Abortion

[MeDeFe]

Thank you Bertros, what did you google for to find that? I was unable to find any modern study citing reasons for late-term abortions (although I did find the institute that did the study Nappy quoted). It helps validate my earlier statements.

In the UK, the vast majority of abortions beyond 24 weeks are on grounds of serious fetal abnormality. In 2002, of the 117 abortions carried out at greater than 24 weeks in England and Wales, 114 (97.4%) were because of serious fetal abnormality; the remaining 3 were because the abortion was necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

[Napoleon Ier]

Thank you Bertros, what did you google for to find that? I was unable to find any modern study citing reasons for late-term abortions (although I did find the institute that did the study Nappy quoted). It helps validate my earlier statements.

In the UK, the vast majority of abortions beyond 24 weeks are on grounds of serious fetal abnormality. In 2002, of the 117 abortions carried out at greater than 24 weeks in England and Wales, 114 (97.4%) were because of serious fetal abnormality; the remaining 3 were because the abortion was necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

That would be because UK law prohibits it being done for any other reason, you fool.

[Bertros Bertros]

Thank you Bertros, what did you google for to find that?]

Funnily enough just 'abortion statistics'... Thats the wonderful world of google.co.uk, google.com is about as unbiased as google.cn...

[suggs]

Cool, a thread a bout women and their private nitty bits

[bedub1]

Thank you Bertros, what did you google for to find that? I was unable to find any modern study citing reasons for late-term abortions (although I did find the institute that did the study Nappy quoted). It helps validate my earlier statements.

In the UK, the vast majority of abortions beyond 24 weeks are on grounds of serious fetal abnormality. In 2002, of the 117 abortions carried out at greater than 24 weeks in England and Wales, 114 (97.4%) were because of serious fetal abnormality; the remaining 3 were because the abortion was necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

That would be because UK law prohibits it being done for any other reason, you fool.

I wish those were the stats of the US....

[got tonkaed]

just looking up some of the uk abortion stuff, although i suppose its somewhat consistent if framed a certain way, i find it odd that a country which to the best of my knowledge tends to be ok with ending life in the case of "brain death" or persistent vegetative states is as comparatively tough on abortion by comparison to the US.

[Dancing Mustard]

a country which to the best of my knowledge tends to be ok with ending life in the case of "brain death" or persistent vegetative states

Steady now, it's not quite that simple. That's just the first hurdle that needs to be jumped through before you can start switching of life-support machines, you also need to have two doctors agree that it's for the best, seek permission of a court of law, and then wait until the "brain death" has persisted for a significant length of time (the number of days, I forget right now).

But if you think a dichotomy exists between the UK's stance on 'brain dead' and fetuses I'd suggest it's probably because of what our law has to say on what exactly a 'human' is, and on what it has to say about people's ability to own human bodies (you can't).

Now, it's breakfast time in Mustard household... I must be going.

[MR. Nate]

So we've no decided that if a mother's health is at risk, we can kill a recently conceived child?

People, aren't we still talking about the baby emerging from the womb, and THEN being killed? Isn't that how this started? Once the baby has completely left the birth canal, can't we say that the threat to the mother, at least, is gone?

[MeDeFe]

So we've no decided that if a mother's health is at risk, we can kill a recently conceived child?

People, aren't we still talking about the baby emerging from the womb, and THEN being killed? Isn't that how this started? Once the baby has completely left the birth canal, can't we say that the threat to the mother, at least, is gone?

Well, the descriptions Nappy posted clearly showed that the fetus does not completely leave the birth canal. In my first post I pointed out that the "birth" (for lack of an accurate word, 'birth' to me suggests the natural process not induced by any form of medication) would not even be taking place if it weren't for the abortion. And player mentioned viability, the survival rate for 6th month prematures is already extremely low, for a 5th month (~24 weeks) it's nearly nil.

And in my first post I also pointed out that the legislation does not mandate the method you describe, it only does not prohibit it. Which is quite a big difference.

But it remains a difficult question.

[tzor]

The British Medical Association statistics on abortion. Towards the bottom is a section "factors affecting the timing of abortion".

Thanks for providing the quote. However, it's interesting how different people can read the same thing and come to completely different conclusions. (Note the emphasis in the following quote is mine)

There is very little documented evidence available about why women seek abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy. The Pro+choice forum published a briefing paper in November 2004 [Go to reference 15] that outlined four main reasons why women have abortions in the second trimester:

So the report basically says, "there is very little evidence but this pro-choice (pro-abortion) group published something so we will just present it instead." Let's go back to the original argument. There is very little documented evidence available about why women seen abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy. Anything would be speculation at best.

[got tonkaed]

a country which to the best of my knowledge tends to be ok with ending life in the case of "brain death" or persistent vegetative states

Steady now, it's not quite that simple. That's just the first hurdle that needs to be jumped through before you can start switching of life-support machines, you also need to have two doctors agree that it's for the best, seek permission of a court of law, and then wait until the "brain death" has persisted for a significant length of time (the number of days, I forget right now).

But if you think a dichotomy exists between the UK's stance on 'brain dead' and fetuses I'd suggest it's probably because of what our law has to say on what exactly a 'human' is, and on what it has to say about people's ability to own human bodies (you can't).

Now, it's breakfast time in Mustard household... I must be going.

I had thought it might be pretty similar to that in both paragraphs. The only real mention i had of it was from something somewhat unrelated, that used the U.K. system as an example.

Also to mr. nate, while it doesnt exactly make me feel good either, its important to remember infanticide isnt exactly alien to the human condition. Id assume in any case (and you could probably quite easily justifiably disagree) that if the mothers life is in danger in any way, her life should take precedent over the childs.

[Bertros Bertros]

Id assume in any case (and you could probably quite easily justifiably disagree) that if the mothers life is in danger in any way, her life should take precedent over the childs.

Tell that to Michael Jackson.

[PLAYER57832]

Id assume in any case (and you could probably quite easily justifiably disagree) that if the mothers life is in danger in any way, her life should take precedent over the childs.

Not if the North Dakota Governor has his way ... or many other states.

As for Nappy's stats.

I have not been able to find easy to access statistics on the net. I DO dispute those statistics becuase they differ QUITE a lot from what I have heard, even from the conservative Christians, Right to Life movements.

Those sound like statistics that were thrown out a few years ago by the MOST EXTREME of the "pro-life" groups ... The ones that also thought it quite fine to kill abortion doctors, etc. (just to give you a sense of their mind set).

THOSE statistics often included even C-sections, deaths as the result of tests gone wrong and induced labor as "abortions" .. EVEN WHEN there was no intent to kill the child! Most sane Right to Life groups soundly reject those folks and their "data". Still, I repeat an earlier comment that many of the highest abortion statistics, even TODAY, in the US do include removeal of already mis-carried children in the earliest trimester. NO distinction is made whether the procedure is to remove a child that is already dead or one still living ... never mind the "grey area" of a child who might survive a while longer within the womb, but would NOT survive birth and, usually will not survive much longer within. Such things as babies missing membranes separating organs, etc.

Your comment that "nothing has changed in 20 years. Is oompletely wrong!

2 VERY BIG things did change ... Medical science has advanced to where doctors can truly tell in many cases if a child will be wholly healty/viable, viable with serious problems OR not viable at all.

Also, the LAW has changed. That little bit about "unable to easily get an abortion" is not just a matter of "convenience". In many cases, women have to travel hundreds of miles, stay overnight (because of a mandated 24 hour waiting period) AND generally cover the expense themselves, because it usually is not covered. THOSE are pretty big restrictions.

[PLAYER57832]

I know I just posted, but I want to change the debate slightly.

One point no one has mentioned so far is that EVEN IF you are absolutely opposed to abortion, the question still remains whether a LEGAL mandate is the best, correct, most effective way to limit abortions.

2 points:
My Grandmother was a nurse at the time when abortions were almost entirely illegal. She talked of women coming into the hospital after being to the slip-shod illegal "clinics" back then ... and being unable to save them. She said they supported legalized abortions because at least then they could save one of the two lives.

I find it beyond hypocritical to downright WRONG that the same folks who don't want abortions are often the same folks who are against sex education in schools. The time to prevent an abortion is not when a woman is standing at the door to a clinic.

[Napoleon Ier]

Id assume in any case (and you could probably quite easily justifiably disagree) that if the mothers life is in danger in any way, her life should take precedent over the childs.

Not if the North Dakota Governor has his way ... or many other states.

As for Nappy's stats.

I have not been able to find easy to access statistics on the net. I DO dispute those statistics becuase they differ QUITE a lot from what I have heard, even from the conservative Christians, Right to Life movements.

Those sound like statistics that were thrown out a few years ago by the MOST EXTREME of the "pro-life" groups ... The ones that also thought it quite fine to kill abortion doctors, etc. (just to give you a sense of their mind set).

THOSE statistics often included even C-sections, deaths as the result of tests gone wrong and induced labor as "abortions" .. EVEN WHEN there was no intent to kill the child! Most sane Right to Life groups soundly reject those folks and their "data". Still, I repat an earlier comment that many of the highest abortion statistics, even TODAY, in the US do include removeal of already mis-carried children in the earliest trimester. NO distinction is made whether the procedure is to remove a child that is already dead or one still living ... never mind the "grey area" of a child who might survive a while longer within the womb, but would NOT survive birth and, usually will not survive much longer within. Such things as babies missing membranes separating organs, etc.

Your comment that "nothing has changed in 20 years. Is oompletely wrong!

2 VERY BIG things did change ... Medical science has advanced to where doctors can truly tell in many cases if a child will be wholly healty/viable, viable with serious problems OR not viable at all.

Also, the LAW has changed. That little bit about "unable to easily get an abortion" is not just a matter of "convenience". In many cases, women have to travel hundreds of miles, stay overnight (because of a mandated 24 hour waiting period) AND generally cover the expense themselves, because it usually is not covered. THOSE are pretty big restrictions.

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. Seriously, you just have not read the statistics. How can the intent not be to kill the child when the statistics are taken from women who set out specifically to have an abortion at a specialized centre. Furthermore the statistics were collated by an unbiased medical health research institute.

http://www.guttmacher.org

I'm sorry, you just don't have the intellectual level required here. You can't make wild, rash, unsubstantiated assertions about reliability of data without offering counter-examples and providing reasons backed by empirical data for your opinion: that's the truth about serious debate. Now either pull your socks up and write proper rebuttals (not just long, illegible dissertations with no sources, verifiable data, logical reason or substantiated opinion), or leave the thread.

You'e also got some issues understanding basic english. "Convenience" abortions have nothing to fucking do with whether some dumb knocked up girl had to drive three hours to the nearest centre or not, it has to do with the reasons for the abortion taking place in the first instance, yah? And lo and behold, only 2%, 2 in every 100, one in every 50, said they were having the partial-birth abortion because of a health defect. Making you guys look rather stupid.

No, I'm sure you've "heard", lots of things, but let me give you some hard stats here: in the UK, 25% of births are aborted. In Québec, the highest proportion of abortions worldwide occur: 1 in ever 2 unborn babies fall victim to the abortionnist's slaughterhouse. Are you seriously expecting me to believe that 200.000 pregnancies in the UK, every year, endanger the mother's life or are the result of rape? Mind you, knowing just how air-headed you are, that's probably so...

[tzor]

You all do raise a number of good points and instead of trying to do a complex multiple quote post I'll just mention them all in passing.

There is a disturbing tend towards "shock value" legislation, mostly in the case to really have a polar opposite "I dare you" type of law to attck the Roe v Wade decision. Frankly as a pro-life person I'm embarassed by them. Fortunately I live in New York, the pro-abortion capital of the United States ... we won't be seeing anything of that nature around where I live any time soon.

Let me make one thing clear. I want to reduce abortions especially were I live in New York. I don't want to sweep them under the rug where they will occur in the black market where women are also placed in grave danger. The blanket making abortions illegal is a stupid idea.

It is interesting to note that Susan B. Anthony was a strong anti-abortionist. In her century, (the 19th) abortion was a tool used by men upon women to prevent men from having to deal with the consequences of their often adulterous actions. While a lot of change has happened since then we have to always be aware that the only true choice is when all options are equally available and viable. Unfortunately the so called "pro-choice" lobby is a lot like Henry Ford's "choice" of Model T color, "you can have any color Model T you want as long as the color you want is black."

The "absolute" nature of the right to abortion is mind boggling. In New York you need written permission in order to give a child an asprin, but you can take her to have an abortion without even parental notification much less parental approval. There is a bill in New York that not only would lower the bar as to who can perform abortions but would make all laws concerning regulations on procedure and practice practically illegal. You could even have Sweeney Todd himself perform abortions and if he accidentally killed a few women in the process ... well that's OK because any regulation would be against a constitutional right.

Education is important, but you also have groups like planned parenthood looking to get into the school system to promote abortions (which ironically they provide) and in the process try to get the children from not talking to their parents. For a significant majority of pro-life people education is everything.

What is the "best" solution? Abortion is not and cannot be an "absolute" situation in either direction. Abortions must be at some level available because at some level they are necessary but care needs to be made so that those with a vested interest in the procedure can in turn promote the procedure or write the laws so that they are granted special exemptions. Because no one speaks for the unborn the state has a vested interest to promote the needs and the rights of the unborn, not to the excusion of the rights of the woman but so that the needs of both are achieved. The state also has the duty and the responsibility to work towards alternatives to abortion making it no longer "necessary" in a large number of cases.

[Snorri1234]

I find it beyond hypocritical to downright WRONG that the same folks who don't want abortions are often the same folks who are against sex education in schools.

Word.

[Napoleon Ier]

I find it beyond hypocritical to downright WRONG that the same folks who don't want abortions are often the same folks who are against sex education in schools.

Word.

You know, just as a friendly piece of advice, there are other, more intelligent and articulate ways of expressing agreement than just posting "word" all the time. You may also want to consider that such posts don't really add anything new, ut just make you look rather naf.

[Snorri1234]

i find it odd that a country which to the best of my knowledge tends to be ok with ending life in the case of "brain death" or persistent vegetative states is as comparatively tough on abortion by comparison to the US.

Those are two entirely seperate things. Brain death and persistent vegetative state are things people can't recover from. There is no hope for the person to ever wake up again, the only thing we're doing is keeping their body functioning untill it dies too.

[Snorri1234]

I find it beyond hypocritical to downright WRONG that the same folks who don't want abortions are often the same folks who are against sex education in schools.

Word.

You know, just as a friendly piece of advice, there are other, more intelligent and articulate ways of expressing agreement than just posting "word" all the time. You may also want to consider that such posts don't really add anything new, ut just make you look rather naf.

Except the problem is that I have not much to add, I just want to draw more atention to the point. Now if there was anyone so friendly to disagree with it, then I could digg deeper into it, but for some reason people just seem to ignore it.

[tzor]

Those are two entirely seperate things. Brain death and persistent vegetative state are things people can't recover from.

Actually that's not entirely true. I think a better statement is that they have a near impossible chance of recovery. The issue comes up mostly on the quesitons of the killing of such people for the potential harvesting of their organs and as a method to reduce hospital costs.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm sorry, you just don't have the intellectual level required here. ......
You'e also got some issues understanding basic english. ..... Mind you, knowing just how air-headed you are, that's probably so...

And here I thought you were attempting to make an INTELLIGENT and reasoned debate. When you are ready to discuss this and not just throw out stupid labels Fine.

and, I would say I probably know a bit more about this than you.



I had a miscarriage and was treated absolutely HORRIBLY because, in the Catholic hospital which was the ONLY facility available, the nurses decided, DESPITE the fact that the doctor absolutely confirmed there was no life, DESPITE any desire on my part .. .I was having an abortion. Legally, it was LISTED as an "abortion". (something I did not realize until later). This was a VERY MUCH WANTED child. I had to go through surgery instead of the "natural" route because A. my doctor thought there was a serious risk of my bleeding to death. and B. I am rH negative which means that unless I get an injection of antibodies, my body will set up an allergic reaction to any future children. Had I NOT had this procedure, I would not have the 2 healthy children I have. (and no, this is NOT standard Catholic policy ... it is, however what ends up getting translated as "Catholic policy" by many members, particularly in more rural areas.)

I did not say "what I had heard" I said "my experience" Which means women I know who have gone through this. Something I MIGHT just happen to know a bit more about than you. I doubt many women, are talking to you about this openly right now.



And, as for the statistics ... I would gaurantee that having gone through college, AND used them in my profession, I just might understand them.

CHECK YOUR FACTS BEFORE deciding you have the right to insult someone!

And one statistic you did NOT report is the percentage of miscarriages. Roughly 30% of first trimester pregnancies end with miscarriage ... even TODAY, with all the medical advances.

[jonesthecurl]

And one statistic you did NOT report is the percentage of miscarriages. Roughly 30% of first trimester pregnancies end with miscarriage ... even TODAY, with all the medical advances.

Something (this is off-topic) which should be more widely known: often, often when someone announces early on that they're "going to have a baby", I think "well, this isn't the time to tell you that there's a good chance you won't".

It can come as a dreadful shock - and it doesn't help that, afterwards, lots of people say to the unfortunate, "oh, yes, I had one too. Terrible, isn't it?"

A wider knowledge of this basic fact would at lest help to prepare people for the possiblity.

[Snorri1234]

Those are two entirely seperate things. Brain death and persistent vegetative state are things people can't recover from.

Actually that's not entirely true. I think a better statement is that they have a near impossible chance of recovery.

Well I don't think there has ever been someone who recovered from it. Sure, in theory it could be possible, but since the chance of it so infintely small and the patients have suffered enormous brain-damage already I think it's fair to say that the issue is entirely unrelated and also much less of a big deal.

[PLAYER57832]

Education is important, but you also have groups like planned parenthood looking to get into the school system to promote abortions (which ironically they provide)

There are a lot of things I don't like about Planned parenthood, but even they are not out there trying to promote abortions. They could possibly be said to promote birth control and condoms, yes... but abortions, no. The most they want is for young women to know that that possibility exists. QUITE a differant thing from "promoting" them.

and in the process try to get the children from not talking to their parents. For a significant majority of pro-life people education is everything.

For some, yes, absolutely.

HOWEVEr, the strongest group right now, in particular the Bush Administration, is actively opposed to anything but the most narrow of abstinance education. In most cases educators are forbidden from mentioning condoms, are forbidden from mentioning ANY form of birth control or how to keep from getting STDs. In some cases, they don't even get into the facts of how one gets pregnant at all.

Did you know, just as an example, international rules were only JUST relaxed to allow doctors to mention condoms for AIDS prevention to married women in Africa? THAT is what is passing as "abstinance education".

The REAL IRONY is that a good sex education course WILL emphasize abstinance and WILL reduce pregnancies. The key? As most always, FACTUAL information.

Ironically, these "abstinance only" classes often have a "rebound" effect. If you exaggerate the dangers, or just leave out a lot, fail to give real and honest answers about protections avaliable (including honest failure rates and so forth), then kids/teens find out and end up disbelieving ALL of what you say... far too often.