Abortion debate

Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:10 pm

A very emotive topic and I think my anti-abortion views are well known but I think it is pertinent to reopen the debate given the controversy over the new health minister saying he supports a cut to 12 weeks.

Me I cannot ever accept it is right to kill a child; in or out of the womb, there is no difference, life is either sacrosanct or it is not.

southernbelle Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:22 pm

Well I expect this topic will open up a can of arguing worms!
I dont know enough yet about the reasons for lowering the time scale to 12 weeks, I must read up on that before commenting.
I think that there are occasions when abortion could be considered:
A very young girl.
After rape.
When it shown that the foetus is severely disabled/malformed/unviable.
When the continued pregnancy threatens the life of the mother.
When the mother is severely mentally handicapped and did not understand that what she was doing would result in a child ( in which case I would also advocate punishment for the father where appropriate).

Charly Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:31 pm

I think I would agree with all SB says except I would change the "could be considered:" to should be considered

Heywoodpp Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:00 pm

It all boils down to whether the unborn child is a distinct human being with a right to life or not. People say that it only gets its own distinct human dignity including its right to life when it is born because before then it is attached to the mother and drawing life from her. But that would allow infanticide as long as it took place before the cutting of the cord. Is the foetus a child or merely a part of the woman's body like her appendix or her gall bladder? I think most people would agree that the unborn child has a distinct identity and dignity greater than merely a physical organ of the mother. So on what grounds, if any, should abortion be allowed?

Since 1968 0.006% of the six million abortions in Great Britain, ie 143, have been carried out to save the life of the mother or to prevent grave injury to her physical or mental health. A futher 23 778 (our of 6 000 000) abortions were carried out because the doctors judged that continuance of the pregnancy would be a greater risk than if the abortion was carried out.

Caitlin Moran, writing in The Times, said that she had an abortion simply because she didn't want a baby at that particular time. She had had children previously and has had children since but, because she didn't want a child at that time, she had an abortion. It strikes me that even those who would allow abortion for the reasons mentioned in previous posts, might well be shocked to discover that abortions are being allowed (in defiance of the 1967 Abortion Act) for reasons of convenience!

A reduction to 12 weeks would save the lives of c 10% of the c 200 000 children being aborted in Great Britain each year. Any life is worth saving. A reduction would be a good thing. When will politicians insist that the conditions laid down by the 1967 Act be strictly adhered to. There are occasions when women are faced with a terrible dilemma. While I could never countenance the deliberate intentional taking of innocent human life, even if not yet born, I can accept that on many occasions much soul-searching goes on. However, the statistics show that in the majority of cases in this country we have now got abortion on demand and it is being used as a kind of contraceptive after the event.

Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:23 pm

southernbelle wrote:When it shown that the ~~foetus~~ BABY is severely disabled/malformed/unviable.

Was told my eight month old son could have dwarfism as the scans were showing his limbs were very short.

He was born a normal healthy baby with normal size limbs - scan, or interpretation of the scan, was wrong...

UP THE DALE Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 pm

Although being in support of the woman's right to choose position I have a lot more sympathy for the viewpoint of those who are totally against it and say so, than those who are trying to find ways to erode the right to abortion, like Hunt, Nadine Norries etc.

I believe that the medical profession are the ones who are in the best position to say whether there should be any change in the time limit, not politicians for medical reasons. Any change should be based on science. Are the RCN, RCM, BMA and other medical professional bodies calling for changes? At what age in weeks can a foetus become viable to live? Answer that question and you find what is near to a correct time limit, after which an emergency should be the main reason for an abortion.

I would also hope that those including politicians who want to end abortion do not support ANY war, or the death penalty. Also that they do support more money going into prevention of un wanted pregnancies other than merely saying don't have sex, support sex education and support more money going into helping families, and more nurseries etc.

Charly Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:48 pm

UP THE DALE wrote:

I would also hope that those including politicians who want to end abortion do not support ANY war, or the death penalty. Also that they do support more money going into prevention of un wanted pregnancies other than merely saying don't have sex, support sex education and support more money going into helping families, and more nurseries etc.

Well said

Charly Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:51 pm

Journeaux wrote:
southernbelle wrote:When it shown that the ~~foetus~~ BABY is severely disabled/malformed/unviable.

Was told my eight month old son could have dwarfism as the scans were showing his limbs were very short.

He was born a normal healthy baby with normal size limbs - scan, or interpretation of the scan, was wrong...

I dont know how others feel but personally, I would not consider dwarfism to come under the category of any that SB described.

southernbelle Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:26 pm

Journeaux wrote:
southernbelle wrote:When it shown that the ~~foetus~~ BABY is severely disabled/malformed/unviable.

Was told my eight month old son could have dwarfism as the scans were showing his limbs were very short.

He was born a normal healthy baby with normal size limbs - scan, or interpretation of the scan, was wrong...

I am sure everyone is pleased at that outcome for him and his family, but Charly is right about Dwarfism not being sufficient reason for abortion.

My use of foetus was correct, its not a baby til its draws breath.

Malcolm, we will have to agree to different views on this matter. I know it is something you feel passionately about, and I too do not think it a decision to be taken lightly. I certainly dont think it should be done because the woman simply doesnt want the child. or as a weapon. I think each case should be carefully considered and the veiws of BOTH parents listened too. If the woman doesnt want the child, then it should be considered whether the father should be allowed sole parental rights.

Hinch Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:34 pm

I fall somewhere in that great hinterland between the pro's and the antis. Simple fact is, you can't force a woman to carry a child if she doesn't want to and no modern legislation will force the issue with online pharmacies offering all sorts of drugs such as quinine-based ones that can be used as abortificants.

I don't know what the answer is. In fact there are hundreds of different answers depending on the circumstances. The catholic hierarchy tends to have most to say on the subject to which I would say, 'non-players off the green'. They need to get their own houses in order before hanguing the rest of us on moral issues. [This not aimed at you HPP but on those at the top end or the organisation.]

You wouldn't find me in any parades demonstrating either 'for' or 'against'. People who describe themselves as 'pro-life' often have few reservations about their country going to war or about capital punishment. Neither would I be so 'pro-choice' as to go for abortion as some sort of lifestyle alternative to contraception. I once nursed a woman in her mid-twenties who had experienced four abortions in this way. Dreadful and all that but how could you force someone with such a casual attitude to life to carry a foetus to term?

Every child should be a loved child I suppose and no amount of legislation can guarantee that.

I would beware of those offering simple solutions. Have to go with the legal definition as to when a foetus becomes a human being.

Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:04 pm

Charly wrote:I dont know how others feel but personally, I would not consider dwarfism to come under the category of any that SB described.

I am glad to hear it, Charly, but the law doesn't share your view:

See below taken from: http://prolife.org.uk/2012/09/paralympics-emphasises-discrimination-in-abortion-law/

Paralympics emphasises discrimination in abortion law

The interest in the Paralympic Games has been incredible. At least 2.7m tickets were sold, easily exceeding the 1.8m sold in Beijing and the mere 850,000 in Athens. Pink and purple jacketed volunteers helped crowds of people find their way to Paralympic venues, where they yelled and cheered as least as lustily as the crowds at the Olympics. The event was a powerful symbol of how much disabled people can achieve, and how far we have come in accepting disability as a society. Yet James Parker, Catholic lay chaplain at the Paralympics, has noted the strange double-think which allows those same cheering spectators to support discrimination against the disabled before they are born.

As the law currently stands, healthy children can only be aborted up to 24 weeks, unless the mother faces death or grave permanent injury as a result of her pregnancy. Yet children who are disabled, or who might be disabled, can be aborted up to birth. Not because the life of their mother is in danger, but simply because they are disabled. Despite all the legislation protecting the disabled from discrimination, they still face the most extreme discrimination of all before birth; between 24 weeks gestation and birth, healthy children have the right to live, but disabled children do not.

A common justification for this discrimination is that abortion is the best option for the child. The quality of the child’s life would be so low that it would not be worth living. There is often also an unspoken assumption that the disabled can contribute little to society. Yet the Paralympians have spent the past eleven days proving just how wrong both those assumptions are.

One in particular, Ellie Simmonds, became the unofficial face of the London Paralympics. The 17 year old swimmer has a form of dwarfism, yet she broke four world records and won two gold medals at the Games. Her fame is even beginning to rival that of Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson, the former Paralympian, who has spina bifida. She racked up a record 16 Paralympic medals through her career, and is now a member of the House of Lords, a television presenter, and patron of numerous charities.

Yet any unborn child diagnosed with dwarfism or spina bifida today could be legally aborted right up until birth, purely because of their disability. Do we really believe that the lives of Ellie Simmonds and Tanni Grey-Thompson have not been worth living?

Alex Zanardi, another gold medallist, pointed out that ‘If people could fly, Usain Bolt would feel disabled’. The Paralympic legacy must be a more positive attitude towards the disabled, both the born and the unborn.

Hinch Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:46 pm

And now, revealed exclusively on this forum, Hinch is actually a failed abortion.

For various reasons, my Mum was in a dreadful position when she became pregnant with me. Was married to another man but waiting for her divorce to come through so that she could marry my biological father.

Off she goes to the old inside market to the patent medicine stall in the corner to buy something called Penny Royal. Thence off to Yates to buy a bottle of gin and home to put on the gas-boiler for the hot-bath.

Well sozzled on gin and dosed to the eyeballs with Penny Royal, Mrs H Snr got in the bath and waited for things to happen. I am living proof that it didn't work.

Am not sure whether a 62-year old walkin', talkin' hinch on the face of the planet is best used by the 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' side of the debate and, in truth, I oft wonder myself.

Still, I suppose I've had a few patients, a child, two grandkids, friends and trade union members I have dug out of the sh*te over the years who might take a view. Then or course, there are the views of those whose toes I have trod on over the years to be considered.

Anyway, I won't be hurried d'you hear? I'll go when my time is ready and not before!

Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:10 pm

southernbelle wrote:Malcolm, we will have to agree to different views on this matter. I know it is something you feel passionately about, and I too do not think it a decision to be taken lightly. I certainly dont think it should be done because the woman simply doesnt want the child. or as a weapon. I think each case should be carefully considered and the veiws of BOTH parents listened too. If the woman doesnt want the child, then it should be considered whether the father should be allowed sole parental rights.

Indeed we shall, Alison, though I am pleased you recognise that simply not wanting or using as a 'weapon' are despicable.

southernbelle wrote:My use of foetus was correct, its not a baby til its draws breath.

Medical terminology: an embryo to start with that develops into a foetus and becomes a baby!

I think this sums up my view:

Apparently if you want to kill your unborn child, it's a "foetus"...

But if you want to keep your unborn child alive, it's a baby...

Charly Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:15 pm

I know a young girl who the doctors tried to get to abort her severley damaged baby, she insisted she wanted the baby whatever happened.
They told her baby if he/she survived would never do anything
The baby was born with lots of problems, including a heart defect and some degree of brain damage/ blindness but survived and eventually she got to take baby home but then baby had a bleed on the brain and was hospitalised and from there the parents went through an awful time being questioned as they suspected shaken baby syndrome had caused the bleed.
Baby was taken into care, , case reviews ect going on for almost 2 years now, mother is pregnant with 2nd child, parents now seperated.. this poor girl has been told recently she will not be having her 1st child back and has also been told baby due in a couple of weeks is to be removed from her at birth.
Child 1 recently underwent open heart surgery and while in hospital suffered a further bleed on the brain so they now know it is not shaken baby syndrome but it doesn't seem to make any difference.
The girl has jumped through every hoop put in front of her, attending parenting classes, getting full time work, visiting child at every stated time and opportunity, travelling to Birmingham hospital daily on the coach to visit, she was not allowed to stay at the hospital as she is not the main carer.
I dont know what she has done what is so bad that they are taking the new baby at birth, I have fostered 11 babies/children in my time and have come across babies being returned to their parent/s after suffering severe neglect and abuse, yet this girl fought the doctors to give her child life against all their advice.
The extent of the problems showed up well before birth but she carried on knowing what she was facing, and now not even being given a chance with this new baby who is in good health makes me want to cry for her.
I dont even know what to say any more

Prudence Tempered Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:42 pm

Heywoodpp wrote:However, the statistics show that in the majority of cases in this country we have now got abortion on demand and it is being used as a kind of contraceptive after the event.

A good point. It's one we should use to ensure that contraception is used before the event, even better if it was used during.

Spartacus Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:21 pm

Abortion is wrong. The many of human beings would say so. It is a terrible and dreadful act.

Legally abortion is permissible under strict guidelines. The many would agree that those guidelines should be even stricter and the framework in which they operate should be tightened.

Who in their right mind would defend the killing of an unborn child? Why would any woman make the decision to have an abortion? Who would take that decision lightly?

Some women will make the decision because they are lazy when it comes to birth control and it suits them to do so. It’s a lifestyle choice for them, a death sentence for their unborn child. They might defend themselves but not many would defend them.

But what about the rape victims, the girls abused by their fathers, stepfathers or other predators, the girls/women who have been prostituted, the women who became pregnant in their 50s, the mothers living in poverty, the women who lost their minds after the birth of their last baby and who fear for their future sanity, the girls too scared to seek contraception, the women having affairs who do not want to break up their families with a divorce, the women talked into it by the love of their life or the women whose contraception failed? All have their own story, their own reasons or if you prefer - excuses.

I doubt any of them would make the decision lightly. The majority will be haunted by their actions for the rest of their lives. At the time of the abortion many of them may already have held their own child in their arms and may go on to have another child. Others will only realise the true tragedy of their actions when they hold their newborn in their arms for the first time.

Most of the women will never forget the child they lost. Some might say the child they murdered. Use whatever term you wish to describe it because I am sure they will have used it on themselves.

The majority of these women will carry the guilt of their actions for the rest of their days. Guilt – the gift that keeps on giving.

Abortion is wrong and the women who make the decision know it. It might be a choice and never the right one yet abortion is a choice that some women take because they feel they have no other.

I do not agree with abortion and I suspect nor do the majority of women who have one.

Hinch Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:53 pm

If you are against abortion Sparks, just say so. No need to beat about the bush!

Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:25 pm

Spartacus, coming from a woman some will say your view has more legitimacy than coming from a man; I do not agree but that is not relevant, it is a view I agree with.

My view was very much confirmed as a young man in my twenties when my partner lost our son at 5 months (her third miscarriage - I have three children, I should have seven) - she had a coil fitted and when we discovered she was pregnant, despite the coil, the doctors told us it wasn't possible to remove the coil, the risk was too high of losing the baby. Sadly the coil burst his 'bag' and he died. I was there and was given him to hold for a couple of hours before they took him away, I have never cried so much in my life, nearly thirty years on and I am crying again typing this, it was a heart rending experience that left me utterly distraught.

That experience made me wonder how on earth any parent could kill their own flesh and blood, and no argument I have heard since has ever been remotely convincing enough to dissuade me from that view.

Prudence Tempered Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:12 pm

Spartacus wrote:But what about the rape victims, the girls abused by their fathers, stepfathers or other predators, the girls/women who have been prostituted, the women who became pregnant in their 50s, the mothers living in poverty, the women who lost their minds after the birth of their last baby and who fear for their future sanity, the girls too scared to seek contraception, the women having affairs who do not want to break up their families with a divorce, the women talked into it by the love of their life or the women whose contraception failed? All have their own story, their own reasons or if you prefer - excuses.

Yes, what about rape victims, girls abused by parents or those forced into prostitution?

past it Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:15 pm

Once a baby is conceived it begins the journey of life,aborting it or killing it because that is what abortion is, means ending that life. There can be very few reasons why that can ever be right.

Prudence Tempered Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:19 pm

past it wrote: Once a baby is conceived it begins the journey of life,aborting it or killing it because that is what abortion is, means ending that life. There can be very few reasons why that can ever be right.

Very few is not the same as none.

Spartacus Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:39 pm

Journeaux wrote:Spartacus, coming from a woman some will say your view has more legitimacy than coming from a man; I do not agree but that is not relevant, it is a view I agree with.

My view was very much confirmed as a young man in my twenties when my partner lost our son at 5 months (her third miscarriage - I have three children, I should have seven) - she had a coil fitted and when we discovered she was pregnant, despite the coil, the doctors told us it wasn't possible to remove the coil, the risk was too high of losing the baby. Sadly the coil burst his 'bag' and he died. I was there and was given him to hold for a couple of hours before they took him away, I have never cried so much in my life, nearly thirty years on and I am crying again typing this, it was a heart rending experience that left me utterly distraught.

That experience made me wonder how on earth any parent could kill their own flesh and blood, and no argument I have heard since has ever been remotely convincing enough to dissuade me from that view.

I am sorry to learn that, Journeaux. I wish there was something I could say to make it better but I know I can not.

I believe all life is precious not just human life yet I eat meat on occasion and have just defended the undefendable. I wish I could take the same stance as yourself. I used to. Life however has introduced me to some of the women I mentioned earlier and I am unable to turn my back on them while society is the way it is. In a perfect world things would be different.

Atlas Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:03 am

[quote="Spartacus"]Abortion is wrong. The majority of human beings would say so. It is a terrible and dreadful act.

Such a bold statement. Perhaps you would give me the figures to substantiate? If not perhaps you might consider changing it or at least ask leave before you make such assumtions. Surprised

Spartacus Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:45 am

[quote="Atlas"]

Spartacus wrote:Abortion is wrong. The majority of human beings would say so. It is a terrible and dreadful act.

Such a bold statement. Perhaps you would give me the figures to substantiate? If not perhaps you might consider changing it or at least ask leave before you make such assumtions.

I stand by my bold statement. It is an assumption I make and do not feel the need to ask leave to do so.

I believe the majority of women who choose to have an abortion believe that what they are doing is wrong yet at the same time believe it is the right choice for them. It is not something which is entered into lightly in the vast majority of cases.

Hinch Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:35 am

I once heard an idiot of a priest once trying to explain to me why masturbation by males was wrong as every 'wasted' sperm' could be part of a viable life.

Obviously abortion is an emotive subject and covers the whole spectrum from 'abortion on demand' to 'never under any circumstances'. If my wife, child or friend was raped. I would have no problem with them undergoing a D&C neither would I if termination was carried out because of a threat to the mother's health or if the child was likely to be born severely disabled AND the mother/father did not feel able to bring it into the world.

I think that many mothers later regret their decision to go for a TOP but not everyone feels like that. I do think, in direct relation to the current debate, that 12 weeks is very late on in the pregnancy and I wouldn't wish to be in obstetric theatre when it was 'born'.

Sponsored content

Abortion debate

Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Abortion

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate

Re: Abortion debate