| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| Armchair |
...if the abortion amendment succeeds......and these religious nutcases impose their outdated, nonsensical ideals on the British public? |
||||||
| toggle |
I can't help seeing this as a slippery slope, let them get one victory and it will spur them on to further attack women's reproductive rights.
The thing to remember is that campaigning to make abortion illegal isn't about stopping abortions, abortions happen whether or not they are legal. The only effect that it would have is to traumatise women, and endanger their health and lives. |
||||||
| Frewen |
I second that Toggle - Abortions will happen whether or not they are legal.
Picking up the pieces after a botched back street job isn't pretty according to some of my ex theatre colleagues. 
|
||||||
| Mary-Jane |
Even the antis surely couldn't wish a return to those days I hope. That would take us straight back into the dark ages. |
||||||
| Armchair |
Indeed. Pro-lifers are motivated solely by religion, not science. |
||||||
| toggle |
IMO, the way to reduce abortions is to change society rather than the law. Improving sex education would be a good start, stopping the shite moralising that blames teenage sex on sex education would be another.
I have very strong opinions about this |
||||||
| RichardW |
So in your opinion why do we have the highest underage teenage sex in the world?
Justme |
||||||
| toggle |
unless you think that this would be affected by curbing women's reproductive rights, there's no need to discuss it here. |
||||||
| jamsam |
because its condoned by stupid people who coo over 16 yr olds with babies and the television companies who make the kind of tripe you see on bbc3 on a regular basis.
I was a teenage mum. i feel i can justify my opinion on that fact. i know it will offend some people but that how i see it. teenage boys are let off easily and considered cool for sleeping with thier girlfriends while the girls find it impossible to be honest and open and ask for help. In my teens girls were routinely expelled from school for getting preggers while the boys were not. We need good sensible sex education from 8 or 9 years old in segregated classes. its no good expecting boys to ask sensible questions when there are girls in the room. government policy on housing and benifits needs chaging and we as a society need to ask more questions, not turn a blind eye to underage sex and be consistent with the consequences of it. sorry..rant over.... |
||||||
| Northern_Lad |
Sex, or pregnancy? I think a lot's got to be down to the mass prevelance of sexual material in the media, a reluctance to talk about it, and a woeful lack of education until it's too late. Oh, and most of our teenagers are drunks, if you believe the papers. |
||||||
| RichardW |
Not at all just your statement seemed to be contaradictory so wanted clarification cos I thought that lack of sex ed (and the media) was the problem but am open to other views. Justme |
||||||
| toggle |
what contradiction?
|
||||||
| RichardW |
I took that to mean that you wanted more/better sex ed but that also thought that all the sex was being blammed on the sex ed. Justme |
||||||
| toggle |
Sex is blamed on sex ed by far too many people. how often do we see freak outs when some young kid gets pregnant and see the families blaming it on the kids getting sex ed at school.
My opinion is that we don't do enough of it, we moralise too much about it, and we don't start young enough. My son has taken my pregnancy as a chance to ask a LOT of questions. I've answered them as best I can, knowing he won't get an answer from anywhere else. they haven't even started mentioning anything at school, despite the fact that there will likely be girls in his year who have already begun periods and many kids of both sexes are visibly showing some of the early signs of puberty |
||||||
| cab |
All of them? |
||||||
| RichardW |
Absolutly. Be honest with them. Justme |
||||||
| toggle |
even when you find out they've been hiding under your bed | ||||||
| Frewen |
What experience I do have of abortions is that the younger women seemed to wait longer before terminating, and lie more frequently about the length of their pregnancy - right up to the theatre doors in some cases.
Which would seem to suggest that they either didn't have support/knowledge or were reluctant to use it
|
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
I can't see that it would be the beginning of a slippery slope. However I do personally feel that the limit should be lowered. I'll probably be castigated to daring to venture an opinion but I can't reconcile heroic efforts being made to save a miscarried child and an abortion that may take place at exactly the same gestation date. As long as there is a small chance of survival through medical intervention, I feel that abortion is ethically suspect. |
||||||
| cab |
Re: ...if the abortion amendment succeeds...
This has been bothering me. I don't support reducing the time limit on abortions from one barely defensible point to another. I don't support those who seek to impose religious views through legislation. But I'm uncomfortable with this being portrayed as 'religion' versus 'womens right'. I think that the issue is more complex than that, and we do a disservice to all involved if we allow ourselves to be fooled into believing that. The principle that women should have a choice in this matter is sound. I can't dispute that. The principle that human life matters, whether that of an unborn baby or not, is sound. The idea that there is a cut off point at which one principle suddenly trumps another... Gosh, but I know we need such a thing, but I can't pretend for a moment to be comfortable with that, and I see nothing but moral grey areas. The single best argument for legal abortion is the abhorrence of illegal abortion. That in itself does not mean that those who don't support the current limits on abortion are somehow all religious wierdos, I suspect that there are many atheist wierdos like me who feel uncomfortable with this. |
||||||
| JB |
How small a chance though? At 23 weeks there is about a 25% chance of survival if intensive care is available but that is not necessarily long term survival and any survival at that stage is almost certainly doomed to extreme disability, brain damage and low life expectancy. Is "life at any price" a price worth paying? |
||||||
| cab |
The idea that abortion is acceptable until such a point that the statistical likelyhood is that the baby would survive... Why? I mean, why is it that the limit is placed there? |
||||||
| Frewen |
At this point I think I ought to lay out my stall.
I am a qualified theatre nurse. I have agreed in the past to assist in terminations conducted under the NHS. I feel that terminations will be sourced whether legally or illegally and the illegal alternative is unacceptable. I personally would not be able to have a termination I would never criticise someone else for making such a difficult decision. The grey "cut off" area gives me sleepless nights. |
||||||
| JB |
Do you mean that when you reach a 50% survival rate that is the point at which you would set the abortion limit? is that 50% with or without medical intervention. Alternatively where would be the sense in putting massive legal and medical intervention into helping an extremely premature baby survive if it's just born into a condition where the medical staff would then just hang up a sign saying do not resuscitate? |
||||||
| toggle |
It is important to note that when statistics about the number of post 20 week abortions are discussed, that the vast majority of those procedures would not be affected by this legislation, because they would be carried out as necessary to save the life of the woman or because of non- viability of the foetus. I'll add that I've been in the position to be offered the option of termination on the grounds of possible non viability at 26 weeks.
What we are talking about is a very small number of very vulnerable, likely very young women. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
I have no argument that the chances are small, but if the debate is to be had, it needs to be centered on viability. If abortion is allowed at 24 weeks (and beyond in very, very limited cases which I propose to ignore for the basis of this debate) then an ethical judgement needs to be made regarding heroic efforts at resusitation and care for miscarried babies at the same age. I find it impossible to divorce the two. |
||||||
| JB |
The limit is currently set at 24 weeks because it is at that point that there is little feasible chance of a foetus surviving if born that prematurely. That was set in 1990 since when there has been little progress in helping such premature births survive. At 28 weeks gestation which was the previous limit there has been significant improvement |
||||||
| cab |
No, I mean that I see little to justify the idea that the abortion limit should be at the point at which a child would be (x)% likely to survive. Why do we base the law on that? |
||||||
| JB |
If we don't base the law on that then presumably we base it on ethics. But whose ethics? - it's why a concensus wil probably never be reached. |
||||||
| Snowball |
I think it is important to look at the reasons for late abortions as well.
No one in their right mind would choose to have a termination later rather than sooner. Apart from medical issues, the main reason women, mainly young, wait is because of a lack of information and support. Education is key. What is important when a young vulnerable woman finds herself in this situation is that she is supported and has all the information about all her options, and understands them all. This is sadly, so often not the case. |
||||||
| cab |
On ethics? Why? Why not base it on the probability of harm to the mother at whatever point in pregnancy? Why not base it on the point at which the baby would respond to defined external stimuli? The point at which the baby would be likely to survive... Heck, thats as morally dubios as saying that abortions at, say, 21 weeks oughtn't be allowed because in another fortnight the baby will be almost sure to survive. Its an arbritrary point, its a compromise, and the case that its the right one has yet to be convincingly made. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Is 26% survival rate @ 23 weeks too low for intervention to be considered? I'm not convinced. As an aside, are stats used like this in other areas of patient care? |
||||||
| Frewen |
When I said reluctant to use what knowledge and support there is around I was thinking of women feeling stigmatised and frightened. | ||||||
| JB |
I've no problem with that but if the probability of harm to the mother is a valid reason to consider then so should the probability of the foetus being viable and healthy be a valid consideration. Would abortion be allowed if continuing with the pregnancy would leave the mother disabled, brain damaged and with a short life expectancy? If so then should abortion be allowed if any baby born that prematurely would be disabled, brain damaged and have a short life expectancy? |
||||||
| dpack |
several issues mixed in here
mistakes happen and diy remedies have well known bad consequences ,there is a need for abortions ,it should be met by a safe and legal method the high rate of full term mothers of a young age is partly due to the way social housing is distributed .ie no kid no flat .and also down to the strong urge to breed and raise kids before one is old ,for most of human existance 30yrs is old on average i feel sex ed is to blame by being so limited rather than covering the social ,lifestyle,contraceptive options fully and appropriately for the young (and not so young ) in kirklees for instance abortions are not available due to the "moral grounds "clause in consultants contracts so folk get the added trauma of a 60 mile round trip to a clinic in doncaster .do the antis want women from britain travelling to europe like the irish women who have had to come to britain or should "my friend" sort it out on the kitchen table for cash ? i was watching some people on telly who among other things were very anti ,the rest of their views had little merit as well imho at a personal level i am pro or anti the deed depending on circumstance but above any other consideration is a woman's right to decide not to have a child even if she has become pregnant when she makes that decision |
||||||
| JB |
As was said earlier though it's not just 26%, it's a 26% chance of survival with an arguably extremely low quality of short life. And yes statistics like that are used in other areas of patient care. Every day doctors and paramedics will choose who to treat and how much time to spend based on how likely it is a patient will survive or how likely it is they will benefit. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
I don't think anyone wants that to happen. One crazy anomaly is that abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland, of course people just travel over to the mainland. I'd be interested to see if this leads to significant delays and increased incidences in 'backstreet' (can't think of a better term) abortions over here. But I suspect that the stats won't be available. |
||||||
| dpack |
ps wee rohan was born at 21 weeks and although a little frail he is a well adjusted young man of about 15 yrs | ||||||
| cab |
But that surely leaves us with the position that if the fetus is viable in, say, another fortnight (survival chances increase dramatically at a certain point) then the abortion shouldn't happen. It leaves me wondering why, if survival of the fetus is the important point, we don't merely insist that the fetus will survive in a few weeks time so the abortion can't happen. It seems to me that any of these arbritrary means for setting a deadline, all of them, are somehow flawed. I'm not comfortable that a strong moral defense can be made for any of them.
But that baby isn't going to be born prematurely, its a completely spurious comparison. We're not talking about babies who are going to be born early and likely as not die or be severely disabled, we're talking about otherwise healthy fetuses in the womb. That a different subset of babies would survive at that chosen time point... What of it? |
||||||
| Snowball |
I agree with a lot of what dpack says.
This debate should never take place in isolation. The right to choose, as far as I am concerned means the right whether or not to have a child. For that to be meaningful, the debate has to include the financial and social support structure for women who choose to continue with their pregnancy. That means we have to look at housing, child care, wages, education and support and care for disabled children, amongst many other things. |
||||||
| JB |
But that surely leaves us with the position that if the fetus is viable in, say, another month (survival chances increase dramatically at a certain point) then the abortion shouldn't happen. ... But that surely leaves us with the position that if the fetus is viable in, say, another two months (survival chances increase dramatically at a certain point) then the abortion shouldn't happen. ... But that surely leaves us with the position that if the fetus is viable in, say, another nine months (survival chances increase dramatically at a certain point) then the abortion shouldn't happen. ... I can see why you (or anyone) would be uncomfortable with the idea but basing the legality of abortion on the basis that the foetus might be viable in the future surely leads inevitably to the conclusion that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. Otherwise we are just setting a limit in advance of viability which is just as arbitrary as selecting a limit at which we think a foetus is viable. |
||||||
| cab |
Precisely the problem. Thats why its a moral maze.
So why ever base the limit on viability? Thats the point I'm trying to get across, the current justification for that limit seems, I dunno, morally dubious to me. |
||||||
| JB |
Because at that point one can view the foetus as having an existence independently of its mother. I can see why people would view that as the point at which a foetus has a right to life in itself and not merely as part of its mother. Not that it's necessarily the right point at which to set the limit but I can see why one would use that as a point at which to set the limit. Alternatively of course if one does not use viability as the grounds for setting a limit what would be used instead? |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
I would agree completely that the risks of cognitive impairment, cerebal palsey, hearing problems etc are hugely increased, to the extent that children who maintain 'normal' development are in the minority. But I would dispute the assertion completely that it is a low quality or even short life. |
||||||
| cab |
But at that point the foetus does not have an existence independent of its mother; it wouldn't normally be born at that point, it doesn't suddenly develop an extra level of consciousness, That it could in theory have a slightly higher chance of survival... That means that improved medicine in the future makes the point of termination moveable? Why ought that be the case? Why is the need for application of more medical assistance sufficient reason for one baby to be aborted and one not? No, I've never been comfortable with that. I'd have thought that the best limit would be where the baby responds to certain stimuli; I don't know which ones to use, I don't know how best to determine them. But basing this on the babies own level of consciousness, its own state of being, seems better than the theoretical point at which it would die unaided. It isn't the principle or even the specific limit I'd question, its the basis on which this decision has been chosen that unsettles me. |
||||||
| toggle |
the level of impairment that is commonly seen would be more than enough grounds for a termination after 24 weeks. |
||||||
| Snowball |
This is precisely why all obstacles need to be removed from early terminations. Imagine,you are young,frightened and feel stigmatised. You have to get two doctors to agree that you can have a termination. The first doctor you approach has moral objections to abortion and tells you to go to a Life clinic. You are then made to feel that you are a potential murderer and the only option you see is continuing with the pregnancy. You then, a few weeks later, inform your violent boyfriend that he is going to be a dad. He throws you down the stairs and leaves you penniless and injured in a city far from your friends and family. By this time, you are a physical and emotional wreck and you are in your 23rd week of pregnancy. This scenario was real and happened over twenty years ago, but, sadly, it could have been yesterday. As I said earlier, we shouldn't debate time limits and viability in isolation. |
||||||
| cab |
I agree that the abortion debate makes more sense in this wider context, but I don't know whether the question here really is about that context. Changing the limit on when babies may or may not be aborted would seem to be something to be answered on a moral and medical level, rather than the pragmatic one (although I don't question for a moment the importance of ensuring support and guidance regardless of what limit is chosen). Edit: And I cannot disagree with anything you've said about supporting women who are going through this; that a woman should have to go through this moral debate with two doctors, and may have to go hunting for another doctor at a time when she's vulnerable, its a dreadful state of affair. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Sorry, are you saying that if a foetus was diagnosed with those conditions at 24 weeks then it would be grounds for termination? |
||||||
| mark |
OK this isn't black and white.
But one thing is clear to me - we have far far too many abortions happening in the UK. The statistics make it clear that it is being used as a form of contraception. Since i was a lad we have massively increased the availability of sex education (a good thing) but at the same time other factors mean we have a massive increase in abortions and teenage pregnancies still have kids growing up ending up in care, or not looked after etc. I am not convinced our social model is sucessful at all. To my mind this is because we have failed to balance "reproductive rights" with "reproductive responsibilities" in our education, culture and law. Abortion has moved from being an emergency measure in cases of rape or medical problems - to being a backup method of contraception. our law at the moment rightly tells a young man that gets a girl pregnant that he will have to pay to support that child whether he wants it or not. If he ditches his reponsibilities he can be pursued through the courts. But somehow too many young women of got the idea that the same responsibility does not attach to them and if they don't want the baby or it wil inconvenience their life or cause them hardship they can get rid. I'm not sure that i want to bring the blunt instrument of the law to bear here - but somehow we need to get away from the idea that abortion is a basic, no questions asked, right. you don't have to be a religious nutter to think there is something wrong with a society which bans fox-hunting and gets steamed up about animal welfare - but can allow the frankly horrific and most likely painful procedures involved in late abortions to be carried out on what would be a recognisable and viable human child if delivered. On the matter of religion please remember too many atheists and humanists are uncomfortable with unrestrained abortion - and their are people with religious convictions with a wide range of views too. So what a bout a sensible discussion - how can we reduce the massive number of abortions - and create a sense of responsibilty. (it seems everyone believes in safe sex but not enough practice it ) mark |
||||||
| toggle |
it's a simple enough statement. |
||||||
| bagpuss |
What ever the result of this debate is in the Commons what is clear is that both social factors and poor education are leading to much high rates of abortion that are ideal.
If the government/society can try and change the way sex is viewed and the views of contraception then hopefully there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place That of course doesn't alter the fact there will still be need for abortions. Contraception isn't a 100% guarantee. People also don't alway use it even when well educated Making it less traumatic for a woman young or otherwise to actually get proper help in this circumstances is vital and without that limiting a womans control over for reproductive cycle isn't going to help |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Is it  You could be applying that standard retrospectively. It was a simple, polite request for clarification.
|
||||||
| jema |
Whilst obviously the limit is important to some degree, any debate would be more productive if it dealt with why are there so many abortions? and why are any of them left late anyway?
Deal with those issues and the limit issue largely disappears. |
||||||
| dpack |
in some areas the process delays thing considerably | ||||||
| toggle |
in some areas, intentionally. |
||||||
| Snowball |
Wot Bagpuss said.
Mark, I think we are having a sensible debate. Of course the real question is how to reduce teenage pregnancies in the first place. A lot of the problem stems from the cuts in funding to family planning clinics and such like over the last two decades. Social pressures are important too. There are far too many young women who feel that they will only have any self worth if they become a mother. For a lot of them they have no aspiration because they feel they cannot compete. After all, the current generation has been brought up to believe that women can have it all, and success is measured by how skinny they are and if they can afford the latest ridiculous fashion. At the same time, children are being sexualised far too early by the media and fashion industry. What possible good can come from selling thongs for six year olds? One other point. I don't dispute that there is a tiny minority of women that view abortion as a contraceptive, but it is only a tiny minority. The idea that abortion is undertaken lightly is a fallacy. The reality is that the majority of women find it an incredibly difficult and painfull subject to have to contemplate. |
||||||
| bagpuss |
Some department of health statistics I thought people would find enligthening
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_075697
It is important to note that nearly 90% of abortions happen at less than 13 weeks. What needs to be addresses are the circumstances which lead abortions to being carried out later than that and in those cases its due to poor treatment of the Woman involved (Which I suspect is more than we would like to think) this needs addressing |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Let's not use general stats too heavily. As we know they can be sold both ways. | ||||||
| bagpuss |
Indeed, just thought the numbers would be enlightening
As a contrast there were 669,601 live births in 2006 |
||||||
| Fee |
I think, actually, this is part of the problem with many teenage pregnancies, girls are no longer stigmatised for being pregnant at 15 or 16, certainly not by friends, it's cool don't you know. I'm not suggesting they should be either, I think it's right that there is no stigma attached to it, but it shouldn't be attractive to young girls either. As has already been said, it has to come down to education. I don't mean your normal biology type sex education either, that was fine when I was at school. Get teenage Mum's into schools to talk to the younger kids about how hard it is and about all the things that they're missing out on. Teach them about condoms, and what to do with them, not just tell them "you must use a condom". Give teenagers practical lessons on how to open and put one on, I struggled with that in my twenties, never mind teens. It would take one biology lesson in Year 10, it could be made fun. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
What I found very enlightening was that out of the 193 thousand abortions, 62 thousand were to people who had a previous abortion(s). |
||||||
| cab |
I don't dispute the importance of dealing with the problem more proactively, but I think that getting good, clear, reasoned limits sorted out too would be exctremely helpful. |
||||||
| Snowball |
It's a bit like the cart before the horse debate though isn't it Cab?
Without looking at the root causes, time limits become arbitrary and prone to people's moral or ethical prejudices and do nothing to solve the underlying problems. |
||||||
| mark |
it make the percentage of pregnancies that end in abortion frighteningly high. mark |
||||||
| cab |
I agree, the root causes are hugely important, but with the best will in the world and the most effective programs to solve those problems there will still be elective abortion. You can't get away from that. So while I don't dispute what you're saying about the importance of those underlying problems, I think (and I suspect you'd agree) that if we're going to have laws on where, when and how abortion is allowed then its worth making that law reasonable, defensible but above all workable. My own view is that I don't know when that limit should be but I don't believe that the argument that such a limit should be based on the likely survival of the baby makes any moral or logical sense. I do believe, however, that if a woman chooses to seek an abortion within whatever time constraint is laid out by law, the current system that makes it harder for her than it needs to be is dreadful. I believe that we do insufficient to prevent teenage pregnancies, although I'm not convinced that I've heard a good answer to what we should do, and I believe that we do insufficient to support women cope with what is pretty much the hardest thing they may ever have to decide on. I can barely imagine how I'd cope (and at the risk of sounding sexist, I don't believe that men are well equipped emotionally, hormonally or physically to step into the shoes of a women in that position). And because I don't see all of those social problems as solveable, I don't believe we're going to have a solution for all of those problems any time soon, I believe that now more than ever getting a workable and sensible limit for abortions in place is critical. Within the society and the systems that we have, we have to get that right. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
I agree, but we can't lose sight of the fact that this debate is taking place at the same time as one in the house of commons. Where they will vote on moving an arbitrary limit, or not. Debate about looking at entirely new methodologies won't change that fact. |
||||||
| Chez |
Well, in a way you are right - but if you leave a little baby to it's own devices it's not going to survive, either, and no-one is going to suggest leaving unwanted children out on a hillside for the wolves. I think my issue with the whole 'debate' is that it's not *reasoned*. Emotive pictures of foetuses that look like babies but aren't stir up people's protective instincts. I can't see that the choice to have a termination, particularly at such a late stage, is an easy one under any circumstances. It's all political dickering and a chipping away at the right of a woman to have control over her own body. No-one suddenly turns around at 20 weeks pregnant and says 'oooooh, look, I'm pregnant and I don't want the baby'; which is often the implication made by people who wish the time limit to be cut. The number of terminations in those four weeks after 20 weeks is minuscule; and are all for a reason other than 'I don't want a baby right now'. Choosing termination is a very hard thing to do. You can be made to feel ashamed, dirty, guilty and irresponsible. But bringing a child in to the word that is unwanted is a terrible thing to do; or a child that you feel you can't care for properly. Even more so if that child stands a very good chance of being seriously disabled. Okay, we could turn all those people who would otherwise have had terminations in to baby-factories for those who want children and can't have them. But I don't think that that would work; you only have to look at a copy of the adoption magazine 'Be My Parent' to see how hard it is to find homes for children with disabilities. I don't think that that is a very satisfactory solution for anyone. No-one has a right to a child. And equally, no-one should be forced to go through the bearing of one if they feel that they can't. I'm having my 20 week scan on Sunday - I'm in two minds about it because we both know that there's very little point - we will take the hand that we've been dealt, whatever it is. But - we are in a stable relationship, with somewhere to live, an income and lots of support. When I was 23 I was in a different position, with a boyfriend who was physically abusive, no money, no home of my own and no family close by. I had a place on a pg course that would give me a career - and I'd have lost that and been stuck with the guy if I'd had a baby. I decided to have a termination; I got the required signatures and was all set; all on my own, as the bf didn't care enough one way or another. To my relief I then had a miscarriage, so I didn't have to go through with it; for which I was grateful, in a devastated kind of way. I wanted a child so desperately and the time just wasn't right. No-one can make these choices for us, each case is individual. The limit should be set at viability outside the womb without a high risk of severe disability. And it should be used with extreme caution. Fewer unwanted pregnancies would mean fewer terminations - and I completely agree with all the things everyone else has said about education - social education is more important than the mechanics of how to have sex. I agree with Mark's point about responsible reproduction. But I disagree that women see abortion as contraception. I think that often one doesn't think about the consequences of sex. And that's what the education part would do. |
||||||
| nora |
I agree with you dpack, apart from the bit about Kirklees. Women who used to be sent to Doncaster can now have terminations at Calderdale Royal Hospital in Halifax. (This has only recently changed) |
||||||
| Jamanda |
Thanks for that post Chez. Very honest and brave of you. | ||||||
| Jamanda |
It happens - I've even had a year ten boy faint when the condom was put on (a model, not him  )
|
||||||
| Chez |
Thanks, Jamanda. I think people forget that this is a law that is dealing with individuals. It is very easy to ascribe motives and feelings to faceless people. I bet that a load of people reading this thread have had similar experiences but don't feel comfortable sharing them because of the risk of public vilification. |
||||||
| Chez |
ALWAYS clarify this with that last bit when you tell this story
|
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Although it has not been widely reported, the amendment only appears to apply to 'social' abortions and there are exclusions based on medical grounds, although I can't yet find any detailed breakdown of the proposals being debated.
The amendment was proposed by Nadine Dorries, conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire and an ex nurse it seems. There is a website detailing the campaign here |
||||||
| mark |
I think it is interesting to compare with other countries, ..
In France, abortion after 12 weeks is allowed only if two doctors say a woman's health is endangered or the foetus has a serious abnormality. In Sweden, abortion is provided free and on demand until week 18. After that, a woman must secure special permission from a medical board. Denmark has abortion on demand for the first 12 weeks. After that, there are limits and terminations are few after 16 weeks. Britain's laws are also more liberal than New Zealand and Australia, where the ability to obtain an abortion depends on different state laws. The US however is much more liberal than we are (despite the fact that they are the most religious nation and home to all the extremists) - go figure that! |
||||||
| sean |
And what a waste of cyberspace that is. If one of their best reasons for reducing the time limit on abortions is that many of them are performed by doctors who trained abroad, and it *is* in their list of twenty reasons then I despair. Emotionally manipulative ill-thought out twaddle at its worst. There's an argument to be made possibly, they're not making it by any stretch of anyone's imagination. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
I would say that any list which conveniently has the same numbers of reasons to weeks is going to be a bit crap in places. | ||||||
| sean |
Follow the link about the report on mental illness and abortion. Their spin on it completely misinterprets the report, presumably in the hope that most people won't bother reading the link. | ||||||
| Snowball |
This was featured on the dispatches programme about fundamentalist Christians last night. The Bill was drafted by a woman from Lawyers for Christianity or a similar sounding name. Reason and rationale didn't seem to be her strong point. They were also homophobic, anti Muslim, and frankly reactionary. Oh, and by the way, the Earth is only four thousand years old.
The current amendment is about the first step in trying to ban abortion altogether, and the campaign was orchestrated by people motivated by their own moral and religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with science, or medicine, just their own bigotry. |
||||||
| gnome |
some of the kids that live round here are the best pro-abortion arguement anyone can make. i would agree that the anti-abortionists had a valid point of view if it wasn't for the fact that they argue from the standpoint of a religion that has taken a great many lives through wars and religious persecution. | ||||||
| Jonnyboy |
I'd be amazed if many people got that far. I'm not supporting them as a group, just putting the information in the public domain. If we're debating it, it helps to know where the motivation for the bill is coming from. |
||||||
| sean |
I didn't think you were supporting them, I'm just pointing out how dishonest they are. | ||||||
| Chez |
I don't think that's a very helpful statement. |
||||||
| mark |
I am a Christian
I am not fundamentalist.. I don't believe the world was made 4,000 years ago I don't want to control other peoples sex lives ..and believe God gave us fredom of thought for a purpose (so we can think freely and even question if it was God that gave us that freedom..) I can quite happily reconcile my Faith with Darwin , Jaques Monod and the rest and i think it is helpful to get a way from the religion versus science blind alley this thread keeps slipping into. It doesn't take long to find examples of intolerant murderous bigots who drew their inspiration from Christianity (George Bush and a few worse in history) , atheism (Stalin) or neo-paganism (Hitler) or Islam . However their is little to be gained in slagging off those of different persuasion - or always assuming their views on every topic are a veiled way of promoting their faith or their atheism or humanism. Each view point has had its saints and its devils (though maybe the devils have a way of coming to the fore when ever one viewpoint gains full political control ) We need to listen to each other and not just to the stereotypes. I do think the issue of when sentient life begins is a difficult and complex question. Anyway that's an aside .... What i wanted to say is I do believe in animal right and foetal rights as well as adult human rights (and working our their relativities isn't always easy.) I believe women have rights , men have rights and children have rights (again the relativities are always complex) Any system that gives a blanket privelege to one over the other is likely to be oppressive in some way. which is why I cannot accept the "absolute right of the foetus" or "the absolute right of the woman to control the reproductive cycle" or the "absolute rights of wider society" or the "rights of the fatherW" as sole determining factor In the end we have a compromise. mark |
||||||
| gnome |
you've not met them. seriously, they are vermin. i've heard the arguement that evry aborted foetus could be a potential Einstien - but it's not likely is it? the chances are far more likely that the child would be a problem child, not properly looked after or brought up properly, and would grow up to be trouble. sorry, but the truth is a child that is unwanted and unplanned for has little chance of getting the right start in life.
the brats round here arent even the worst in the area - not many miles from here there are estates where kids start fires and then pelt the fire brigade with stones, throw boulders onto trains from the railway bridge, get drunk on alchopops and terrorise neighbourhoods. the last thing we need is more like that. |
||||||
| Snowball |
Mark, I did not mean to cause any offence to you or your belief systems.
I was pointing out the origins of the current legislation that was drafted by the woman I mentioned in my post. I find her to be very scary. She can believe the world is flat and was created yesterday for all I care, except, when she tries to foist her beliefs onto the rest of society and has a say in the control over my body. |
||||||
| Cathryn |
Oh for goodness sakes gnome what do you know of their lives? And what has that got to do with a debate on abortion? | ||||||
| Chez |
I think this sums it up pretty neatly. |
||||||
| gnome |
in a country that is already overpopulated, do we need more unwanted children? that has a lot to do with the debate on abortion - we are talking about a form of birth control are we not? | ||||||
| sean |
To a point, yes we are. However it's uniquely emotive for most people and (in my experience, having worked in hospitals in 'scuzzy' areas) not one which anyone involved with ever uses lightly or happily. | ||||||
| Chez |
You beat me to it. |
||||||
| dpack |
umm
the only rights you have are those you can enforce i dont have a moral standpoint practical is best to minimise the problem would be good (education could help ) mistakes happen and if there is a better way of dealing with them than current policy , do it |
||||||
| gnome |
i do agree that the value of a life is at issue, but you have to admit that as far as human life goes, we do have a little bit of an inflation probelm. excess surplus inevitable leads to devaluation. criminalise abortion now, and it won't be long before the pendulum swings the other way and it becomes compulsory. i dont think we want either. | ||||||
| toggle |
I think that a large part of the problem they have is they can't understand how anyone could look at abortion and not agree with them. if only we looked at the emotive bollocks, and the pictures and thought about it, we would agree with them. there is no rational debate to be had with these people, because they are not open to rational arguments. |
||||||
| Chez |
Exactly. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
The BBC is reporting this as one of the more mature and intelligent debates that have taken place in the commons.
It seems there are a few different proposals that MP's will be voting on. 12, 20, 22 and the current 24 weeks. No change is the current anticipated outcome. |
||||||
| toggle |
What i'd really like to see changed is the requirement for a woman to have 2 doctors say she will go balmy if she continues the pregnancy to get a termination. Although for the vast majority of women seeking termination, this is a formality, it should still be an unnecessary thing, particularly in early pregnancy. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
I don't think that is up for a vote. | ||||||
| gnome |
something has changed since abortion was first legalised. we now have the technology to indicate whether or not a foetus will grow to be a healthy child - or severely disabled. quality of life is just as important as life itself - and many people feel it would be kinder to terminate a pregnancy than to alllow the birth of a child that can only know pain and suffering. this poses yet another moral dilemna which cannot be easily answered. in such a case, the arguement that the foetus is not in a position to choose swings both ways. | ||||||
| toggle |
which is a shame. |