Halving abortions to 12 weeks

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?

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

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 completely 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

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,

You said they did not have the right to life which is “worthless” [ I assume everyone knows why i used “” ]

nor do I have a “problem”.

Well you dont like geneder based ones and you are taking that out of context/twiSting it.
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.

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.

I have worked with folk like this so I do know about it personally so to speak.

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.

repeating your argument again with the simple explanation that my view [ which you have misrepresented] is patently nonsense is still not answering the questions posed of you.
However I give up as you are clearly unwilling.

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. 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.

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 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..?

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