Controversial topic - You have been warned

[Talion]

Originally posted by jondalar
but Down\'s isn\'t a serious enough condition to warrant it.

No offence, but who gives you the right to determine if it\'s serious or not enough.

Haveing a Down\'s Syndrome or any other terminaly disabled child is a lifetime commitment for the family. If that family doesn\'t think it can cope with or without apparent help, then it\'s there choice to terminate the pregnancy.

You\'d rather the child be born, and then dumped by the parents.

 

[wiccanpony]

Originally posted by matty1001

Originally posted by wiccanpony
Quite a few Genetic conditions can be tested for and the majority in the first trimester.

I think we shold start testing you for geriatric conditions soon (hehe)

lollollol

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by reverend
In nature, animals can self-terminate if there\'s a need. If food is low and a newborn can\'t be sustained, some animals have that mechanism to switch the foetus off (I\'m sure there\'s a technical term).

In nature, animals can also choose to not feed their young, as many do with \'runts\' because its chances are slim. Maybe we should advocate that as well...

To be honest, I don\'t know where I stand on the issue. I feel it\'s murder. Sorry, I can\'t help it. May have to do with all the anti-abortion rhetoric that I was fed when I went to Catholic school as a youth. How can wanting or not wanting a baby determine murder or not?

For instance, lets say a pregnant woman is hit by a drunk driver in a car accident. The woman lives, but the baby doesn\'t. In almost every state (don\'t know about the rest of the world) he can be tried for MURDER! How can this be? Only because that women WANTED the baby?

What if that woman was on the way to the doctor for an abortion? Is the driver still a murderer? She didn\'t want the baby...its not murder if the doctor does it?

But....like I say, I am confused on this issue. I don\'t obviously have the cajones to be firmly in one camp or the other. I also feel Euthanasia should be legal....

Mercy killing obviously has its place, even in our sophisticated \'modern humane\' world...I think we just have to assign fancy labels to it to help justify it.

 

[No Such Agency]

I\'m somewhat reluctant to enter this (polite) fray, but I guess my position can be summed up as \"abortion should be safe, legal, and rare\". Also, \"if you don\'t like abortion, don\'t have one\".

Originally posted by Jericho
I know it sounds harsh, but I honestly think abortion wouldn\'t be necessary in a large majority of the cases if people had a healthy respect for the consequences of sexual activity.

This actually makes sense, as long as one does not demand that it means \"expect to to conceive a child any time you wish to have an orgasm with another person\". I find it maddening that some of the same people are both extremely anti-abortion, and anti-birth control. Guess what... the latter, used intelligently, is the BEST preventer of the former.

Birth control methods aren\'t 100% effective. Even visectomy isn\'t gonna work every single time, I know people who have had kids more than 9 months after the procedure (yes, it is for sure their kid ). So no matter how careful you are, consentual sex involves an acceptable risk.
...
\"If you can\'t deal with this, then maybe you shouldn\'t be having sex in the first place.\"

The problem is, many of us would consider the availability of early (i.e. ASAP) abortion-on-demand as a way for people to \"deal with it\". If you cringe at the thought of doctors pulling out something that looks like a small baby, then stop trying to make ALL abortions hard to get. (I\'m not specifically ranting at you, Jericho )

I guess I can understand (in a way) where the \"anti-choice\"/\"pro-life\" camp are coming from, I just don\'t accept their generally anti-sex agenda that goes hand in hand with it. We\'re not mindless animals, why shouldn\'t we be allowed to control our reproductive processes? And I don\'t mean by not having sex. That is simply not an option for many biologically normal human beings.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by No Such Agency


I guess I can understand (in a way) where the \"anti-choice\"/\"pro-life\" camp are coming from, I just don\'t accept their generally anti-sex agenda that goes hand in hand with it. We\'re not mindless animals, why shouldn\'t we be allowed to control our reproductive processes?

So the opposite of the \"anti-choice/pro-life\" is what? \"pro-choice/anti-life\"?


The \'controlling the reproductive process\' rings hollow to me. The issue for me is much deeper. If people want to cull their own offspring because the are not financially or emotionally ready for the burden, then I suppose that is their choice. But trying to distance themselves from what is actually happening by giving it a \'sanitized\' name is unfathomable to me.

 

[treide]

Originally posted by jondalar
Treide :- So from your previous posts, if you found out your unborn child was going to be born with Down\'s you wouldn\'t keep it?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by treide
I personally think it is appropriate to consider pregnancy termination if the parents don\'t think they can make that care commitment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


:cussing: Wrong, so wrong.

Well I would have a difficult time making the decision, but I think I would opt to terminate. My wife has said she doesn\'t think we would be up to the challenge of caring for a child with Down\'s syndrome. I think she is right - there are often other health problems that go along with the mental retardation, such as intractable seizures, congenital heart defects, gastrointestinal malformations, etc. If the Down\'s child survives to adulthood, they invariably develop Alzheimer\'s disease. I actually have a Down\'s syndrome patient in my practice, and the mother, who is single, asks me \"What will happen to her if something happens to me?\" I don\'t have a good answer, because the child will never be able to live independently.

I am not saying that it would be an easy decision, but I don\'t think terminating such a pregnancy would be a wrong one.

@Talion - sorry I misinterpreted your response above!

 

[treide]

Originally posted by supervike
If people want to cull their own offspring because the are not financially or emotionally ready for the burden, then I suppose that is their choice. But trying to distance themselves from what is actually happening by giving it a \'sanitized\' name is unfathomable to me.

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to bring up a situation applicable to supervike\'s comment.

There are situations with multiple fetuses (twins, triplets, etc.), where one fetus develops a problem (genetic or otherwise), and threatens the life of the other fetus(es). The parents have to face the decision of selectively terminating the fetus with medical problems, versus losing all the fetuses. And to be honest, I don\'t see that anyone going through this difficult decision of terminating a pregnancy, regardless of the situation, can \"distance\" themself from it.

 

[GreenOne]

To quote Goerge Carlin:
\" The thing is, Life and Choice are not even opposite, but here they are, hanging together, greater than life.\"

I personally think in a society that encourage sexual behavior in such a way, where the fect of not having sex is treated as a disorder, where sex is banalised in such a way... I don\'t see where the pressure against abortion comes from... special-interest groups I guess. Point is, the result of such a behavior is a higher chance of pregnancy, whether or not the means are available to avoid it, it\'s gonna happen more. And in time the issue will get more serious, so if there is a way to avoid bringing in the world tens of thousand of unwanted childs where there is no mean, or will for tending for them, let\'s use it.
If the mother agrees it should be ended, beter late then never, I don\'t think the state should be implied in this.
It\'s no more time to consider pregnancy and birth as having some meta-spiritual connotation, when sex is treated with such materialism. That\'s 21st century for ya.

 

[Aidan K]

For this particular type of abortion I am undecided as I havent read enough about it.

But in general, I am pro-choice. Fine, if you truly beleive that abortion is murder, dont have one. But I dont think that gives you the right to campaign againt others rights to have a termination and villify those who carry them out. Something of such a personal nature to the parent/s should be left up to their informed decision, whether or not I beleive that to be wrong. And i think this holds in medical cases (abnormality) and general cases (such as young women who made a mistake, or had a man who made a mistake) No gender bias in blame there!

Im pro-euthanasia too, in certain cases ie those cases where the person has discussed it and has truly decided that is what they want. Where is it my or the states right to tell someone what to do with their body?

 

[farseerlum]

Originally posted by Dragonsreach
Starnge how every comenttator on this thread expressing their views is MALE!

I thought that the days when one person could dictate the rights of anothers body ended when slavery was abolished. Or are we once again demoting women to the staus of a man\'s property.

yeah i\'m male. therefore in the case of my child %50 responsible for it.

a baby at any stage is not property of the mother IMO. ever. people are not property to be discarded when they become financial liabilities. and lets face it children, even healthy ones, are a financial liablity.

 

[Swordwind]

Which would people prefer? Abortions being legal and taking place is safe, clean clinics by trained doctors who know what they\'re doing, or being illegal and it taking place in filthy backrooms by any lowlife out to make a few bucks with a coathanger?

 

[Aidan K]

Originally posted by Swordwind
Which would people prefer? Abortions being legal and taking place is safe, clean clinics by trained doctors who know what they\'re doing, or being illegal and it taking place in filthy backrooms by any lowlife out to make a few bucks with a coathanger?

I would prefer that there never be the need for an abortion at all! However, i still think a safe abortion should be available for those who choose to have one.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by Aidan K
Fine, if you truly beleive that abortion is murder, dont have one. But I dont think that gives you the right to campaign againt others rights to have a termination and villify those who carry them out.

Well...I tend to disagree here...I don\'t condone actions of \'anti-abortion\' protesters..but I can certainly understand it. They feel it is murder---of an innocent child. If that conviction is truly that strong...how can they not do those things?

 

[farseerlum]

Originally posted by Swordwind
Which would people prefer? Abortions being legal and taking place is safe, clean clinics by trained doctors who know what they\'re doing, or being illegal and it taking place in filthy backrooms by any lowlife out to make a few bucks with a coathanger?

red herring. possibly purple.

if i apply that same logic to assault in general then it would be preferable to have the crimes carried out in triage. i can assure you the law shows no leniancy for attacking someone close to medical attention.

there are a gazillion crimes that would have less negative impact if there were safe, clean places to commit them. heroin, prostitution, gambling, organ theft. etc. all of these examples are legal in legislated areas/times.
but they are crimes elsewhere. for very good reasons i might add.

 

[GreenOne]

I think the discussion lies there... at which point does a \'foetus\' becomes a \'children\'.
I think the line that defines it feels both logical and moral, it\'s a children when it\'s out of the womb, the cordon is cut and it breathes on it\'s own ( Well with a machine in some case but you get the point.). Before that there is no children to be murdered, barely a lump of cells that can become a children if it comes to term, still a physical part of the women, and her own business.
To the extent of the man\'s participation so far, having an ejaculation, he should leave the final decision to her, and help her with it whatever it is. Nobody should force a woman to bear and deliver a child, not the bible, not law, nobody; it\'s as bad as raping, in my opinion.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by GreenOne
I think the discussion lies there... at which point does a \'foetus\' becomes a \'children\'.
I think the line that defines it feels both logical and moral, it\'s a children when it\'s out of the womb, the cordon is cut and it breathes on it\'s own ( Well with a machine in some case but you get the point.). Before that there is no children to be murdered, barely a lump of cells that can become a children if it comes to term, still a physical part of the women, and her own business.

As has been pointed out, there are cases of premature babies being delivered as early as four months before they were due and living.
Are they just a lump of cells? Are they still just a fetus until the magical 9 month period and then suddenly transform into a child?
If a child, this would imply that at a certain point, most likely in the second trimester, abortion is in fact the murder of a living being.

 

[farseerlum]

Originally posted by GreenOne
I think the discussion lies there... at which point does a \'foetus\' becomes a \'children\'.
I think the line that defines it feels both logical and moral, it\'s a children when it\'s out of the womb, the cordon is cut and it breathes on it\'s own

another herring or other smelly fish.

if you are trying to use the point in life where organism can live on it\'s own without help to determine when it\'s \"alive\" then you need to look years down the track. a newborn is as dependant, no, more dependant on it\'s mother than it is in utero. the mother now has to make concious descisions to keep the baby alive. without help it will die. negleting newborn babies carries jailtime, why different if they baby is a few weeks from birth?

 

[Infidel Castro]

Originally posted by supervike

Originally posted by reverend
In nature, animals can self-terminate if there\'s a need. If food is low and a newborn can\'t be sustained, some animals have that mechanism to switch the foetus off (I\'m sure there\'s a technical term).

In nature, animals can also choose to not feed their young, as many do with \'runts\' because its chances are slim. Maybe we.....same?

I\'m not sure if you\'re going the tongue-in-cheek route there or if you\'re having a dig. I suspect the first, but I\'m not 100%. That\'s why I\'m responding. You have extrapolated too far beyond what I meant (and if you have it\'s not the first of late, Mr Vike!). I said what I did in my post as I often wonder how many natural abilities we\'ve lost by moving so far away from the lives of our ancient predecessors. We are animals after all. In these modern times we\'re soft as shite and have none of the skills left to survive if we were to live like animals live (other than the od few with army survival skills, hunting skills, etc.) It\'s a bit off-topic, but in a roundabout way deals with my thoughts in the issue - if there was a need to not give birth at full term, I\'m sure that our ancestors would have been able to close down the foetus. It\'s not like flicking a switch, but it occurs commonly in nature.

In itself, I\'d always choose to keep a child. The woman takes all the fallout and I would hate to see the one I love going through that. I would also feel responsibility to that unborn child. I would feel it correct to go through with the birth based on the fact that two people got themselves in that position and as such need to take responsibility for what they have created.

 

[DrEvilmonki]

Originally posted by GreenOne
I think the discussion lies there... at which point does a \'foetus\' becomes a \'children\'.
I think the line that defines it feels both logical and moral, it\'s a children when it\'s out of the womb, the cordon is cut and it breathes on it\'s own ( Well with a machine in some case but you get the point.). Before that there is no children to be murdered, barely a lump of cells that can become a children if it comes to term, still a physical part of the women, and her own business.

What a load of callous crap. According to your definition a woman should be allowed to abort 1 minute before birth.

 

[funnymouth]

what if the woman will die if she has the child, and she finds out one minute before the birth? does she then have no right to her own life?

(note: i do not support late term abortions, im just saying for the sake of saying.)

this issue lands a lil\' too close to heart, and i have mixed feelings. while i woouldnt advocate abortion, i certainly respect a womans right to her body, and its resources.