Re: Abortion debate

Spartacus Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:56 am

Neither would I Hinch - not at any stage.

There should be easier access to contraception and the morning after pill.

Before anyone jumps on me from a great height that does not mean I am in favour of the blanket prescribing of contraception to school children without the knowledge of their parents. It does mean that I am in favour of speaking and being more open about these things and ensuring that girls and women who need help gain it with the very minimum of delay.

As a society we beam casual sex without responsibility into our homes daily through the media and internet yet baulk about discussing sexual responsibility. We need to get a grip.

Hinch Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:04 am

We did not have an obstetric theatre where I worked when I was a theatre nurse so I never saw a termination even though I think that I would probably have opted out of participating in them.

I think that the inquisitive hinch nature would have nudged me towards witnessing one though as I always tend to try to come from a position of knowledge rather than emotion.

Charly Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:38 pm

Spartacus wrote:

As a society we beam casual sex without responsibility into our homes daily through the media and internet yet baulk about discussing sexual responsibility. We need to get a grip.

I dont know if I'm getting old or what but the current storylines in the soaps seem to be all about babies, Corrie have got a situation where a girl with a disability became pregnant and miscarried, now the unmarried couple are going down the surrogacy route.
Would that be considered in reality?
I thought people had to jump through hoops to be accepted for IVF and other suchlike treatments.
In my younger days if you got pregnant before marriage you were pushed into the registry office pretty quickly with 'What will the neighbours think?' ringing in your ears. (i know, I was that girl! Embarassed

) it was only after I miscarried a week before the wedding that my parents tried to talk me out of getting married then!

johnb Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:51 pm

Abortion is wrong, but equally it can be just as wrong (maybe more wrong) in some circumstances for the woman to give birth.

What we are left with is a balance of wrongs - the lesser evil - call it what you will!

It's part of being human.

Guest Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:59 pm

Spartacus wrote: ....

Before anyone jumps on me from a great height that does not mean I am in favour of the blanket prescribing of contraception to school children without the knowledge of their parents. It does mean that I am in favour of speaking and being more open about these things and ensuring that girls and women who need help gain it with the very minimum of delay.

As a society we beam casual sex without responsibility into our homes daily through the media and internet yet baulk about discussing sexual responsibility. We need to get a grip.

Agree, but suggest that contraception services and all and far more discussions about sexual responsibilities should be targeted at males as well as females; it takes two.

Spartacus Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:14 pm

Absolutely, Mojo Hill.

Jackspratt Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:42 pm

There are two opinions: pro-life and pro-death, let's not sugar coat the - 'pro-choice' option.

It's a baby for crying out loud. C'mon we are humans, not a medical textbook.

The current limit of 24 weeks is absurd, how anyone can kill a baby simply because it's so-called mother decides she doesn't want it anymore beats me.

However saying that, I agree with SB's first post, and the cases which could be considered when the limit comes down though, although compared to social abortions, these are in the minority, yet used quite a lot in abortion debates!

I myself have been in the unfortunate situation of sitting in an abortion clinic - The sour-faced, biggish grey haired lady at Rochdale Family fascists clinic (now thankfully obliterated) literally forced me to go because i was young, wasn't in a marriage at the time i found out i was expecting a baby, and had not a lot of money. The cattle market i was sent to in Manchester wasn't any better, quite happy to dish out pills like sweets, gave completely the wrong dates and had i gone through with it, i could have 1. suffered a horrendous few days if it worked at all, or 2. ended up damaging my healthy baby. They said i was 5 weeks gone, when in fact i was 14 weeks.

It's despicable in this day and age, human beings can legally, rip a child from its mothers womb for silly reasons, such as she split up from the father; leaving it going from being cosy and safe one minute, to the next gasping for air - unloved and uncared for. And the person who made the decision (pro-choice an' all that) was its own mother, vile and so upsetting!

Atlas Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:29 am

[quote="Spartacus"]

Atlas wrote:
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 assumptions.
"Spartacus" -
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.

Reply -
Even should such a bold statement be right I doubt women are in the majority in this world. When you use the word 'majority' it is the same as saying most of the people or certainly above half. You would be advised to use the word 'many' otherwise you stand the possibility of being castigated for arrogance at the least and ill-informed unsubstantiated rhetoric at best. As for myself. Don't you dare include me in your wild throw away statement or figures thank you.

Hinch Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:38 am

Jackspratt wrote: There are two opinions: pro-life and pro-death, let's not sugar coat the - 'pro-choice' option.

This is one of the problems; the debate is often carried out against a background of hysteria by one side or the other. It's almost as if those who are not totally anti-abortion under any circumstances are being judged as morally deficient in some way.

Valuable insights though JS. Interesting to hear from someone who almost went through it.

I really, really don't know where I stand on it. What upsets me far more than the thought of a foetus being sucked out of its womb (or 'ripped' as the 'pro-lifers' usually tellingly though inaccurately describe it.) would be a child; unwanted and unloved being brought up in poverty and God-knows what sort of abuse. However, I despise those who view abortion as either a lifestyle choice or as an alternative to contraception.

Going into schools and doing training and a bit of role-play in sexual behaviours and attitudes will have no measurable effects whatsoever apart from to keep a few well-meaning ineffectuals in jobs. Sex when you are young is often an unplanned, furtive, urgent, uncoordinated drink or drug-fuelled affair in which the brain most definitely plays second-fiddle to the gonads. These are the sort of behaviours that often end in the abortion clinic.

One thing is certain; this genii will never be put back in the bottle. I do think that 12-weeks is far too late but then again, I've heard the 'morning-after' pill as being 'much too early'.

The world is never black and white but we do have problems deciding what shade of grey it is.

Spartacus Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:18 am

[quote="Atlas"]

Spartacus wrote:
Atlas wrote:
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 assumptions.
"Spartacus" -
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.

Reply -
Even should such a bold statement be right I doubt women are in the majority in this world. When you use the word 'majority' it is the same as saying most of the people or certainly above half. You would be advised to use the word 'many' otherwise you stand the possibility of being castigated for arrogance at the least and ill-informed unsubstantiated rhetoric at best. As for myself. Don't you dare include me in your wild throw away statement or figures thank you.

Atlas, I have changed "majority" to "many" because I now understand the point you were making. It was ignorance on my part that I used the wrong word. I will be more careful in future.Thank you for educating me.

There was no offence intended behind my ignorance. I apologise for unintentionally causing any.

Spartacus Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:37 am

I agree, Hinch.

I suppose the problem for me is that I am playing devil's advocate here on behalf of the women I mentioned earlier, many of whom are were neither young or nor ignorant.

Hinch Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:48 am

Oi Sparks. That apology to Atlas. A bit grovelly eh? Pearls before swine and all that. Get a grip woman!

Dalelad Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:55 am

Hinch, I feel similar to you about this. I used to see it as black and white, but I'm now don't think of a small group of cells as a human being, any more than an acorn is an oak tree. I do think that the current time limit is too high, given that a good number of babies survive when born at 23 and 24 weeks these days, and so must be able to feel pain, given that their nervous system is very well developed.

Spartacus Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:12 am

hinch wrote:Oi Sparks. That apology to Atlas. A bit grovelly eh? Pearls before swine and all that. Get a grip woman!

There's nothing wrong in admitting a mistake and eating a bit of humble pie when it's due. Atlas has a point. I didn't see it at first. Much prefer to discuss the issue rather than for the discussion to become one.

Plus I worry about that goat - have you seen the look on its face? Could be something to do with the fact that Atlas has a grip on it's tail but I wouldn't like to cross it.

Hinch Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:33 am

I don't want to be either racist or judgmental Sparky but the Welsh and their relationship with goats is not something for polite conversation. What weird practices goes on in them hills isn't fit for man, beast or Atlas.

That poor bloody Dewi, paraded before all those leering squaddies in the Welsh Guards every St David's Day then after a plate of leeks it's high jinks in back in the barracks eh?

Sickening and disgusting.

Guest Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:06 am

hinch wrote:What upsets me far more than the thought of a foetus being sucked out of its womb (or 'ripped' as the 'pro-lifers' usually tellingly though inaccurately describe it.)

In a Channel 4 Despatches programme, Dr John Spencer, who is the senior clinical director for Marie Stopes and one of only a handful of doctors in the country who perform abortions right up to the legal limit of 24 weeks, broke a huge medical taboo and spelled out exactly what happens.

In the first 12 weeks or so of pregnancy, doctors can use a simple suction procedure. After that, the surgery becomes more complicated.

Dr Spencer said: "The foetus can't come out in one go. We haven't dilated sufficiently for that. The foetal parts are soft enough to break apart as they are being removed..."

In other words, he has to dismember the foetus inside the uterus and pull it out, bit by bit. He uses an ultrasound scan to guide him. Even then, some body parts are too large to come out intact.

To illustrate what happens, Dr Spencer grips his thumb between the surgical forceps and squeezes gently. "Those parts are the skull and then the spine and pelvis, and in fact they are crushed..."

Charly Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:37 pm

Dalelad wrote: a good number of babies survive when born at 23 and 24 weeks these days, and so must be able to feel pain, given that their nervous system is very well developed.

My daughter works on a neo-natal ICU ward in Manchester and babies are surviving when born very early as DaleLad points out.
I think she has even mentioned a 22 week gestation baby weighing 800-900 grams surviving, obviously I dont know the long term prognosis on a baby so young

Hinch Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:10 pm

There is no doubt that obstetrics and neo-natal technology has come on in leaps and bounds over the years so that neo-nates are able to survive outside the womb much earlier.

A few years ago, my mate, an obstetrician delivered the then lowest surviving birth-weight in the UK which was about 2.5 lbs but that figure was passed years ago. The main problem is that their imature respiratory tract struggles to cope.

I could never describe myself as 'pro abortion' though I have no doubt that my unease at banning it in all circumstances makes me a fan of baby-killing in the minds of some.

It was not that long ago of course that the church virtually forced women to go through dangerous birthing processes knowing it would most likely cause the death of the mother to protect the life of the unborn child. That is anathema to me.

Anyway, I think this thread is about the time going up to 12-weeks pre 'normal' gestation. With my limited knowledge, I feel that this is way too far into the pregnancy and I would be very uneasy about it. As MJ points out, it is a destructive and sickening business at this stage.

Atlas Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:28 am

Spartacus wrote:
hinch wrote:Oi Sparks. That apology to Atlas. A bit grovelly eh? Pearls before swine and all that. Get a grip woman!

There's nothing wrong in admitting a mistake and eating a bit of humble pie when it's due. Atlas has a point. I didn't see it at first. Much prefer to discuss the issue rather than for the discussion to become one.

Plus I worry about that goat - have you seen the look on its face? Could be something to do with the fact that Atlas has a grip on it's tail but I wouldn't like to cross it.

How remarkably astute of you Spartacus. I wondered how long it would be before someone picked up on it.

Thank you for understanding my point regarding the 'wording' of your initial post.

Hinch. Ewes got it about right. Surprised

Irishman Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:22 am

Well we can pontificate about the rights and wrongs of abortion from which ever angle that shows the worst of it from now until the cows come home but it basically comes down to two things. We leave abortion to the unqualified greedy money makers. In this day and age with the technology and info to perform an abortion clearly at hand from the internet, someone will see the potential there and it will go underground. If people really believe that women will stop aborting because of a law change they will be very mistaken.

Secondly the other side of this is basically forcing women to carry babies they do not want, forcing women, and young girls to carry through a pregnancy without the freedom of choice.

I’m totally against abortion full stop but even though I feel that way a world were we force women to have children they don’t want isn’t a place I would want to live. I’m not sure what is worse, ending a pregnancy before term or forcing women to have a child she doesn’t want or indeed forcing a child to carry a baby if she was abused or indeed the rape victim having to deal with a rape and a pregnancy from that rape, real scary stuff here.

We talk about long term harm for those terminating pregnancy, I see another ball game here when we start forcing women all the way through a pregnancy what harm that will do for both parties, mother and child and indeed society because society will have to police this, another mine field here indeed. If you sit and think of the many bad things that could come out of a change in the law to stop abortion it is real scary stuff.

UP THE DALE Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:43 am

Nice to see you have made the migration over here Irishman. Smile

Agree with your post. Abortion is not a good thing to happen, but the fact is it is needed, otherwise we will see the return of back street abortions, but some would not be bothered with that. Looks like to answer my earlier question, that the medical professional groups favour leaving the limit as it is. I would therefore leave it to the experts to come up with the best time limit, not politicians, and others who will base their favoured limits on moral issues rather than science.

Hopefully as time goes on less and less women will need to have abortions, but there has to be more sex education, more availability to the morning after pill (yes even without parental knowledge), more free contraception available and more widely available too. Also more counselling services, more help available for women who have babies, etc etc. In other words lets get rid of the situations that give rise to abortions.

UP THE DALE Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:57 am

On the question of morning after pill and other contraception, when my daughters were under 16, I would rather they have had widely available free access to either without having to feel they needed my or their mum's agreement or knowledge. Girls at that age might not feel they can go to an adult who is a family member or friend, but can go to a chemist, doctor etc. In that situation surely it would be better for them to get the help they need. Same with my son, I would rather he had protected sex, and therefore be able to access condoms, freely from a chemist, doctors etc, even school. This is NOT about promoting sex, it is about dealing with the facts that some youngsters do it.

Obviously though we are dealing with a society in which some people believe masturbation is murder, never mind abortion. This is why laws like this, should be based on science not on any of our morals,or beliefs.

Spartacus Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:16 pm

I agree with most of what you say UTD.

However I would not be happy with any doctor prescribing "the pill" to a child of mine.

Many children do not know their parents/families medical histories and would be unable to answer the health questions which need to be answered before this kind of contraception is prescribed. It would be dangerous for it to be prescribed to some individuals without being aware of the full medical facts. A family doctor would have more idea than a pharmacist but I would still be very much against it on health grounds unless in exceptional circumstances.

UP THE DALE Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:41 pm

Is that the case with the morning after pill Spartacus, that it could be dangerous? Or just for the general contraceptive pill? Obviously it would have to be a family doctor with full medical history of the young woman who prescribed the pill.

Of course in most families like mine and I would have thought your family, the young person would be able to talk to the parents about such issues. I was very lucky, that to my knowledge none of my children faced such issues. Some children though are not so lucky, as they might be in a very strict and or abusive household, and might have to seek help outside the family.

In all of this, the prevention of un wanted pregnancies is what's desirable, compared to the trauma of termination of a pregnancy. Not always a case of "just saying no".

Spartacus Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:12 pm

UP THE DALE wrote:Is that the case with the morning after pill Spartacus, that it could be dangerous? Or just for the general contraceptive pill? Obviously it would have to be a family doctor with full medical history of the young woman who prescribed the pill.

Of course in most families like mine and I would have thought your family, the young person would be able to talk to the parents about such issues. I was very lucky, that to my knowledge none of my children faced such issues. Some children though are not so lucky, as they might be in a very strict and or abusive household, and might have to seek help outside the family.

In all of this, the prevention of un wanted pregnancies is what's desirable, compared to the trauma of termination of a pregnancy. Not always a case of "just saying no".

I'm not sure about the morning after pill, UTD, I know very little about it. I do think it is preferable to make the morning after pill available than for a termination to take place at a later date. My comments were about the general contraceptive pill which I know can be dangerous for certain individuals.

Totally agree with you on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

As well as contraception, I think there is also the issue of promiscuity and I am unsure of my use of that word. What I mean by that is the sexualisation of children and particularly females in our society and the idea that everyone is actively "at it" with every Tom, Dick and Harry all of the time. The huge increase in pornography and the way 'sex' is being used to sell and shock. I am often surprised how sexually focused some music videos and TV programmes are now. I hope that doesn't make me come over as some kind of prude. I want us to be more open about sex and sexuality but I also want to see some respect and responsibility introduced in there as well. Does that make sense?

Sponsored content