Forum menu
Yup.....and?
And therefore if you apply your logic it has to be applied beyond the moment of childbirth. I would have thought that point was obvious.
Your "**** into a sock" comment has absolutely no relevance to the point, and I presume that you have thrown it in in an attempt to steer away from what see as dodgy ground.
And therefore if you apply your logic it has to be applied beyond the moment of childbirth. I would have thought that point was obvious.Your "**** into a sock" has no absolutely relevance to the point, and I presume you have thrown it in an attempt to steer away from what see as dodgy ground.
I think you can guess my opinion on the first point. It's something along the lines of so what? 
I think it has relevance, why is a human fetus any different at 24 weeks than a human sperm cell. It has a heartbeat but not much else. Do you think that killing it is wrong because it might go onto become a person if it doesn't undergo natural termination? A sperm might go on to become a person if I stick it in the right person. The only difference is statistical probability but I don't see how that has anything to do with the field of ethics.
A sperm might go on to become a person if I stick it in the right person.
I can see that you are still trying to divert attention away from your original point, which was :
[i]"Fetuses are not yet functioning individuals with memory or self awareness - in effect they are non-people."[/i]
That comment can equally apply to a new born child. Lack of memory or self awareness is not a recognised basis for ending a human life. You can talk about ****ing and shagging as much as you like bwaarp, but it won't change that fact.
That comment can equally apply to a new born child. Lack of memory or self awareness is not a recognised basis for ending a human life. You can talk about ****ing and shagging as much as you like bwaarp, but it won't change that fact.
You still don't get it, I'm in total agreement with Richard Dawkins on the point of infanticide from an existential ethical standpoint.
However I'm not sure infanticide has any public health benefits, so from a medical standpoint I think it is perhaps unethical from a utilitarian perspective.
Still think you've cornered me, be warned, intellectually I'm like a greased pig.
It's a matter of personal philosophy when a foetus becomes a life.
Not really.
We could have very different opinions on whether the same foetus is alive, but that doesn't change the fact of whether it is or not.
Your or my "personal philosophy" do not determine another life's existence, only how we personally interact with it.
Not really.
No, yes, really. I probably could have been clearer though.
Let me clarify. It's a matter of personal philosophy when the foetus becomes something which one feels can be terminated or not.
We could have very different opinions on whether the same foetus is alive, but that doesn't change the fact of whether it is or not.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? I didn't mention anything about something being "alive". Merely whether we view it as a life or not.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? I didn't mention anything about something being "alive". Merely whether we view it as a life or not.
A single cell is life, such as human sperm or eggs. Life just becomes increasingly complex in humans until the age of full adult maturity. If pro-lifers aren't involved the abortion debate revolves around how complex that life can be when it is terminated.
Here's a question to throw in for all of you blokes commenting on this topic -
If you were the one who had to carry an unplanned, unwanted baby to term, with the weight gain, stretch marks and permanent, irreversible changes happening to YOUR body due to it, would your view be different?
Thanks bwaarp, but I'd rather loum answered the question I asked of him.
Else, can we agree on a term for that point at which a person feels he or she can terminate a pregnancy? That's what I mean by "life". Apologies if its a rather crude usage, but it's late and I can't come up with anything cleverer this evening.
Personally I have always felt that a sensible approach to deciding your version of 'life' is brain activity, can the fetus feel pain or not. Ethically I feel that any pain caused by termination of pregnancies or the execution of prisoners cannot be justified ethically for a variety of reasons, except under certain circumstances. This to some researchers puts the abortion limit at 35 weeks.
loum, I'll rejoin tomorrow if you've answered. I'm done for this evening.
A lot of the posts above she discussing "social" abortions. A 12 week limit wouldn't stop these - you've pretty much decided whether you want a baby or not by the time you've been pregnant for 3 months.
The abortions after this time tend to be for serious medical conditions, often picked up at the anomaly scan at 18-20 weeks. How would you feel if you were told at that time that your unborn child didn't have a head (don't google anencephaly, it's heartbreaking) and that you would have to give birth to it several months later and watch it die within minutes?
That's why we have a 24 week limit.
If you were the one who had to carry an unplanned, unwanted baby to term, with the weight gain, stretch marks and permanent, irreversible changes happening to YOUR body due to it, would your view be different?
I'm not sure how you managed it, but that's almost as good an argument [i]against[/i] abortion as it is for abortion: a few stretch marks vs a foetus' life
but what about killing and eating grannies...?
This to some researchers puts the abortion limit at 35 weeks.
Being a father to a 27 weeker, frankly those researchers are wrong.
That's up in the Lords next week Yunki.
Soon mate, soon.......... 😆
A lot of the posts above she discussing "social" abortions. A 12 week limit wouldn't stop these - you've pretty much decided whether you want a baby or not by the time you've been pregnant for 3 months.The abortions after this time tend to be for serious medical conditions, often picked up at the anomaly scan at 18-20 weeks. How would you feel if you were told at that time that your unborn child didn't have a head (don't google anencephaly, it's heartbreaking) and that you would have to give birth to it several months later and watch it die within minutes?
That's why we have a 24 week limit.
Don't quote me on this (I am not an obstetrician and thus it's not my area of expertise), but I [i]think[/i] current legislation allows termination up to 28 weeks in this situation.
Andy
No limit if there are severe abnormalities. Lowering the limit would not affect terminations for conditions incompatible with life.
Why should I be surprised that there are so many in the pro camp regarding the murdering of babies on stw.
Why should I be surprised that there are so many in the pro camp regarding the murdering of babies on stw.
I don't see this anywhere - are you looking at the same thread? This is a thread about the termination of pregnancies, not infanticide. Perhaps you'd better find your reading specs?
stevewhyte - Member
Why should I be surprised that there are so many in the pro camp regarding the murdering of babies on stw.
So you think that there is no case for abortion, ever?
Why should I be surprised that there are so many in the pro camp regarding the murdering of babies on stw
As with all things, termination of pregnancy is an issue with many shades of grey. With all due respect, if you're capable of seeing it in that degree of black & white, I would suggest you're oversimplifying.
Andy
deadlydarcy
Let me clarify. It's a matter of personal philosophy when the foetus becomes something which one feels can be terminated or not.
IMHO, this is a different point to the statement you originally made and probably not one which I would have replied to disagree with. To me, this statement concerns one's personal philosophy determining one's personal actions within a given situation. Fair enough.
However, it's not the same as:
It's a matter of personal philosophy when a foetus becomes a life.
I still can't agree that the underlying facts of the situation are related to anyone's individual personal philosophy. IMO, there's a fact there. Through time, the foetus is a life or it is not a life. I'm not claiming to know the answer as to when that life begins: my point is that my (or your) "personal philosophy" has no effect on when that is - only on when we treat it as a life or not. To me, it's a subtle but important difference. Possibly this is closer to what you said second time concerning "whether we view it as a life".
Can you clarify what you mean by this? I didn't mention anything about something being "alive". Merely whether we view it as a life or not.
POSTED 8 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
If it's important to you to make the distinction between "a life" and "alive" then I'll reword my original phrasing. I had no intention of opening up a debate as to the difference between the two, and it's only distracting from the actual point. It was late, so please accept an apology for my laziness in the precision of my wording.
"We could have very different opinions on whether the same foetus is [s]alive[/s] [i]a life[/i], but that doesn't change the fact of whether it is or not. Your or my "personal philosophy" do not determine another life's existence, only how we personally interact with it."
IMHO, this is a different point to the statement you originally made and probably not one which I would have replied to disagree with. To me, this statement concerns one's personal philosophy determining one's personal actions within a given situation. Fair enough.
Aye, as I said, I should have been clearer with my post with which you disagreed. 🙂
If it's important to you to make the distinction between "a life" and "alive"
As I said later:
Else, can we agree on a term for that point at which a person feels he or she can terminate a pregnancy? That's what I mean by "life". Apologies if its a rather crude usage, but it's late and I can't come up with anything cleverer this evening.
But getting back to what you were saying...you think that there is a definite point at which it becomes a life - but we may disagree on when that point is. But from what I've read this week, even medical professionals can't agree at what that point is. As a society (meaning, for what we've legislated), we've decided that we can terminate up to 24 weeks electively, with special cases being allowed up to 28 weeks? Apologies if this is incorrect, but it could be 12 and 16, 16 and 20, etc etc for the sake of discourse. So, doesn't it come down to what one believes that moment to be - which then influences how we as a society deal with it if it's unwanted. So the two are intrinsic.
It was late, so please accept an apology for my laziness in the precision of my wording.
No need to apologise - you raised some interesting points from mine and got me to think a little more precisely about what I was saying. There's the good side of STW for ya. 🙂
Apologies if this is incorrect, but it could be 12 and 16, 16 and 20, etc etc for the sake of discourse.
hmmm.. I was hoping it was around 9 months old after the morning I've had.. 🙁
[img] 
[/img]
iirc the Romans did infanticide but it is generally frowned upon these days
Why should I be surprised that there are so many in the pro camp regarding the murdering of babies on stw.
Its because we have not let Jesus into our hearts iirc 🙄
Its a very complicated issue and whilst i remain pro choice I am more in favour [ in general] of the rights to life than the right to have an abortion
As others have said it is a huge shade of grey and not a black and white issue and it often depends on the actual circumstances rather than an iron clad rule.
The little shit !hmmm.. I was hoping it was around 9 months old after the morning I've had..
No belt, no insurance I bet, and clearly not looking at the road ahead
As a society (meaning, for what we've legislated), we've decided that we can terminate up to 24 weeks electively, with special cases being allowed up to 28 weeks? Apologies if this is incorrect, but it could be 12 and 16, 16 and 20, etc etc for the sake of discourse
Well, no. There are good practical reasons for the 28 week limit. Chief among these is that the big antenatal scan is done at 20 weeks; there needs to be time for other tests (eg. CVS) that may result from an abnormal screening scan and still allow time for the parents to weigh up what is a major decision.
As before, I am only a humble gasman, and not therefore an expert in fetal medicine, but I assume there are reasons why the screening scan can't be done sooner.
hmmm.. I was hoping it was around 9 months old after the morning I've had...
I do occasionally wonder why the limit isn't up to two years postpartum 😛
Andy
The little shit !
No belt, no insurance I bet, and clearly not looking at the road ahead
not only that, but he'd four pints of mild before I was even out of bed this morning.. he could hardly walk on his way out to the car.. 😐
There are good practical reasons for the 28 week limit
Indeed...I take your points sir. But, as a society, we've decided that it's ok (legally) to terminate pregnancies. Thereafter, comes the arguments to what point we draw the line - which then takes into account the issues you raise.
From Zulu's link; this is the bit that always gets me:
Catt concealed her pregnancy from her husband.
How the bejeesus do you do that??
we are not all as fortunate as you and women tend to keep their clothes on in our company 😥
None of the pro-lifers here have managed to make any rational philosophical or biological response to any of my points only "killing babies is bad, end of".
No limit if there are severe abnormalities. Lowering the limit would not affect terminations for conditions incompatible with life.
Why just conditions incompatible with life? Plenty of babies could go on to live on life support or even be able to breathe and barely feed themselves but in many cases it may be a better option to terminate those pregnancies.
Why just conditions incompatible with life
Its not just for those conditions - its any 'serious disability' and can be carried out at any point up to full term. hence the fuss a few years ago when it came out that a late abortion was carried out for a cleft palette, and there are ones every year for downs syndrome and similar, they have even taken place for club foot.
at what point do you draw a line between serious medical conditions and eugenics?
Being a father to a 27 weeker, frankly those researchers are wrong.
Babies can't tell the difference between touch and pain until around the 35th week. They did a lot of neuroscience trickery to understand this, you prodded your baby and decided it's response appeared to be pain. You are yet another one of the vast majority that ignores scientific evidence in favour of superstition or emotional thinking.
When and how infants begin to discriminate noxious from innocuous stimuli is a fundamental question in neuroscience [1]. However, little is known about the development of the necessary cortical somatosensory functional prerequisites in the intact human brain. Recent studies of developing brain networks have emphasized the importance of transient spontaneous and evoked neuronal bursting activity in the formation of functional circuits [2,3]. These neuronal bursts are present during development and precede the onset of sensory functions [4,5]. Their disappearance and the emergence of more adult-like activity are therefore thought to signal the maturation of functional brain circuitry [2,4]. Here we show the changing patterns of neuronal activity that underlie the onset of nociception and touch discrimination in the preterm infant. We have conducted noninvasive electroencephalogram (EEG) recording of the brain neuronal activity in response to time-locked touches and clinically essential noxious lances of the heel in infants aged 28–45 weeks gestation. We show a transition in brain response following tactile and noxious stimulation from nonspecific, evenly dispersed neuronal bursts to modality-specific, localized, evoked potentials. The results suggest that specific neural circuits necessary for discrimination between touch and nociception emerge from 35–37 weeks gestation in the human brain.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S0960982211008852
Its not just for those conditions - its any 'serious disability' and can be carried out at any point up to full term. hence the fuss a few years ago when it came out that a late abortion was carried out for a cleft palette, and there are ones every year for downs syndrome and similar, they have even taken place for club foot.at what point do you draw a line between serious medical conditions and eugenics?
The whole purpose of life is to pass on healthy genes and create healthy offspring - organisms will quite often not feed offspring that are not capable of becoming successful functioning adults. Everyone has the right to procreate and to do what they can to ensure the best possible outcome. If a couple can only afford one child who are you to tell them they should't terminate a down-syndrome baby?
Eugenics isn't de facto evil, it was just given a bad reputation by government mandated eugenics. I see nothing morally wrong with eugenics when it's the families involved deciding the outcome.
hence the fuss a few years ago when it came out that a late abortion was carried out for a cleft palette, and there are ones every year for downs syndrome and similar, they have even taken place for club foot.
I suspect (though I don't know) that there will have been one or two 'convenient excuses' used to justify late termination; another one occasionally used was 'psychological distress to the mother'. However, the overwhelming majority of late terminations will have been for significant congenital abnormality consistent with with (at least) significant disability, or for life threatening illness associated with pregnancy. As I've said before, nothing is black and white, and loopholes will always exist in the grey zone.
Andy
Catt concealed her pregnancy from her husband.
How the bejeesus do you do that??
Not that impossible when you consider some mothers don't even notice themselves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19657646
BTW, congratulations on the baby on the way too 🙂
We're in a similar situation with mrs loum due on new years day.
It certainly makes you think about a few more things.
Same to you! Christmas Day for us.
I agree...it does change one's perspective - especially after a gutting early loss was referred to as a "biochemical pregnancy". 🙁
What we know ought to be terminated is Jeremy Hunts tenure as Health Secretary.
organisms will quite often not feed offspring that are not capable of becoming successful functioning adults.
And many species will eat the copulating partner, will rape to procreate and a variety of other things we would consider immoral - What is your point?we can do anything that happens in nature?
Everyone has the right to procreate and to do what they can to ensure the best possible outcome.
I am not sure what you mean by the value judgement of "best possible outcome" - is it love the offspring no matter what?
If a couple can only afford one child who are you to tell them they should't terminate a down-syndrome baby?
What f they are stupid and they wanted them to be a doctor?
What if they are no good at sport and they wanted a canoeist ?
Where are you drawing this line
You seem to be grading life now which most of us are uncomfortable with
When someone asks you where you draw the line it would be useful to actually answer the question- I am none the wiser for that answer
Where do you draw the line?
[i]If a couple can only afford one child who are you to tell them they should't terminate a down-syndrome baby?[/i]What f they are stupid and they wanted them to be a doctor?
What if they are no good at sport and they wanted a canoeist ?
Where are you drawing this line
You seem to be grading life now which most of us are uncomfortable with
You're not comparing apples with pears. If we have the option to screen for serious disability antenatally, then the corollary is that termination of pregnancy should be offered where this is found.
That is [b]completely[/b] different from eg. selective termination to select children's gender, as practiced in some other countries.
Andy
If we have the option to screen for serious disability antenatally, then the corollary is that termination of pregnancy should be offered where this is found.
Define 'serious disability'
the corollary is that termination of pregnancy should be offered where this is found
As so we can selectively terminate for this then
Are we talking mental and physical or only one of them?
That is completely different from eg. selective termination to select children's gender, as practiced in some other countries.
Why is it completely different ? We are merely selectively terminating for a reason you approve of rather than reason you disapprove of. Why cann they not decide those children are not worth it?
The point is - what is the principle at work here - someone can selectively terminate but only if you approve of the reason?
In some cultures a female is as "worthless" as a disabled child so why do you have a problem? clearly this is not my view but i fail to see what the difference is - someone chooses the worth of the child and whether it can live based on some value system- the act is the same though the values against which it may be scored differ