24 Week Abortions

[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.

[jebus]

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.

Exactly, the whole pro-choice, pro-life debate always seems to be taking away from the simple question of if you think it's right to force a person to do something they don't want to do. Whether you think the foetus is a baby or not, I don't believe in making someone go through with something they don't want to. As for the adoption issue, I still don't think it's right to make a female carry a child for 9 months, put that strain on her body and then have to go through the torment of giving it up. Sometimes I think pro-lifers think that all women who have abortions do so on a spur of the minute decision and they then go back to a care free life, where as in reality it's not.

[SeanDrog]

As people prob have guess I am firmly in the shantykelly camp.

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.

Given the level of abortions it is clear that most would statistically result in a healthy born baby if left to go full term. Of course there are difficult cases but the majority are lifestyle choices given the numbers. Fact is that the UK would have millions more citizens today if there was no abortion (I saw the figure recently but would have to look it up again but a serious number of abortions since the 60's) - wasn't really a Prochoice reality for those people.

So your point is why should prolife impose their belief that a mother cannot abort if she so wishes (correct me if I am wrong).

Lets take that a step further, what gives you (or anyone) the right to impose your belief that a mother with a born 1 year old cannot kill the child as a lifestyle choice, as she is finding it to difficult?

[anto1208]

Exactly, the whole pro-choice, pro-life debate always seems to be taking away from the simple question of if you think it's right to force a person to do something they don't want to do. Whether you think the foetus is a baby or not, I don't believe in making someone go through with something they don't want to. As for the adoption issue, I still don't think it's right to make a female carry a child for 9 months, put that strain on her body and then have to go through the torment of giving it up. Sometimes I think pro-lifers think that all women who have abortions do so on a spur of the minute decision and they then go back to a care free life, where as in reality it's not.

I would argue the torment of having an abortion could often out weight the torment of giving your child up for adoption, at least with adoption you can change your mind later.

And that this is more than just 1 woman’s choice when there are 2 and depending on how you view the fetus maybe 3 people involved. Its also the fathers child and to remove him for having any say in the matter is unsettling to me.

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.

I think with most right minded people on the "pro life/anti abortion" side understand that abortion in extreme circumstances like this is ok. I would also include if the birth would put the mothers life at risk and also if the mother was a victim of rape or was a child herself.

[Block G Raptor]

And that this is more than just 1 woman’s choice when there are 2 and depending on how you view the fetus maybe 3 people involved. Its also the fathers child and to remove him for having any say in the matter is unsettling to me.

Spot on. I know a couple of lad's who's girlfriends have had abortions and didn't even tell the father until after it had been done
That would absolutely wreck my head if it happened to me

I think with most right minded people on the "pro life/anti abortion" side understand that abortion in extreme circumstances like this is ok. I would also include if the birth would put the mothers life at risk and also if the mother was a victim of rape or was a child herself.

I agree with this 100% but it does raise the question of what constitutes putting the mothers life at risk ie. (if theres a 2% chance that the mother would die due to complications is that enough), it leads to very murky waters if you were to try and define what constitutes "a Clear and Present Danger" to the mother. in the case of Rape and or Incest then I think abortions should be legalised but discouraged and an excellent system of councilling etc set up to help a woman who decides to keep a child despite being raped by the childs "Father"

[Dodge]

Its also the fathers child and to remove him for having any say in the matter is unsettling to me.

As unsettling as carrying a child you don't want for 9 months, then having to give birth to a child you don't want, then having to raise a child you don't want, all because some bloke is unsettled at the thought of a woman having some control over her body?

That would absolutely wreck my head if it happened to me

Imagine having to look after a kid you didn't want witha girl you dind't even like anymore? headrecking or wha?

in the case of Rape and or Incest then I think abortions should be legalised but discouraged and an excellent system of councilling etc set up to help a woman who decides to keep a child despite being raped by the childs "Father"

by implication you'd encourage a woman who'd been impregnated while being raped by her own father to have his son/grandson. See we can all make illogical jumps

[Block G Raptor]

by implication you'd encourage a woman who'd been impregnated while being raped by her own father to have his son/grandson. See we can all make illogical jumps

Of course not. Where have I said that. what I've said is that the proper counselling and support networks should be in place to help a woman who does decide to keep the child, not to convince her to keep it but to provide her with viable option's

[shantykelly]

As unsettling as carrying a child you don't want for 9 months, then having to give birth to a child you don't want, then having to raise a child you don't want, all because some bloke is unsettled at the thought of a woman having some control over her body?


Imagine having to look after a kid you didn't want witha girl you dind't even like anymore? headrecking or wha?

This is where I think our personal freedoms have to be curtailed. my right to choose versus some one else's right to live? ultimately, we live in a civilised society, and must bear repsonsibility for our actions and choices and how they impact on others. this is where the view on 'when does life start' become all important. if you don't consider a foetus a human being in total, only in potential, then this choice will always be relatively easy for you if faced with this situation.

secondly, in my view if you have unprotected sex and the girl becomes pregnant, it doesnt really matter if you want the child or not. this is where you personally have to face up to the consequences of your actions, something that isnt happening very much in modern ireland, and deal with it. preferably not via the easy approach of getting an abortion. to me, all disagreements about the act of abortion aside, that is taking the cowards route out of a problem that you and the other person involved got yourselves into to. you made the decision to have unprotected sex, you have to face the consequences. as we say in derry, take your oil.

[anto1208]

As unsettling as carrying a child you don't want for 9 months, then having to give birth to a child you don't want, then having to raise a child you don't want, all because some bloke is unsettled at the thought of a woman having some control over her body?


Imagine having to look after a kid you didn't want witha girl you dind't even like anymore? headrecking or wha?



by implication you'd encourage a woman who'd been impregnated while being raped by her own father to have his son/grandson. See we can all make illogical jumps

1. she doesnt have to raise the child she doesnt want
2.do you think giving birth to a "child/fetous" at 6 months is all that different from giving birth to one at 9 months if so you should look into what actually happens its still pretty hard on the woman at any stage.

Its nothing to do with controll over a womans body im all for people doing what they like to themselves as long as it doesnt affect other people. As soon as you involve others then your rights are restricted this applies to Men and Women.With rights come responsibilities.

[jebus]

To opt me out of this discussion I'll say that I'm pro-choice, for the pure and simple reason that I don't think it's anyone's right to impose their will on someone else. Pro-lifers may think she's doing that to the aborted foetus, but I don't count that as a living being until it is able to live independently of it's host/mother/whatever. I think the 24 week rule should be brought down to 22 weeks with a view to bringing it down to 20 weeks pending more research, but thats about as low as I'd drop it.

As for abortion in Ireland, I really don't see the reasoning behind forcing women and sometimes girls, to travel to a different country to have a termination. The states main concern should be the mental and physical well being of it's citizens, and on that count a doctor should at least be able to look over a female before and after she has had the termination, and ideally she shouldn't be forced to leave the country at all

[SeanDrog]

Sometimes abortion is put forward, even taken for granted, as a 'solution' to the most difficult situations. But this approach ignores the fact that it involves the taking of the unborn life and the exposure of the women to emotional hurt and possible psychological harm. The reality is that our willingness to offer social support is the single most important factor influencing a better psychological outcome for women in crisis pregnancy.

A study by Sandra Mahkorn Pregnancy and Sexual Assault, showed that there is a better social and personal outcome for women who chose to continue a pregnancy, despite harrowing initial circumstances. Two recent Finnish studies show a better outcome for women who continue their pregnancy as compared with women who opted for abortion.

The reality is that abortion means social exclusion rather than real personal support for women facing unexpected pregnancy. It allows society to abdicate from its responsibility towards them.

There are many examples of women joining the pro-life movement offering contrasting testimonies to those of the pro-abortion lobby - some representing women hurt by abortion - others include people like Pam Stenzel (lecturer on teen pregnancy USA ) who was herself conceived as a result of rape.

We must recognise, however, that there are immensely difficult and agonising situations which test our true compassion and solidarity as a society. If what seems impossible initially has a better long-term outcome for both the woman and her unborn baby, we owe it to them to have supports in place to cope with these situations. Abortion is often the easy solution for everybody except the woman and her unborn child.