24 Week Abortions

[jebus]

Anyone reading about the debate between the Tories and Labour in England about reducing the maximum number of weeks a female can choose to abort a fetus at? It currently stands at 24 weeks, the Tories want it initially reduced to 20 weeks, with possible reductions in review, Labour want it maintained at 24 weeks.

Personally I think it's ridiculous that a fetus can be aborted at 24 weeks. I'm pro-choice, but I can't see how it can be considered okay to abort a fetus at 6 months when there has been cases of premature babies being born at this stage and surviving. If the fetus is capable, or even has a chance, of living outside of it's host than it should be given that chance I feel so I'd be in favour of restricting the maximum time back to 20, or even 18 weeks, with special dispensation given in extraordinary circumstances (life of the host in danger, undetected pregnancy caused after an assault), whats peoples opinions on it though?*

* I realise threads on abortion on any forum have a short shelf life before they are consigned to the rubbish before anyone points it out

[osarusan]

For what reasons are you pro-choice?

It seems like you are pro-choice until the fetus has a chance of survival outside the womb, and then you are not pro-choice any more.

Is it more acceptable to abort a fetus which couldn't survive outside the womb than one which could?

[crc]

I realise threads on abortion on any forum have a short shelf life before they are consigned to the rubbish before anyone points it out
Yeah this is bound to get hijacked pretty soon. :(

I watched some of the report on BBC News last night and was shocked at the numbers. The BBC reported that there are 206,000 terminations per year in England and Wales. I had a quick look for the number of live births per year, which is around the 650,000 (for England & Wales). That means that about 24% of all pregnancies end in termination, which would strike me as extremely high no matter what side of the debate you are on.

[jebus]

For what reasons are you pro-choice?

It seems like you are pro-choice until the fetus has a chance of survival outside the womb, and then you are not pro-choice any more.

Is it more acceptable to abort a fetus which couldn't survive outside the womb than one which could?

In my mind yes. I don't consider a fetus a living being until it is able to live independently of it's host/mother, so I have no issues with someone choosing to abort, say, a 2 month fetus as I still don't consider it technically alive

[Eire06]

My friend gave birth to twins after 25 weeks.
Girls are in perfect health and just passed their 1st birthday.

I'm pro choice but 24 weeks is too late

[MyTown]

In my mind yes. I don't consider a fetus a living being until it is able to live independently of it's host/mother, so I have no issues with someone choosing to abort, say, a 2 month fetus as I still don't consider it technically alive

Host / Mother:confused:

Very telling use of terminology IMO

My concern is the widely accepted notion that children can live, as you put it "independently" after their birth.

The loss of either or both parents to a child after they are born (whether through accident, neglect, separation, economic necessity...whatever) is a huge disadavantage to the "viability" of that life for "its" future imho.

[superfrank]

I'm pro-choice. I feel a foetus is not alive until it's out of the mother.

I'm well aware of the development of the foetus but I still think until the foetus comes out of the mother, it's not alive.

[anto1208]

Im against it, if i was ever in the situation i would definetly keep the baby i see very little reason to abort. there is exceptional circumstances all right but it should be just that exceptional looking at the numbers going for abortions there cant be that many exceptional cases.

24 weeks is a discrace. As some one said in the debate the other night it means you could have doctors in one room working to save a baby while in the other room giving an abortion on a baby of the same age.

Exceptional circumstances should include medical reasons, victims of insest, rape, child abuse etc.

[jebus]

Yes but nature and circumstance will take its course if both parents die after a child has been born, both parents could die, but the baby might get picked up by the health services and go on to live, but thats all down to circumstance.

If you were to take a two month old fetus out of a host (I call it that because I assume the female doesn't consider herself a mother) it wouldn't be fully formed and would have died immediatly upon seperation from the female. Two very different scenarios in my opinion

* In response to MyTown

[anto1208]

I'm pro-choice. I feel a foetus is not alive until it's out of the mother.

I'm well aware of the development of the foetus but I still think until the foetus comes out of the mother, it's not alive.

Think you ll be hard pushed to find support for 9 month abortions :D

[jebus]

Think you ll be hard pushed to find support for 9 month abortions :D

Always liked the part in the Simpsons where Kang is running for President as Bill Clinton,

'Abortions for all!' boos from the crowd
'Okay, no abortions for anyone!' boos from the crowd
'Okay, abortions for some, minature American flags for the others' Cheers from the crowd

:D:D

[pete]

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7412118.stm)

Very emotive topic but I suppose at least British MPs honest enough to debate in the first place. Irish politicians are scared of this topic

Seems like they had a number of votes ranging on limits from 12-24 weeks. Labour allowed an open vote on this too.

Almost all abortions under 12 weeks (less than 10%) anyway as seen in this graph (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7412118.stm#graphic) so strange to see it was not lowered. Seems medical experts said would make no difference to foetus survival rate when compare 24 to 20 weeks & this apparently is why 24 weeks was set originally.

[jebus]

Very emotive topic but I suppose at least British MPs honest enough to debate in the first place. Irish politicians are scared of this topic.

I was thinking the same watching the news yesterday, there is no way a politician on this island would touch this subject, let alone openly debate it, sad indictment of this island's rooted in Catholicism attitudes to be honest

[Macy]

Personally I think it's ridiculous that a fetus can be aborted at 24 weeks. I'm pro-choice, but I can't see how it can be considered okay to abort a fetus at 6 months when there has been cases of premature babies being born at this stage and surviving.
They can survive, but not independently and still with a low survival rate (a week makes a big difference at that stage). First scans aren't normally done until 20 weeks (although this may be artificially pushed out in this country due to "ethos" of the hospitals). I don't see how you could logically have the cut off before the first scan which would show up issues in the baby or the mother? Any reduction must be mindful of the medical procedures that show up the problems.


The BBC reported that there are 206,000 terminations per year in England and Wales. I had a quick look for the number of live births per year, which is around the 650,000 (for England & Wales). That means that about 24% of all pregnancies end in termination, which would strike me as extremely high no matter what side of the debate you are on.
Don't forget that also includes terminations of countries like, say for example us. It's not really a fair comparison.


Im against it, if i was ever in the situation i would definetly keep the baby i see very little reason to abort.
Is anto short for Antoinette? I always thought you were a bloke tbh.

[crc]

Don't forget that also includes terminations of countries like, say for example us. It's not really a fair comparison.
I think my point is entirely fair. According to this website (http://www.safeandlegalinireland.com/sl_stats.html), 5,585 Irish women travelled to Britain in 2005, which represents a tiny proportion of the 206,000 figure quoted by the BBC. If you take out those with Irish addresses that still leaves a figure of 23%.

[d13bohs]

I was thinking the same watching the news yesterday, there is no way a politician on this island would touch this subject, let alone openly debate it, sad indictment of this island's rooted in Catholicism attitudes to be honest

Yeah, despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in the X case that abortion is permitted in certain circumstances when there is a threat to the life of the mother, neither of the catholic centre-right parties in Ireland have legislated to put that judgment into law, leaving doctors in an extremely difficult legal position when this arises. Labour proposed legislating to take account of the X case judgment at the last general election but there's no way either FF or FG would have agreed to it so it was irrelevant really.

Whenever this has been discussed, most pro-choice groups who have dealt with numerous Irish women going to England for abortions say that a lot of those Irish women do not give their Irish address so the figures may be a lot higher than those simply based on Irish addresses.

On another point, it always surprises me how many of the most militant pro-life types are men though... :confused:

[GavinZac]

There should be a 24 year abortion limit. ASBOs my arse...

[jebus]

There should be a 24 year abortion limit. ASBOs my arse...

It's good to have him back all the same :)

[Macy]

I think my point is entirely fair. According to this website (http://www.safeandlegalinireland.com/sl_stats.html), 5,585 Irish women travelled to Britain in 2005, which represents a tiny proportion of the 206,000 figure quoted by the BBC. If you take out those with Irish addresses that still leaves a figure of 23%.
That link also says that's an undercount though.

edit - as D13bohs points out

[osarusan]

There should be a 24 year abortion limit. ASBOs my arse...
disgraceful comment. Ban that man. He's asking for it, literally.

[MyTown]

Yes but nature and circumstance will take its course if both parents die after a child has been born, both parents could die, but the baby might get picked up by the health services and go on to live, but thats all down to circumstance.


For me there's an inherent contradiction in being pro choice and then pointing out how nature will take its course.

Now I begin to see how the likes of your fellow citizen the Minister for Guns gets such a huge personal vote. Obviously there's no problem with holding contradictory positions.

I think you should apply for a handle change to Dahamsta......*Janus would be much more appropriate than Jebus imho:p

(*The god of gates and doorways, depicted with two faces looking in opposite directions. )

[jebus]

Do I start by insulting his pro-life views, his Latte United support, or his anti-humour posts? Choices, choices

[dahamsta]

Lads, while I enjoy the witty banter as much as the next guy, can we leave it out of this thread and keep it as a straight debate please? It's an emotive issue and people WILL take jokes the wrong way. Usually on purpose, don't give them the opportunity.

THanks,
adam

[SeanDrog]

I'm pro-choice. I feel a foetus is not alive until it's out of the mother.

I'm well aware of the development of the foetus but I still think until the foetus comes out of the mother, it's not alive.

Had to stop reading this thread when I came to the above post. Are you for REAL!!!

My wife is due in 8 days and I can feel the baby kicking etc etc, so its not ALIVE??? until it is born?

Its a person - a baby, get use to the terminology , I think an earlier post referred to the mother as the host :eek:

People need to get a little real and stop trying to sterilise the terminology, the process involves killing a baby in the mothers womb.

Scans happen at 12 weeks (if your private at least) and there is a little baby bobbing around clear a day.

Prochoice - so if the kid is one year old and the mother decides, nah can't live this life , can she book into a clinic and have the child disposed of? To me there is no difference no matter how you want to dress it up.

Abortion can be called whatever it wants but it is simply one individual deciding to take the life of another.

But hey its the politically correct world so if calling yourself Prochoice insulates you from the reality of baby killing - work away - free world.

[osarusan]

Its a person - a baby, get use to the terminology , I think an earlier post referred to the mother as the host :eek:

In that case, the poster used the term 'host' because the reason the woman is having an abortion is because she doesn't want to be a mother, at least not to that foetus.

[micls]

In that case, the poster used the term 'host' because the reason the woman is having an abortion is because she doesn't want to be a mother, at least not to that foetus.

While I see the point, plenty of mothers don't want to be mother's. If the child has been bron though you wouldnt call the mother 'the host' whether they want to be a mother or not.

I dont really see how being a mother is a choice. Maybe it depends on your definition of the word

[GavinZac]

At 12 weeks the foetus is basically an amphibian with all the intelligence, emotions and nervous system of a newt. It may have a head, 2 legs and 2 arms but a baby it aint. If you're strongly against its termination you're either a vegan or you attach some symbolic/mystic/religious value that makes what is essentially a parasite hiding itself by secreting hormones through the placenta, a potential human, and you start going down the murky road of souls and sins and that malarky

[micls]

If you're strongly against its termination you're either a vegan or you attach some symbolic/mystic/religious value that makes what is essentially a parasite hiding itself by secreting hormones through the placenta, a potential human, and you start going down the murky road of souls and sins and that malarky

Rubbish. If the foetus isnt terminated it will become a baby. It's the 'future' baby that people are against he termination of not the 'parasite'. It has nothing to do with sybolism or religion.

Sure kids arent much use to us, but if you let them grow into adults they will eventually contribute to society and carry on our genes..... :)

[osarusan]

If you're strongly against its termination you're either a vegan or you attach some symbolic/mystic/religious value that makes what is essentially a parasite hiding itself by secreting hormones through the placenta, a potential human, and you start going down the murky road of souls and sins and that malarky
Yet again Gavin, you assume that you know the character and motivation of people who have a certain opinion.

Didn't you receive a warning for that kind of thing recently?

[SeanDrog]

At 12 weeks the foetus is basically an amphibian with all the intelligence, emotions and nervous system of a newt. It may have a head, 2 legs and 2 arms but a baby it aint. If you're strongly against its termination you're either a vegan or you attach some symbolic/mystic/religious value that makes what is essentially a parasite hiding itself by secreting hormones through the placenta, a potential human, and you start going down the murky road of souls and sins and that malarky

What a sad world you live in.

[GavinZac]

Rubbish. If the foetus isnt terminated it will become a baby. It's the 'future' baby that people are against he termination of not the 'parasite'. It has nothing to do with sybolism or religion. Isn't that the point though? They don't want it to become a baby, and it isn't a baby. Im sure some people would protest a 12 week abortion but be ok with a morning after pill. They both prevent future babies - the morning after pill stops the "parasite" from attaching itself. That makes it a hypocritical position; there has to be a point where we define what is 'human' and what is not. The idea that we would balk at the termination of a small squigly thing yet hunt/kill/experiment on gorillas and chimps with the mental capacity of a 3 year old or cows with the mental capacity of a 6 month old is again, hypocritical. If you're going to protect something which isn't human but might be some day, you have to ask why? What makes it special, now? And at what point does it become special? And what is the difference then, between special and not special? If the ability to someday have a human thought is the differentiating factor, we cannot differentiate at all once fertilisation has occurred in the fallopian tubes; one could go further and call a sperm racing toward an ovum collectively a potential human.


Sure kids arent much use to us, but if you let them grow into adults they will eventually contribute to society and carry on our genes..... :)If ever there was a time for population control, it is now. As it is, we can barely sustain ourselves and food prices are rocketing. As Jared Diamond put it, if population continues to grow at the rate it is now, we'll be stacked on top of each other within 200 years and will have doubled the mass of the earth within 2000*.

With the age of genetic experimentation dawning it very much raises the issue of what we seek to protect and what we don't. We've already seen the ignorance that can exist when emotive issues cross genetic ones with the stem cell "controversy"; a day will come when someone identifies a gene that can be switched on or off and make a massive improvement to human quality of life; lactose intolerance, or susceptibility to cancer. One 'parasite' will have to be the first to be experimented on. Will people shout for joy because of the advances, or make sweeping hateful comments about souls, 'future humans' not having a choice, or eugenics?

*(based on reading Collapse about a year ago so figures might be off in either direction)

[GavinZac]

Yet again Gavin, you assume that you know the character and motivation of people who have a certain opinion.What base have i not covered? Either they are against the unnecessary killing/abuse of living things, or they see the human foetus as special in some way. I can't think of any other reason but I'm open to correction.

Didn't you receive a warning for that kind of thing recently?No? :confused:

[jebus]

Isn't that the point though? They don't want it to become a baby, and it isn't a baby. Im sure some people would protest a 12 week abortion but be ok with a morning after pill. They both prevent future babies - the morning after pill stops the "parasite" from attaching itself. That makes it a hypocritical position; there has to be a point where we define what is 'human' and what is not. The idea that we would balk at the termination of a small squigly thing yet hunt/kill/experiment on gorillas and chimps with the mental capacity of a 3 year old or cows with the mental capacity of a 6 month old is again, hypocritical. If you're going to protect something which isn't human but might be some day, you have to ask why? What makes it special, now? And at what point does it become special? And what is the difference then, between special and not special? If the ability to someday have a human thought is the differentiating factor, we cannot differentiate at all.



That gets a big hear hear from Jebus

[osarusan]

No? :confused:
Apologies, I was wrong (on that part only).


Isn't that the point though? They don't want it to become a baby, and it isn't a baby. Im sure some people would protest a 12 week abortion but be ok with a morning after pill. They both prevent future babies - the morning after pill stops the "parasite" from attaching itself. That makes it a hypocritical position; there has to be a point where we define what is 'human' and what is not. The idea that we would balk at the termination of a small squigly thing yet hunt/kill/experiment on gorillas and chimps with the mental capacity of a 3 year old or cows with the mental capacity of a 6 month old is again, hypocritical. If you're going to protect something which isn't human but might be some day, you have to ask why? What makes it special, now? And at what point does it become special? And what is the difference then, between special and not special? If the ability to someday have a human thought is the differentiating factor, we cannot differentiate at all once fertilisation has occurred in the fallopian tubes; one could go further and call a sperm racing toward an ovum collectively a potential human.

I agree with every word of this though.

[GavinZac]

Apologies, I was wrong (on that part only).

Well correct me then! Tell me what possiblity I left out and therefore made assumptions on someones character?

Edit: If I have/do offended anyone, I do apologise. There is obviously emotional issues here, and we're dealing with science that isn't complete; no-one really knows if a third trimester has ever had a thought, consensus has not been reached on the comparability of human, primate and general mammal emotion. I find the easiest way to talk is in terms of the science that we do know; I am not some cold borderline psychopath who sees no value in potential human life. However, when you try to take something which is entirely a grey area, you need to find some sort of delineation to speak in terms of legal and illegal, right and wrong. Abortions and genetic experimentation and our own value of what is human, what is not and what the difference is anyway, are the single greatest philosophical and moral challenges faces us as we move into an era where creation moves from a mystic power to the manipulation of proteins. I don't claim to hold the definitive answer and 3 years ago I probably would have argued an entirely different position.

[micls]

Isn't that the point though? They don't want it to become a baby, and it isn't a baby. Im sure some people would protest a 12 week abortion but be ok with a morning after pill. They both prevent future babies - the morning after pill stops the "parasite" from attaching itself.

Not necessarily. Sperm can live up to 3 days in the womb, the egg may not be fertalised when the morning after pill is taken. What it stops in that case is the fertilisation.

With the morning after pill, there is a chance fertilisation may have happened, yes, but there are also the chances that it hasnt. You are stopping the possibility. If there were a pill that only stop fertilisation, not fertilised eggs(after the event) then I would advocate that, bt there isnt.

With termination, there is a fertilised egg that more than likely will become a baby. The same cannot be said for the morning after pill

[GavinZac]

Not necessarily. Sperm can live up to 3 days in the womb, the egg may not be fertalised when the morning after pill is taken. What it stops in that case is the fertilisation.

With the morning after pill, there is a chance fertilisation may have happened, yes, but there are also the chances that it hasnt. You are stopping the possibility. If there were a pill that only stop fertilisation, not fertilised eggs(after the event) then I would advocate that, bt there isnt.

With termination, there is a fertilised egg that more than likely will become a baby. The same cannot be said for the morning after pill
The same can be said :confused: It may kill sperm, but it also kills fertilised eggs that more than likely will become a baby. Pills do exist that stops fertilisation, and there are gels and such that kill sperm. They aren't popular and aren't commercially viable because people are buying it for both effects.
If you're against termination simply because it might one day be a human, but ok with the combined effects of the morning after pill, its a hypocritical stance. The differentiating line that you use between right and wrong then shifts to be based on something else, something entirely less material than whether the egg is fertilised or not.

[pete]

Can everyone calm down so I don't have to close this thread.

The UK 24 week law is based medical evidence that fetus cannot survive outside the womb pre 24 weeks. The argument not to change to 20 or 22 weeks was because they received no new medical evidence. Thats the facts of the UK debate no matter which side you are on.

[osarusan]

Can everyone calm down so I don't have to close this thread.

It has gone off-topic alright, but nobody's angry Pete, as far as I can see.

[dahamsta]

SeanDrog, and others, you need to calm down and drop the emotive and/or abusive language or the thread is going to be locked, as pete says. People are entitled to their beliefs just like you're entitled to ours, and if you want to rebut them you have to do them calmly and with facts. If you can't do that, you're not welcome in the Current Affairs forum in particular.

adam

[SeanDrog]

It has gone off-topic alright, but nobody's angry Pete, as far as I can see.

I was thinking the same.

[SeanDrog]

Well I did'nt think it involved angry people till I received this :


Dear SeanDrog,

You have received an infraction at Foot.ie Forums.

Reason: Personal Abuse
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://foot.ie/showthread.php?p=959755

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
At 12 weeks the foetus is basically an amphibian with all the intelligence, emotions and nervous system of a newt. It may have a head, 2 legs and 2 arms but a baby it aint. If you're strongly against its termination you're either a vegan or you attach some symbolic/mystic/religious value that makes what is essentially a parasite hiding itself by secreting hormones through the placenta, a potential human, and you start going down the murky road of souls and sins and that malarky

What a sad world you live in.

All the best,
Foot.ie Forums


So in order to further explain my point, IMO for someone is to view a new human life in the terms described by Gav, is sad, as in sorrowful, as in a crying shame. Human life no matter how under developed is still a life and it is human, its human cells which are developing into a human baby.The whole process is simply fantastic and beautiful and to view it such a sterile matter (as described by gav) is sorrowful.

So if this was deemed as personel abuse then that is regrettable.

For the admin I pledge to no longer post on this topic as clearly its impossible to discuss with such eggshells being laid out.

[jebus]

For the admin I pledge to no longer post on this topic as clearly its impossible to discuss with such eggshells being laid out.

Not really, just hold off on personal abuse is all. On a thread like this all it takes is for someone to say something like you did to start off a slanging match between both sides of the debate, and as we all know, there's no nastier subject to get caught up in in those terms than the pro-choice and life one.

[SeanDrog]

Words presented incompletely in orginal post, sad was meant as a description of my view of his view of the world based on his post describing the unborn rather than personal abuse.

I will have to be more concise and detailed in future. The posted highlighting the perception of abuse by admin was adequate, the follow up infraction points was a bit nuclear but "if thems the rules so be it".

I must add that after my post Gav posted how he presents his material in certain language as it suits his style and this made sense given the way he was presenting up to then and if people notice after that post I didn't add anything else as I took his explanation at face value and demonstrated to me why he was using the terminology that he was (aimed at descriptions ather than aiming to insult) - if I had have known that earlier I probably wouldn't have perceived his view of the world as sad (as in sorrowful).

[GavinZac]

Well I did'nt think it involved angry people till I received this :



So in order to further explain my point, IMO for someone is to view a new human life in the terms described by Gav, is sad, as in sorrowful, as in a crying shame. Human life no matter how under developed is still a life and it is human, its human cells which are developing into a human baby.The whole process is simply fantastic and beautiful and to view it such a sterile matter (as described by gav) is sorrowful.

So if this was deemed as personel abuse then that is regrettable.

For the admin I pledge to no longer post on this topic as clearly its impossible to discuss with such eggshells being laid out.
I wasn't angry, and I didn't report you. Thats why I apologised and explained myself rather than, as jebus or pete or others would attest to, giving an angry rebuke as usual.

As I said, I understand what you're saying. I think you've picked me up wrong; its fantastic and beautiful and a "miracle" - something extremely rare I mean, not divine - but we're talking about right and wrong, legal and illegal. Believe me, its not for the sake of learning that I read things about physics and genetics and natural history; its for the incredibility of it all. I think when people believe in creation or intellegent design or something, it takes away from the wonder that all of this happened just because it could, that life is brief and fleeting and yet eternal. Unfortunately, wonder and emotion cannot be well integrate into laws, into right and wrong. We can't use the fantastic nature of something as the base for its status. Everything in our world is wonderfully unlikely, "unnatural", bizarre. There's nothing like it for 50,000 light years, at least.

To me, if we're going to differentiate between things that can be killed and cannot be killed, the point is not whether it "is human"; cancer is human, murderers are human, but we kill them regardless. (I am not comparing these to a foetus by the way, I am contrasting them) We value humanity, not status as Homo Sapiens. While it is part of an amazing process, a foetus under 12 weeks has little or no humanity. It is a nub, extracting nutrients from a "host" and using them to build the rest of itself. At this point, it is exactly the same as 99% of mammal foetuses, which sounds a lot but then even when formed we are the same as 95% of mammals.

The differences, our humanity, comes in the form of thought, emotions, feelings, beliefs, love, hatred, experience and innocence. Despite what we may like to believe regarding the last piece, these cannot be attributed to a foetus. Some day we will have to make decisions about we value because the days when someone can create something which is not technically human, but has thoughts and feelings, are not far away. If we continue to treat the current freeze frame of DNA that represents what a human is, as something special, divine, sacred as we are trained to do by Judeo-Christian values, we will be denying our history (however remote) and denying our future (however close). The vast majority of philosophical and religious teachings in human history have instead focused on the incredible value that everything has; mother earth, Shinto "one-ness", Buddhist values, and so on. We have to realise that regardless of whether something may eventually be part of a human, we will all be part of the dirt very soon. So damn it, enjoy the years you have, and realise that what we should value is not ourselves, unquestioningly, but the thought, love, wonder, humanity that allow us to appreciate what we've got. That is why I do not think a foetus is the same as a baby. That it is not for a lack of wonder but for a difference in what I value. Ironically, while I am pro-choice, I don't think I'd ever want something of mine to be 'terminated'. I'm doing my best not to put myself in that situation, but for me the wonder of it all would be too much. I just don't think I should go tell other people that they should do the same.

This has been terribly long winded but I wanted you to understand that I do not live in a sad world. I did once, when I was wrapped up in myself and expectations and guilt and pressure. I escaped that life, with a few scars. Instead, I live in an incredible world, for the most part happily; and it is all the better for the contrast.

[SeanDrog]

I didnt think you reported me. I think my last post prob went up when you were posting, as stated given you explanation of your language style etc I understand you stance all the better and would not have taken that previous position.

Plenty of points to go through (and holland have just gone 2 up). Cancer does not develop into a human child so I dont see why it is coamparable to discuss killing it to that of a child.

If I am reading you right, you are asking where does the humanity begin? So in the science theme, I think we all agree that a fertilsied egg and developing cells are alive, these cells are huamn cells dveloping into a child. So when should we consider that these cells become human - is that a fair summary of wher we are?

[GavinZac]

I didnt think you reported me. I think my last post prob went up when you were posting, as stated given you explanation of your language style etc I understand you stance all the better and would not have taken that previous position.

Plenty of points to go through (and holland have just gone 2 up).RVN was miles off, but what a goal the second was!
Cancer does not develop into a human child so I dont see why it is coamparable to discuss killing it to that of a child. It is part of a human; it is human cells of the species Homo Sapiens. It doesn't ever think or feel, though. The fact that it never will doesn't affect its status at this immediate point in time.

If I am reading you right, you are asking where does the humanity begin? So in the science theme, I think we all agree that a fertilsied egg and developing cells are alive, these cells are huamn cells dveloping into a child. So when should we consider that these cells become human - is that a fair summary of wher we are?They could, some day, possibly become 'human' as we would put it, or have humanity. At that time, yes, they are foetuses of the species Homo Sapiens; but as I said, they dont think or feel, even if someday they might. Because they haven't and don't, I feel that termination, however distasteful, shouldn't be illegal; its probably relevant to mention I would feel the same about allowing vegetative/brain dead patients to pass on.

Indeed, the case that suicidal patients often make is that they can no longer think or feel anything except pain (of course it is our job to reverse that if it is possible - both the pain, and the desire to end it - I have worked with suicidal and depressed people, but thats not what I'm really referring to here; I'm sure you've probably seen or imagined a situation where a cancer patient or someone asks another to kill them or allow them to die, that is what I mean physical, irreversible pain) which throws up a whole other set of questions that none of us ever want to answer, and I don't think I could.

[shantykelly]

If I follow some of the logic here, then it's ok to abort a foetus because it isnt a paid up, contributing memmber of the human race with thoughts, feelings, opinions, likes, dislikes, skills and abilities, then it's ok to abort. and yes, gavinzac has made the point hat he feels the same about brain dead/vegetative state people. This is actually quite disturbing logic. If taken to its logical conclusion, what's to stop us instituting euthanasia for the brain dead, or the terminally ill (and yes, I know GavinZac never even hinted at this), but this logic has been followed before. After the terminally ill, how about the 'mentally impaired'. Its interesting to note the differing views held on the point of life commencing - some at conception, some upon birth. catholic dogma aside, i dont think you can actually say when a foetuses thought processes actually begin, and even then (and post birth) they are still fairly rudimentary. Inability to focus, little or no hand eye coordination, lack of control of bodily functions. I dont personally believe its ok to say 'right, you aren't alive until 24 weeks'. and yes, i know studies have been done that provide cumulative evidence, but its 100% right 100% of the time. If there is even the possibility of 1 early developed foetus with it's rudimentary thought processes surviving at say, 20 weeks, then its better to reduce the cut off date for all those other undeveloped potentialities than murder one person.

It can be dressed up in all the bland legal jargon in the world, but that simply hides the cold hard clinical facts. for example, a mother is mother whether the individual in question wants to be; that however doesnt not remove the option of putting the child up for adoption, etc. to describe the unborn foetus as an amphibian or amphibian like creature is, in my opinion, an attempt to devalue even its potential worth or value. 'ach, sure its not a human yet, its alright to get rid of it'.

personally i think the intorduction of abortion into any country's legal system is the first step on a long road that i for one wouldnt want to travel down. i believe that the logic of the decision can lead to places that will eventually twist our concept of morality out of recognition.

[Block G Raptor]

If I follow some of the logic here, then it's ok to abort a foetus because it isnt a paid up, contributing memmber of the human race with thoughts, feelings, opinions, likes, dislikes, skills and abilities, then it's ok to abort. and yes, gavinzac has made the point hat he feels the same about brain dead/vegetative state people. This is actually quite disturbing logic. If taken to its logical conclusion, what's to stop us instituting euthanasia for the brain dead, or the terminally ill (and yes, I know GavinZac never even hinted at this), but this logic has been followed before. After the terminally ill, how about the 'mentally impaired'. Its interesting to note the differing views held on the point of life commencing - some at conception, some upon birth. catholic dogma aside, i dont think you can actually say when a foetuses thought processes actually begin, and even then (and post birth) they are still fairly rudimentary. Inability to focus, little or no hand eye coordination, lack of control of bodily functions. I dont personally believe its ok to say 'right, you aren't alive until 24 weeks'. and yes, i know studies have been done that provide cumulative evidence, but its 100% right 100% of the time. If there is even the possibility of 1 early developed foetus with it's rudimentary thought processes surviving at say, 20 weeks, then its better to reduce the cut off date for all those other undeveloped potentialities than murder one person.

It can be dressed up in all the bland legal jargon in the world, but that simply hides the cold hard clinical facts. for example, a mother is mother whether the individual in question wants to be; that however doesnt not remove the option of putting the child up for adoption, etc. to describe the unborn foetus as an amphibian or amphibian like creature is, in my opinion, an attempt to devalue even its potential worth or value. 'ach, sure its not a human yet, its alright to get rid of it'.

personally i think the intorduction of abortion into any country's legal system is the first step on a long road that i for one wouldnt want to travel down. i believe that the logic of the decision can lead to places that will eventually twist our concept of morality out of recognition.

I've been reading this Thread since it's inception and have been reluctant to post, however if I was to post I would have said pretty much exactly what ShantyKelly has said above. I would like to add that the Sterile language used by some posters on here is a little unsettling to say the least, I think the attitude to abortion from some sections of society is a sad indictment of the value that we put on human life today.from personal experience, My partner miscarried at 11 weeks and still to this day considers the mis-carraige a lost child, (even having the name we had chosen Tatooed on her back) Whilst I have to admit I was against her getting the tatoo as I thought it a little extreme I have seen how it was part of the grieving process and has helped her, so I'd like gavinzac to tell her that what she lost was an amphibious Parasite and see what her reaction would be

[Macy]

That's your opinion, but why would you think you have the right to force your beliefs on someone else? No one's forcing a woman to terminate, it's their choice based on their belief. If you believe it's a life from conception, don't have an abortion, if you believe it's only a life when it can realistically survive outside the womb (which is what UK law is based on), then you can make the decision to have a termination. I don't believe it's ever an easy decision for a woman to make.

What if the baby has a low chance of survival to term or a matter of hours after birth? Is it more humane to make a woman carry to term, to have a still birth, to have everyone congratulating her and asking "when's it due" for months knowing it's not going to survive? Would people rather put the mother through that mental torture rather than allow a termination?

Euthanasia is a different debate, but I'd suggest we'd probably have the same pro choice, pro life split judging on postings above.