Abortion Discussion

Brown Bomber

gaynorvader wrote: »

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.

I would tend to agree with this, yes.

MrPudding

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

Sorry, where did I do that?

MrP

Obliq

"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 wrote: »

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

This is no "solution" to me.

Oh yes, it's JUST LIKE the Nazis and their "Jewish problem". I TOTALLY see the similarity between the outright murder of children, men and women who already have life experiences and people to love/who love them, and killing non-sentient embryos that are the result of one disgusting person taking extreme control of another and continuing to force that control on them through the implementation of pregnancy. Yah, totally the same. Well done you.

Brown Bomber

iwantmydinner wrote: »

How downright insulting to those women who find themselves in such a situation as to be contemplating a termination at such a late stage. .

It's insulting to say that women should be aware of the implications of their "choice" to end a life that has a chance of surviving without them? :rolleyes:

iwantmydinner wrote: »

And what even is a 'woman of conscience'????.

A woman (with)... : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good

iwantmydinner wrote: »

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.

See above or take it straight from the abortionist's mouth in the video below where he compares the foetuses he kills to "meat in a crockpot" and the jokingly refers to his tools as "drill bits and a pick-axe".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIlYXmG287g

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Putting mental health reasons in inverted commas like that shows a disgusting lack of empathy.

No. It shows you lack of interest and/or ability to pay attention.

They were direct quotes from an NHS document; not square quotes. If you'd being paying attention you would have understood the reason for posting this information at all was part of a discussion about the fact that 1 in 3 women have had regular abortions - some as many as 9.

Brown Bomber

MrPudding wrote: »

Sorry, where did I do that?

MrP

If I've misunderstood I apologise. I had thought that you had 3 categories of premature babies 1) survivors 2) those who didn't and 3) survived but disabled.

dharma200

Some as many as many as nine... Well, of course that should mean that woman who are raped or who are carrying a foetus that will die a slow agonising death upon birth should not be allowed to terminate.... Totally logical :eek:

dharma200

And please don't link to anti choice propaganda you tube videos... Which have nothing to do the issues.. There are plenty of doctors who might say stupid things, that has nothing to do with women having autonomy over their own body.

Brown Bomber

dharma200 wrote: »

And please don't link to anti choice propaganda you tube videos... Which have nothing to do the issues.. There are plenty of doctors who might say stupid things, that has nothing to do with women having autonomy over their own body.

An abortionist talking about abortion has "nothing to do with" .... ABORTION. :pac:

Brown Bomber

dharma200 wrote: »

Some as many as many as nine... Well, of course that should mean that woman who are raped or who are carrying a foetus that will die a slow agonising death upon birth should not be allowed to terminate.... Totally logical :eek:

Much like your strawman

PopePalpatine

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Putting mental health reasons in inverted commas like that shows a disgusting lack of empathy.

Sometimes I think that religions have so many rules (e.g. thou shalt not steal) because their more extreme members lack empathy.

dharma200

No, a propaganda video produced by a pro life organisation has nothing to do with the debate about wether or not women should be able to access health services.

Brown Bomber

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Sometimes I think that religions have so many rules (e.g. thou shalt not steal) because their more extreme members lack empathy.

Are you referring to me? Or am have I just been lucky enough to witness one of Pope Palpatiines random, off-topic musings?

Brown Bomber

dharma200 wrote: »

No, a propaganda video produced by a pro life organisation has nothing to do with the debate about wether or not women should be able to access health services.

This is the kind of blinkered thinking I've encountered already here. Someone else had said earlier "No, I can't find anything at all factually incorrect about this information BUT it is from a pro-life source so I won't consider it!!!"

This kind of biased approach will only reinforce delusions and move us further away from any true understanding.

coolhull

I have read all the posts in this thread and neither Jimi nor Brown Bomber has changed my mind about the necessity of abortion in certain circumstances.
And of course none of the pro- choice posters have changed the minds of Jimi or BB.
Surely the point of debate is to put forward ones point of view, and hope to influence the viewpoint of the other. That's not happening, obviously, so aren't we all just going around in rings?

Corkfeen

coolhull wrote: »

I have read all the posts in this thread and neither Jimi nor Brown Bomber has changed my mind about the necessity of abortion in certain circumstances.
And of course none of the pro- choice posters have changed the minds of Jimi or BB.
Surely the point of debate is to put forward ones point of view, and hope to influence the viewpoint of the other. That's not happening, obviously, so aren't we all just going around in rings?

The discussion is beneficial for people who are undecided on the debate and people who don't fully understand the debate but hold a position. I would have been pro life at one stage but I held feck all knowledge on the subject at the time, I was young and uninformed. Debate is good for one's mind too.

Frito

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.

I had to consider this somewhat.
Superficially it seems a pro-choice solution which offers women another option in managing the termination of pregnancy should they so wish.
However it does then beg the question of whether terminations should be delayed to the earliest point of viability (or the latest? ie birth...) in order to give the foetus 'a fighting chance'. This wouldn't be my preference.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

This is no "solution" to me.

Keepin it classy. Good man.

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

This is no "solution" to me.

You seem to have a very poor opinion of women in general, if you can so easily compare them to a genocidal regime.

If I might parody your position it would be like this: "women are too devious and selfish to be trusted with the welfare of unborn babies, and are likely to want to torture to death their 24 week old foetuses for the hell of it, or maybe because they have just seen a nice pair of shoes and would rather spend their money on them than on nappies". Implied is the fact that women need to be controlled (by controlling their access to abortion services) so they can be prevented from committing Nazi-level atrocities.

You seem to be hell-bent on implying that women who do want abortions are selfish and possibly sadistic, which makes me wonder (again) why you seem to distrust women so much in general.

oldrnwisr

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.

You know BB, I really am struggling to understand your logic here. Let's look at this "solution" of yours in a bit more detail.

OK, firstly, let's get some of the facts and figures out of the way. From 23 weeks 0 days and onwards, there were 716 abortions performed in the UK in 2012 (556 in Week 23 and 160 Week 24+). Of these abortions, all of those in the week 24+ category were performed under ground E (foetal abnormality). Of the 556 performed at Week 23, the statistics do not provide a specific breakdown of the statutory grounds, so using the Week 20 and over data, and scaling pro-rata we can get a rough idea. So, of these 556, 402 would have been performed under ground C, 147 under ground E with the remaining 5 being split in a 2,2,1 ratio between A,B and D respectively. Now, furthermore, the statistics show that 80% of the abortions performed at Week 23 were surgical. So the total number of elective (i.e. ground C) surgical abortions performed from Week 23 upwards is 321. So your solution for dealing with these abortions killing viable babies is only going to cover 45% of abortions performed in this period, meaning that any legislation would have to be specific to the point of being unworkable.

Secondly, your assumption here is that the abortions performed under ground C are inherently elective in that the women are having abortions just because they can't be bothered continuing the pregnancy. For my money this is a false assumption and a baseless claim. Partly because mental health issues are not just some useful excuse (suicide being the leading cause of maternal death in pregnancy) but mostly because it assumes that a woman would happily carry a child for 23 weeks and then just decide that she couldn't be bothered anymore. That is a very dark and cynical view of women.

The principal problem in any case of your solution is its consequences. Firstly if you are going to require C-sections or emergency deliveries at 23 weeks, then even if and I do stress even if, all the foetuses were perfectly healthy then realistically only maybe 20% would survive (to clarify, the statistics show an average of 20% for week 23 but this is broken down as 10% at Week 23, 0 days and increasing by 3-4% per day). However, we already know that approximately 280 of the abortions in this period are performed because there is a high probability that the foetus will definitely not survive. So you are talking about potentially performing 716 emergency c-sections in the hope of saving 51 healthy children while subjecting the other 665 to either death during the procedure or else a tragically short life filled with pain and suffering. And you think your solution is the more humane? Really?

I keep having to repeat myself in this thread but this issue is awfully complex with many factors to consider. A solution such as yours takes a very narrow and blinkered view of the debate because it ignores issues like quality of life and maternal considerations (after all a c-section is not something to be taken lightly). To summarise where I'm coming from I'll leave you with this quote from MrPudding because I think it neatly and eloquently describes the problem with your stance on the issue:

MrPudding wrote:

So, I mentioned that sometime I think lives aren’t worth living, I want to clarify that, and this ties in with the sentence above, that sometime I think abortion is the fairest option for the unborn as well. When test show that a foetus is not viable, that if the pregnancy continues to term and if the baby is born it will be disabled or deformed to the extent that survival is impossible I think it is cruel to continue with the pregnancy. I watch a programme the other night that interviewed a couple that continued with a pregnancy where the child had no kidneys. They knew it would die, and likely suffer, but they continued anyway. They were hoping for a miracle, they were hoping that this foetus would spontaneously develop a pair of kidneys. But mostly, it seems, they needed the baby to be born so they could cope with the loss. I think they are monsters. Where a baby will know nothing but pain and suffering, even if that is for a mercifully short period of time, the baby gains nothing from being born. Nothing. Allowing the parent “closure” is not, in my book, a valid reason for allowing such a pregnancy to continue. It is cruel and unusual. And if you think you have the moral high ground in this debate this is one area where you are sorely wrong.

PopePalpatine

swampgas wrote: »

If I might parody [BB's] position it would be like this: "women are too devious and selfish to be trusted with the welfare of unborn babies, and are likely to want to torture to death their 24 week old foetuses for the hell of it, or maybe because they have just seen a nice pair of shoes and would rather spend their money on them than on nappies". Implied is the fact that women need to be controlled (by controlling their access to abortion services) so they can be prevented from committing Nazi-level atrocities.

You seem to be hell-bent on implying that women who do want abortions are selfish and possibly sadistic, which makes me wonder (again) why you seem to distrust women so much in general.

Is it just me or does that parody sound scarily similar to a John Waters or I-moan-a Institute opinion piece?

Sarky

<SNIP>

PopePalpatine

<SNIP>

TheChizler

Damn, just missed it.

Brown Bomber

swampgas wrote: »

You seem to have a very poor opinion of women in general, if you can so easily compare them to a genocidal regime.

If I might parody your position it would be like this: "women are too devious and selfish to be trusted with the welfare of unborn babies, and are likely to want to torture to death their 24 week old foetuses for the hell of it, or maybe because they have just seen a nice pair of shoes and would rather spend their money on them than on nappies". Implied is the fact that women need to be controlled (by controlling their access to abortion services) so they can be prevented from committing Nazi-level atrocities.

You seem to be hell-bent on implying that women who do want abortions are selfish and possibly sadistic, which makes me wonder (again) why you seem to distrust women so much in general.

... and I suppose your next question will be when have I stopped beating my wife? :rolleyes:

Very poor opinion of women? Bollox. I have the highest respect for women. Let's not forget that 1 in 2 of those that you would rather see killed-off and to which killing I object to would have become women.

If all women in the UK who had abortions take the decision so seriously then why in 2012 have 1 in 3 women had 3 or more abortions?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... and I suppose your next question will be when have I stopped beating my wife? :rolleyes:

Very poor opinion of women? Bollox. I have the highest respect for women. Let's not forget that 1 in 2 of those that you would rather see killed-off and to which killing I object to would have become women.

If all women in the UK who had abortions take the decision so seriously then why in 2012 have 1 in 3 women had 3 or more abortions?

Contraceptives fail and they subsequently require an abortion. We also don't know what are the intervals between each abortion, is it one every 2, 5, 10 years etc.?

And what is the problem if they have more than one abortion? They can take every possible precaution against becoming pregnant and yet still find themselves pregnant. Do you think that women who have had an abortion don't take the choice of having an invasive medical procedure seriously?

I don't see how we can sit in judgement on these women without knowing anything about their medical history or the reasons why they have ended up having more than one abortion.

Brown Bomber

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You know BB, I really am struggling to understand your logic here. Let's look at this "solution" of yours in a bit more detail.

OK, firstly, let's get some of the facts and figures out of the way. From 23 weeks 0 days and onwards, there were 716 abortions performed in the UK in 2012 (556 in Week 23 and 160 Week 24+). Of these abortions, all of those in the week 24+ category were performed under ground E (foetal abnormality). Of the 556 performed at Week 23, the statistics do not provide a specific breakdown of the statutory grounds, so using the Week 20 and over data, and scaling pro-rata we can get a rough idea. So, of these 556, 402 would have been performed under ground C, 147 under ground E with the remaining 5 being split in a 2,2,1 ratio between A,B and D respectively. Now, furthermore, the statistics show that 80% of the abortions performed at Week 23 were surgical. So the total number of elective (i.e. ground C) surgical abortions performed from Week 23 upwards is 321. So your solution for dealing with these abortions killing viable babies is only going to cover 45% of abortions performed in this period, meaning that any legislation would have to be specific to the point of being unworkable.

Do you not consider attempting to save the lives of 45% of 321 viable babies as something which is worthwhile?

I most certainly do.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, your assumption here is that the abortions performed under ground C are inherently elective in that the women are having abortions just because they can't be bothered continuing the pregnancy. For my money this is a false assumption and a baseless claim. Partly because mental health issues are not just some useful excuse (suicide being the leading cause of maternal death in pregnancy) but mostly because it assumes that a woman would happily carry a child for 23 weeks and then just decide that she couldn't be bothered anymore. That is a very dark and cynical view of women.

Almost all the near 200,000 abortions carried out in the UK were for "mental health" reasons. While there are certainly legitimate cases of mental health problems this is obviously the box you tick when there is nothing wrong with you but you want the taxpayer to pay for your abortion.

Lets not forget the culture which exist of clinics pre-signing authorisation forms, obviously these were marked as ground C, "mental health" and the culture of 1 in 3 women having 3 or more abortions. Lets not forget that you have UK experts publishing reports proclaiming it moral to kill infants as they have no consciousness.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The principal problem in any case of your solution is its consequences. Firstly if you are going to require C-sections or emergency deliveries at 23 weeks, then even if and I do stress even if, all the foetuses were perfectly healthy then realistically only maybe 20% would survive (to clarify, the statistics show an average of 20% for week 23 but this is broken down as 10% at Week 23, 0 days and increasing by 3-4% per day). However, we already know that approximately 280 of the abortions in this period are performed because there is a high probability that the foetus will definitely not survive. So you are talking about potentially performing 716 emergency c-sections in the hope of saving 51 healthy children while subjecting the other 665 to either death during the procedure or else a tragically short life filled with pain and suffering. And you think your solution is the more humane? Really?

I keep having to repeat myself in this thread but this issue is awfully complex with many factors to consider. A solution such as yours takes a very narrow and blinkered view of the debate because it ignores issues like quality of life and maternal considerations (after all a c-section is not something to be taken lightly). To summarise where I'm coming from I'll leave you with this quote from MrPudding because I think it neatly and eloquently describes the problem with your stance on the issue:

I'm sorry, I appreciate you have put time and effort into this but it all becomes redundant with the 50% survival rates of babies born at 24 weeks.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

Contraceptives fail and they subsequently require an abortion. We also don't know what are the intervals between each abortion, is it one every 2, 5, 10 years etc.?

And what is the problem if they have more than one abortion? They can take every possible precaution against becoming pregnant and yet still find themselves pregnant. Do you think that women who have had an abortion don't take the choice of having an invasive medical procedure seriously?

I don't see how we can sit in judgement on these women without knowing anything about their medical history or why the reasons why they have ended up having more than one abortion.

I've already explained that in the UK essentially all abortions are for "mental health" reasons; not due to any demonstrable physical problem associated with preganancy or birtth.

By all means do the math and work out the failure rates of contraceptives and subtract from the total - it's effect will be neglible.

dharma200

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is the kind of blinkered thinking I've encountered already here. Someone else had said earlier "No, I can't find anything at all factually incorrect about this information BUT it is from a pro-life source so I won't consider it!!!"

This kind of biased approach will only reinforce delusions and move us further away from any true understanding.

The only point of true understanding is to be in the position of someone who is faced with 1: death if termination is not provided or 2: carrying an unviable foetus which will face an agonising death if brought to full term. 3: to be in a position where you are forced to be pregnant 4: To be in a position where carrying on with a pregnancy is detrimental to your own health.

None of these I presume you have had to face... That is true understanding.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've already explained that in the UK essentially all abortions are for "mental health" reasons; not due to any demonstrable physical problem associated with preganancy or birtth.

By all means do the math and work out the failure rates of contraceptives and subtract from the total - it's effect will be neglible.

That doesn't answer the other question as to what the problem is with a woman having more that two abortions during her life.

So what if the abortions are on mental health grounds? Almost all of the abortions occur early in the pregnancy before the foetus can feel any pain. Unless you wish to stop most women from having an abortion, I don't see what the relevance of their reasons given are.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Lets not forget the culture which exist of clinics pre-signing authorisation forms, obviously these were marked as ground C, "mental health" and the culture of 1 in 3 women having 3 or more abortions. Lets not forget that you have UK experts publishing reports proclaiming it moral to kill infants as they have no consciousness.

Before someone asks -

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html