[Closed] Halving abortions to 12 weeks

Are we talking mental and physical or only one of them?

Physical. Because learning difficulties don't show up all that well on ultrasound.

In some cultures a female is as "worthless" as a disabled child so why do you have a problem?

I didn't say or imply anywhere that disabled people were worthless, nor do I have a "problem".

Zulu-Eleven - Member

at what point do you draw a line between serious medical conditions and eugenics?

Complicated, innit. I'm diabetic, if you could pre-natal screen for the likelihood of developing it, would you then abort? My brother's a ginger, would you screen for that? Severe mental disability? Risk of disability? Boy or girl? As time passes we're probably going to get better at this stuff.

The whole "sanctity of life" thing is a very deep and smelly hole IMO but the fact is, my mum and dad wanted a second kid. If not me, then there'd be another. Are we talking about net growth of life, or about individuals? How about Fiona, my never-born sister? Still stuck in the bardo.

Either way as perfect as some people may be we are all human and fallible. I've had to endure both the horror or miscarriages and abortions and the joy of child births. Only one of those three is good. But unfortunately not everything goes to plan.

Abortion is not contraception, but please people anyone who has been fortunate in their life to have got it right don't make those who have failed suffer further by you banging you perfect ****!n drum about pro-life. Things can be more complicated than you may ever care to understand.

12 weeks is quite soon, and it really is the hardest thing in the world.

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.

Did you read that in a book or have you actually spent any time on a neonatal unit?

I didn't say or imply anywhere that disabled people were worthless,

nor do I have a "problem".

PS Many of the screenings are for learning difficulty - downs syndrome for example and a few others - i forget which as we declined the tests and is a perfectly legitimate reason [ ie allowed in law] for abortion.

Downs is a bit more than a learning difficulty. Sometimes very much more. I hope you never have reason find that out.

7 year glitch

Nor do you seem to actually answering any of the actual questions I raised re your position.
PS Many of the screenings are for learning difficulty - downs syndrome for example and a few others - i forget which as we declined the tests and is a perfectly legitimate reason [ ie allowed in law] for abortion.

I have managed to get dragged into exactly what I wanted to avoid, ie. a discussion on medical ethics.

With all due respect, I think you've misunderstood my position. I feel it is the right of all prospective parents to have screening for major congenital abnormalities; if these are found, then they should be offered the choice not to proceed with the pregnancy. I would also defend the right of all prospective parents to decline testing if they so wish, as this is a free country.

There is clearly a difference between allowing termination of pregnancy on the grounds of serious congenital abnormality (which Downs, among other conditions, is) and allowing termination of a healthy foetus on the grounds of eg. gender, and to argue that this is the same is patently nonsense.

Do not paint me as some sort of closet eugenicist.

Andy

As someone who had to go through the IVF process (due to the chemo), an as the father of a beautiful, smiling, happy and curious little nine month old girl, the mere thought of abortion makes me well up...

Not a judgement call in any way though; I just struggle to comprehend the concept.

There is clearly a difference between allowing termination of pregnancy on the grounds of serious congenital abnormality (which Downs, among other conditions, is) and allowing termination of a healthy foetus on the grounds of eg. gender, and to argue that this is the same is patently nonsense.

Again, define 'serious congenital abnormality' or 'serious disability'

where do you draw the line?

zulu, you are either trolling or not reading his posts properly. Perhaps it is the job I do, but it seems clear to me from his posts that there is not a 'line', but a mass of ethical considerations in many shades of grey rather than the black and white that seems to prevail in this thread. Is that really so hard to see?

Of course there's a line

because ultimately someone somewhere has to decide which conditions you consider serious enough to terminate for.

If a pregnant woman has a scan, after the normal cut off point of 24 weeks, that reveals their baby has an abnormality and asks to terminate, then somebody has to say yes thats an acceptable reason, or not.

Down syndrome?
cleft palete?
club foot?
webbed feet?
epilepsy?
autism? ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/12/autism-screening-health )

Did you read that in a book or have you actually spent any time on a neonatal unit?

From the peer reviewed and highly respected biomedical journal "Cell", by the looks of things.

because ultimately someone somewhere has to decide which conditions you consider serious enough to terminate for.

I think you'll find that there is a very fuzzy line based upon lots of case-specific evidence, and discussions between medical practitioners and the parents.

Bless poor ol' Zulu. He forgets he's not fighting with TeeJ anymore.

Downs is a bit more than a learning difficulty. Sometimes very much more. I hope you never have reason find that out.

There is clearly a difference between allowing termination of pregnancy on the grounds of serious congenital abnormality (which Downs, among other conditions, is) and allowing termination of a healthy foetus on the grounds of eg. gender, and to argue that this is the same is patently nonsense.

Did you read that in a book or have you actually spent any time on a neonatal unit?

I don't take my scientific advice from nurses in a neonatal unit. In fact I don't listen to nurses full stop and doctors only sometimes. Clinicians seem to forget it's scientists who develop the understanding and treatment of diseases - not the hunches of clinicians based on flawed experience.

Evidence based medicine, heard of it yeah?

The study I quoted was from one of the most prestigious peer reviewed journals.

the journal was ranked first overall in the category of highest-impact journals (all fields) over 1995–2005 with an average of 161.2 citations per paper

So, no then.

I genuinely hope you never have to.

So, no then.

I genuinely hope you never have to.

I genuinely hope no one puts you in charge of designing new drug treatments or understanding complex diseases.

In the mean time check this out

Conclusively, the appeal to emotion fallacy presents a perspective intended to be superior to reason. Appeals to emotion are intended to draw visceral feelings from the acquirer of the information. And in turn, the acquirer of the information is intended to be convinced that the statements that were presented in the fallacious argument are true; solely on the basis that the statements may induce emotional stimulation such as fear, pity and joy. Though these emotions may be provoked by an appeal to emotion fallacy, substantial proof of the argument is not offered, and the argument's premises remain invalid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

EBM is fine. [b]bwaarp[/b]. But I think you'll have to produce a bit [i]more[/i] evidence than you have so far, and stuff which has managed to be published in journals relevant to the field. And a good 40% of what appears in Journals is later found out to be erroneous or misinterpreted. As I'm sure you know.

I'm not sure ability to feel pain is a great criterion in any case. There is no simple easy answer, but pragmatically I think we have it about right at the moment.

EBM is fine. bwaarp. But I think you'll have to produce a bit more evidence than you have so far, and stuff which has managed to be published in journals relevant to the field. And a good 40% of what appears in Journals is later found out to be erroneous or misinterpreted. As I'm sure you know.

I'm not sure ability to feel pain is a great criterion in any case. There is no simple easy answer, but pragmatically I think we have it about right at the moment.

I'm sure someone else will do a repeat study, however from what I gather with each new study the time gets pushed back.

Need to find a good meta-analysis.

I genuinely hope no one puts you in charge of designing new drug treatments or understanding complex diseases.

I think that perhaps the point being made [b]bwaarp[/b], is that if you have nursed your own premature child through those first torturously fragile months of life in a neonatal unit, the experiments conducted and journals written fade into a dim and meaningless irrelevance..

show a bit of humility can't you kiddo..?

I think that perhaps the point being made bwaarp, is that if you have nursed your own premature child through those first torturously fragile months of life in a neonatal unit, the experiments conducted and journals written fade into a dim and meaningless irrelevance..

show a bit of humility can't you kiddo..?

That doesn't give those people any right to then ram their opinions based on that experience down other peoples throats. It was their choice to do that.

It flies in the face of reason and there lies my issue, we seem to be going back on the enlightenment. Reason, somewhere, seems to have been undermined.

"I have the right to tell other people how they should lead their lives and what to do because of my one experience" - yeah great, your one experience of global warming, homeopathy, health or whatever tops teams of scientists. Whooo!

wow.. I don't think that's what jam bo was doing at all.. but,

ok

Again, define 'serious congenital abnormality' or 'serious disability'

where do you draw the line?

Precisely, where do you draw the line hey? 😆

I think that perhaps the point being made bwaarp, is that if you have nursed your own premature child through those first torturously fragile months of life in a neonatal unit, the experiments conducted and journals written fade into a dim and meaningless irrelevance..

And what, precisely, informed the medical practice used in said neonatal units? Would it happen to be "experiments conducted and journals written"

Yup, thought so... 🙄

But I think you'll have to produce a bit more evidence than you have so far, and stuff which has managed to be published in journals relevant to the field. And a good 40% of what appears in Journals is later found out to be erroneous or misinterpreted. As I'm sure you know.

I believe I was told on a mountain biking forum one that 99% of statistics are made up, or was it 40% - I never can remember

zokes, bwaarp, you have shown yourselves to be winners..

well done 🙄

zokes, bwaarp, you have shown yourselves to be winners..

I don't feel as if I'll be winner but thank you. I have this unnerving feeling that one day I'm going to get lynched and be pitch-forked to death by religious zealots in some post apocalyptic dysotopia. Probably by pro-lifers. The current lull in human crass stupidity and the increase in reason and tolerance can't last for too much longer.

Again, define 'serious congenital abnormality' or 'serious disability'
where do you draw the line?

Also, I call slippery slope fallacy on this and also this

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

Sandwich - I respect her right to make decisions about her own body, but you're saying I should have no say? And if I've no rights, why should I be expected to pay for a child a wouldn't want?

The law is ass backward - heavy lifting or not, that child/foetus was mine too, and I was routinely ignored. It appears that my obligations all go in one direction but those same obligations are not reciprocated by even being consulted?

If she'd punched herself in the gut till she miscarried, or if someone else punched her in the same way, she, or the person responsible would be charged and go to court - and charged with killing the foetus. Yet because a doctor does it, I have no rights and my child/foetus has no rights?

zokes, bwaarp, you have shown yourselves to be winners..

I prefer the term pragmatist. I find it better to make decisions in life based upon facts, rather than emotions or one-off personal experiences.

Yeah, me too.

And then one day something will turn everything you thought you knew on its head.

If a pregnant woman has a scan, after the normal cut off point of 24 weeks, that reveals their baby has an abnormality and asks to terminate, then somebody has to say yes thats an acceptable reason, or not.

Down syndrome?
cleft palete?
club foot?
webbed feet?
epilepsy?
autism?

Z11, I think you're being deliberately obtuse about this. The decision has to rest with the prospective parents and the clinicians caring for them. What I think actually doen't matter at all, though since you ask I wouldn't regard most of what you've listed (bar Downs) as good reasons if it were me. I hope I never find myself in that position, however.

As I've also said, you can't screen for stuff that doesn't show up on ultrasound or genetic testing, so if you know a means of antenatal screening for epilepsy (which, last time I checked, wasn't congenital) or autism, I will bow to your superior knowledge.

Julianwilson has summed things up very well, I think:

Perhaps it is the job I do, but it seems clear to me from his posts that there is not a 'line', but a mass of ethical considerations in many shades of grey rather than the black and white that seems to prevail in this thread. Is that really so hard to see?

And then one day something will turn everything you thought you knew on its head.

Well, in the mean time I'll base my opinions and decisions upon scientific fact, rather than one bloke of a mountain biking forum's personal one-off world changing experience.

I wouldn't expect you to do anything else.

Easy now fellas. A quite emotive topic has run for five pages without it getting [i]too[/i] personal. One of you needs to be the bigger guy and drop it now, cheers.

Anyway, PSA for interested parties. YourCall on 5Live has an hour of discussion on this after nine. So expect screaming and wailing from extremes on either side, peppered with the odd sensible voice here and there. Just like somewhere else... 😆

IHNRAT, but usually the 'two camps' get themselves in a terrible confusion over this. Both "sides" seem to mix up US rhetoric with the realities in the UK.

Which of the following are 'unacceptable' grounds for termination?

(a) [...] that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Those are the terms of the law in England, Wales and Scotland. There is no, "it doesn't suit me" clause in there.

And to make sure its not 'too easy' to get a termination, the mother will have to convince not one but two independent doctors. Only clause (a) has a time limit (24 weeks) the other clauses already are possible at any stage, but the process is then so mentally and physically traumatic for the mother that it really does take something significant to convince the doctors to even consider it.

As shown in the graph on page 1 of the thread, terminations are increasingly less common the further into pregnancy you go. They also carry more risk and more emotional trauma, so a 'late' termination is hardly the easy choice. However shortening the deadline would force often vulnerable women to make huge decisions very quickly. You may actually increase the number of terminations by shortening the deadline, whilst in reality the 'long tail' of terminations would continue for the other medical reasons b-d above beyond the deadline anyway. Considering that some women do later regret terminations then forcing them to make decisions quicker, and putting pressure on medical staff to support hurried assessments is not going to be good.

deadlydarcy - Member
Easy now fellas. A quite emotive topic has run for five pages without it getting too personal. One of you needs to be the bigger guy and drop it now, cheers.

I wasn't meant to appear as a personal attack. Sorry if it did,

I actually don't fall particularly on either side of the argument. Shades of grey sums it up perfectly.

But I don't really care how peer reviewed the research is, babies below 35 weeks can and do feel pain.

But I don't really care how peer reviewed the research is, [in my opinion, which trumps anything scientists know], babies below 35 weeks can and do feel pain.

You sure you're not a politician? This sounds very much like the basis upon which most policies are formed these days

Not my opinion. My experience. I'll leave it there.

INRAT, it's an emotive subject and there is no point arguing with crazy people.

Has always seemed daft to base a law around something that can't be measured accurately, it's a best guess how far along a woman is based on her last period and an ultra sound the size of a peanut. Could be out by weeks. Savvy women could still lie.

I struggle with long sentences. I just think that anything that Nadine Dorres and Jeremy Hunt are in agreement on, is by its very nature, bound to be utterly bonkers.

On account of them both being absolutely mental, and spouting complete non-sensical right wing tosh

Well, in the mean time I'll base my opinions and decisions upon scientific [s]fact[/s] speculation, rather than [s]one bloke of a mountain biking forum's personal one-off world changing experience[/s] the experience of [i]every parent ever[/i] that as nursed their premature child through difficult times on the neo-natal ward..

I had expected that perhaps [b]bwaarp[/b] and [b]zokes[/b] were naive teenaged boys, trolling someone under unfortunate circumstances like we hear about on the news..
If nothing else this thread has shown up some people that I would find it impossible to respect if we were to meet on the trails, simply because of their callous and disparaging treatment of a fellow forum user..

I'm so angry that words fail me

Don't be angry on my behalf. Everyone is entitled to their views.

Anyhow, my boy has just learnt to blow raspberries so all is good.

I had expected that perhaps bwaarp and zokes were naive teenaged boys, trolling someone under unfortunate circumstances like we hear about on the news..

I'm not sure exactly how you get to "troll" and the other insults from the comments that they have made. They aren't the ones using logically fallacious arguments (appeal to emotion and confimration bias), that would be you.

again..

no-one is trying to win an argument here, and your logical fallacy crap is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about..

usually this forum has some banter and bickering, but if a sensitive issue arises, and there is no more sensitive issue in life than a sick child, then usually members are very supportive..

the tone being displayed here is what I'm finding shocking..

a very telling thread IMO

sorry jam bo for butting in, I'm just a bit ****ing taken aback by it all..
time for me to back out and do something bikey I feel..

I had expected that perhaps bwaarp and zokes were naive teenaged boys, trolling someone under unfortunate circumstances like we hear about on the news..
If nothing else this thread has shown up some people that I would find it impossible to respect if we were to meet on the trails, simply because of their callous and disparaging treatment of a fellow forum user..

I'm so angry that words fail me

It may not have been put in a very sympathetic way (and I've taken issue with bwaarp's supposed love of 'facts' and 'evidence' before) but fundamentally they are right. One person's incredibly subjective emotional experience isn't good evidence for decision making.