ignore the rights of the women when it comes to forced conception?

There is a solution in such cases, you just choose to ignore it along with the wishes and dignity of the women

Brown Bomber · 17-08-2013 5:43pm

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Reference?

Early birth survival statistics

In 2006, a study recorded survival statistics (up to the point a baby is discharged from hospital) based on how soon a baby was born:

22 weeks - 2% of 152 live births
23 weeks - 19% of 339 live births
24 weeks - 40% of 442 live births
25 weeks - 66% of 521 live births
26 weeks - 77% of 580 live births

Source: EPICure

BBC News: More very early babies surviving

===============

Change anything...?

Probably not, just like Gaynorvader...

Brown Bomber · 17-08-2013 5:44pm

Cabaal wrote: »

So what about a rape case, it's ok to ignore the rights of the women when it comes to forced conception?

There is a solution in such cases, you just choose to ignore it along with the wishes and dignity of the women

Yeah, just like the NAZIS had a "solution" to their "Jewish Problem". "Kill 'em off!"

This is no "solution" to me.

gaynorvader · 17-08-2013 5:48pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Early birth survival statistics

{...}

Probably not, just like Gaynorvader...

I did definitely make me respect you more.

I still disagree with your position though, I think.

Would you be okay with abortion only being legal on foetuses younger than 23 weeks?

Delirium · 17-08-2013 5:48pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, just like the NAZIS had a "solution" to their "Jewish Problem". "Kill 'em off!"

This is no "solution" to me.

What is your solution? If you're not going to ban abortions at 23 weeks, then what would suggest happen to reduce the number of abortions at 23 weeks?

Brown Bomber · 17-08-2013 5:57pm

koth wrote: »

What is your solution? If you're not going to ban abortions at 23 weeks, then what would suggest happen to reduce the number of abortions at 23 weeks?

1) C-Section deliveries at 23/24 weeks. Mother gets on with her life. Delivered baby gets treatment at hospital and if he or she survives gets put into care or adopted.

2) Mothers being made fully aware that the life they are choosing to end could conceivably survive without them and very realistically can feel pain. This imo surely would make some women of conscience think twice before they allow someone to kill their unborn child.

PopePalpatine · 17-08-2013 6:03pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

2) Mothers being made fully aware that the life they are choosing to end could conceivably survive without them and very realistically can feel pain. This imo surely would make some women of conscience think twice before they allow someone to kill their unborn child.

Is it just me or does this sound just like Jimi's tired argument about a week or so ago?

Brown Bomber · 17-08-2013 6:06pm

Jernal wrote: »

There are couple of things from that article. The implication, if true, that women are using abortion as means of contraception is a bit startling. More education definitely needed there. The second thing is the article doesn't really list the specific reasons for each abortion. It seems logical to me that if a woman has an abortion for reasons due to poor health then it's more likely she'll encounter a similar scenario again. Hopefully if the child is wanted it won't require an abortion. Not always possible though. There's also another link there too, I suspect that women who experience one foetal abnormality have a higher risk of a recurrence. It's just the rule with health : Once you experience one complication you are generally statistically more likely to have another. Then there is the social aspects. Many people get trapped in the same social circumstances for decades! So sadly, that means some may suffer more than one nightmare pregnancy in their lifetime.

Nodin wrote: »

Out of how many million women capable of bearing children?

How do you know those abortions aren't medically nessecary?

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))

Statutory grounds for abortion

2.8 In 2012, the vast majority (97%; 180,117) of abortions were undertaken under ground C
and a further 1% (2,122) under ground D. A similar proportion was carried out under
ground E (1%; 2,692). Grounds A and B together accounted for about a tenth of one per
cent of abortions (190). The proportion of ground C abortions has risen steadily with a
corresponding reduction in ground D cases (See Table 3a.ii).
2.9 The vast majority (99.94%) of ground C only terminations were reported as being
performed because of a risk to the woman’s mental health. No further breakdown for F99
(mental disorder, not otherwise specified) is included in the International Cla

In short, 97% of abortion in the UK in 2012 were ground C. 99.9% of this 97% were for "mental health" reasons.

TheChizler · 17-08-2013 6:07pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Is it just me or does this sound just like Jimi's tired argument about a week or so ago?

It's unfair to compare posters like that, shame on you...

PopePalpatine · 17-08-2013 6:12pm

TheChizler wrote: »

It's unfair to compare posters like that, shame on you...

I guess I should feel ashamed.

TheChizler · 17-08-2013 6:13pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I guess I should feel ashamed.

That's the spirit!

Delirium · 17-08-2013 6:19pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1) C-Section deliveries at 23/24 weeks. Mother gets on with her life. Delivered baby gets treatment at hospital and if he or she survives gets put into care or adopted.

2) Mothers being made fully aware that the life they are choosing to end could conceivably survive without them and very realistically can feel pain. This imo surely would make some women of conscience think twice before they allow someone to kill their unborn child.

Point 2 would be unnecessary as D&E is carried out after the child is sedated or killed by injection prior to the actual D&E according to information recently posted on this thread.

It would be misrepresenting how D&E actually happens in the hope of tricking/manipulating women into not having an abortion.

gaynorvader · 17-08-2013 6:56pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1) C-Section deliveries at 23/24 weeks. Mother gets on with her life. Delivered baby gets treatment at hospital and if he or she survives gets put into care or adopted.

2) Mothers being made fully aware that the life they are choosing to end could conceivably survive without them and very realistically can feel pain. This imo surely would make some women of conscience think twice before they allow someone to kill their unborn child.

I actually agree with point 1), provided you allow that if the C-section were to put the woman in danger, it should be the choice of the woman to get it or the abortion.

iwantmydinner · 17-08-2013 7:04pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

2) Mothers being made fully aware that the life they are choosing to end could conceivably survive without them and very realistically can feel pain. This imo surely would make some women of conscience think twice before they allow someone to kill their unborn child.

How downright insulting to those women who find themselves in such a situation as to be contemplating a termination at such a late stage. And what even is a 'woman of conscience'????

Of course, that's aside from the fact that, as previous posters have pointed out several times, the foetus is heavily sedated or already dead before removal from the womb.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

97% of abortion in the UK in 2012 were ground C. 99.9% of this 97% were for "mental health" reasons.

Putting mental health reasons in inverted commas like that shows a disgusting lack of empathy. Pregnancy and motherhood is a really big f*cking deal. If a woman finds herself pregnant and is emotionally, mentally, or physically unable to continue with a pregnancy, or unable for any other reason that she deems important enough, then you really have to learn to respect that decision.

Women are not brood mares. We choose whether to reproduce or not. To bring a pregnancy to term or not is entirely the pregnant woman's decision.

Obliq · 17-08-2013 7:14pm

That ^^^. Thank you.

MrPudding · 17-08-2013 7:21pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Early birth survival statistics

In 2006, a study recorded survival statistics (up to the point a baby is discharged from hospital) based on how soon a baby was born:
22 weeks - 2% of 152 live births

23 weeks - 19% of 339 live births

24 weeks - 40% of 442 live births

25 weeks - 66% of 521 live births

26 weeks - 77% of 580 live births

Source: EPICure
BBC News: More very early babies surviving

===============

Change anything...?

Probably not, just like Gaynorvader...

Interesting article. The general theme is the improvement in survival of premature babies, and the trend is generally up. What is also interesting is that the rates for pre 24 weeks have not improved, and also, the rates of lifelong disability remains the same.

So, whilst it is fantastic that more and more premature kids are surviving, there is a lot more to do. A 20% rate of disability is not great.

Personally, for me these figures show the cut off for abortion is probably ok. I also happen to think it should be revised down, for elective abortions, as survival rates improve. As the rates have not improved in that age range, according to your article, it reckon it is probably good.

MrP

Brown Bomber · 17-08-2013 7:38pm

koth wrote: »

Point 2 would be unnecessary as D&E is carried out after the child is sedated or killed by injection prior to the actual D&E according to information recently posted on this thread.

It would be misrepresenting how D&E actually happens in the hope of tricking/manipulating women into not having an abortion.

The anasthetic is for the mother not the foetus. I have already provided the testimony of a medical expert - the same expert who is single-handedly responsible for newborrns receiving anasthetic prior to any surgery - who asserts that the foetus is likely to experience tremendous pain and that there is no balance between providing sufficent anasthetic to the foetus that doesn't put the mother at serious risk.

As for the lethal injection, otherwise reserved for serial killers, it is not used in all cases of D&E abortion. Not all mothers can take it and even when it us used there is no guarantee of it working.

Brown Bomber · 17-08-2013 7:41pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Interesting article. The general theme is the improvement in survival of premature babies, and the trend is generally up. What is also interesting is that the rates for pre 24 weeks have not improved, and also, the rates of lifelong disability remains the same.

So, whilst it is fantastic that more and more premature kids are surviving, there is a lot more to do. A 20% rate of disability is not great.

Personally, for me these figures show the cut off for abortion is probably ok. I also happen to think it should be revised down, for elective abortions, as survival rates improve. As the rates have not improved in that age range, according to your article, it reckon it is probably good.

MrP

While I think you have made some good points I would take issue with factoring in disability to whether someone should live or die.

Abortion Discussion

Comments