Halving abortions to 12 weeks

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 too 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 fact speculation, rather than one bloke of a mountain biking forum’s personal one-off world changing experience the experience of every parent ever that as nursed their premature child through difficult times on the neo-natal ward..

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

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 **** 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.

One person’s incredibly subjective emotional experience

but it’s not is it..? it’s likely to be a very similar experience for every parent ever that has had to deal with it..

I understand the point being made but sometimes science needs to know it’s limits perhaps, the line being debated in this thread is clearly beyond science’s ken..

anyway, I digress, I only butted in because of the inexcusable behaviour..

Pedantically everyone is guilty of the confirmation bias what with some putting more emphasis on science [and you seem to dislike fallacies 😉 ] and him putting more emphasis on the personal experience of those on wards/parents

As for appeal to emotion there is a part of that to be fair but we would be bqack at confirmation bioas if we rated that as poorer than reason [ of course I do]

I have to be honest the research seems rather specific and uses a rather crude measure of pain re ECG and a specific proprioceptive response.
It would seem to me that we could see whether the child responds to a cuddle the same as a serious kicking, hunger the same as being fed in order to test “Pain” rather than one specific type of pain.

For example it may well be the case that they do not respond to the stimulus [pain] as they need to learn to associate that sensation with the damage that occurs afterwards – for example we would not expect fire to be scary until you have been burnt- you may not even associate the next sensation of burning as pain until it gets infected and takes some time to heal etc.

The perceptual cliff offers another interesting take where kids are not scared of heights- why would they be as they have never fallen but they then learn it as they get older. They may be showing that a child learns rather than it does not feel pain until a certain time.

I am not convinced by one study alone to conclude that in all circumstances a child of that age cannot experience any PAIN – I doubt the authors are claiming that either as they did not test for this.

Case is still open from where i am sitting with some evidence for either side

I’m so angry that words fail me

I only butted in because of the inexcusable behaviour..

Insensitive, maybe, but it is definitely advantageous that decisions affecting a nation through changes to laws are guided by scientific research, rather than two blokes on a mountain biking forum, one of whom appears to have a fuse so short his words have failed him simply after reading a couple of pages of posts.

And no, yunki, my posts are absolutely nothing like the trolls you speak of. Drawing that connection only diminishes your argument further.

stevewhyte – Member
Why should I be surprised that there are so many in the pro camp regarding the murdering of babies on stw.

Unborn foetus’ aren’t ‘babies’.

jam bo – Member
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.

someone is bored…

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

You seem to be saying that just because this is a sensitive issue, we have no right to be arguing against your opinion.

but it’s not is it..? it’s likely to be a very similar experience for every parent ever that has had to deal with it..

Got evidence for that? Historically the medical world has made countless mistakes using ‘experience’ as opposed to evidence based medicine. Why should it be any different here?

insensitive, maybe, but it is definitely advantageous that decisions affecting a nation through changes to laws are guided by scientific research, rather than two blokes on a mountain biking forum, one of whom appears to have a fuse so short his words have failed him simply after reading a couple of pages of posts.

And no, yunki, my posts are absolutely nothing like the trolls you speak of. Drawing that connection only diminishes your argument further.

what is my argument exactly zokes..?

I’ll tell you.. as you seem to be confused..

My argument is that I find your continuing insensitivity mind bogglingly offensive..
Nothing more.. the greater issues being discussed are way above my head, although your argument is clearly not as watertight as you presume, no matter how much of a hot head I am.. who’s playing politics now..? 🙄

You are however, absolutely spot on about my short fuse.. and I have a searing fury to match it

You seem to be saying that just because this is a sensitive issue, we have no right to be arguing against your opinion.

You guys are completely entitled to your opinion, and I’m completely open to it.. I have not stated otherwise and you shouldn’t insinuate that I have..
What you fail to understand is that I just won’t listen to another mocking derisory word from either of you without option for suitable recourse..

this is absolutely absurd.. I’m not saying that you’re wrong (god forbid) just that you don’t know

Yunki calm down man, think of this thread as just a heated houses of parliament debate.

the greater issues being discussed are way above my head,

No they aren’t. You’ve made a few valid points.

Bwaarp, I’ve never been in a NICU either, but for the puropses of balance, I am also aware of research that suggests that some of the pre-natal experiences of the baby/foetus from well before 35 weeks can have effects on the neurological development (and consequently potentially the personality traits) of the child in later life.

It has long since been accepted that right from birth, stimuli such as touch, noise, light, temperature and the ‘suddenness’ of those stimuli begin to affect not only the reactions and behaviour of the baby but also the completion of the wiring of the brain and by consequence one’s personality, (which incidentally some researchers believe is not complete until your early 20’s, but that is for another thread!). I can well understand how these processes could begin well (over 5 weeks) before birth.

And as another poster has already said, there is a great deal of ‘wiggle room’ in the notional 40 week gestational period from how in touch some mothers are about the timing of their periods, and the variations in size of baby and maximum fundal height of mum.

Bwaarp, I’ve never been in a NICU either, but for the puropses of balance, I am also aware of research that suggests that some of the pre-natal experiences of the baby/foetus from well before 35 weeks can have effects on the neurological development (and consequently potentially the personality traits) of the child in later life.

It has long since been accepted that right from birth, stimuli such as touch, noise, light, temperature and the ‘suddenness’ of those stimuli begin to affect not only the reactions and behaviour of the baby but also the completion of the wiring of the brain and by consequence one’s personality, (which incidentally some researchers believe is not complete until your early 20’s, but that is for another thread!). I can well understand how these processes could begin well (over 5 weeks) before birth.

Interesting Julian. Can you point me in the direction of the research?

I would change my stance depending on the evidence if it were shown that a human foetus could feel pain before 35 weeks. Unlike Yunki I feel that good science can help to guide moral and ethical issues, I don’t feel that personal experience should though. To be fair to Yunki and Jam Bo, we do not know everything there is to know about this particular issue and therefore I believe that answering these questions with better evidence is of great importance.

My real issue was not the science though but Jam Bos attitude towards it.

Unlike Yunki I feel that good science can help to guide moral and ethical issues, I don’t feel that personal experience should though.

Except when the science doesn’t fit with your own personal prejudices of course, in which case you ignore/discount it.

Except when the science doesn’t fit with your own personal prejudices of course, in which case you ignore/discount it.

Where exactly have I done that grum? If someone can prove to me a foetus can feel pain at 12 weeks, I’ll happily back down.

The whole point of this thread was that Jeremy Hunt was making an ethical opinion based on ‘scientific evidence’. Where’s the evidence to support re-examining the morality of the abortion limit and reducing it to 12 weeks?

Where exactly have I done that grum?

Different thread. CBA to find it now but it was by GrahamS about people making their kids fat I think.

Different thread. CBA to find it now but it was by GrahamS about people making their kids fat I think.

Oh I was mostly having a laugh, was that the diabetes and diet one? If it’s the one I’m thinking about I’m not sure I was won over by the studies posted.

Your probably right, I am biased against fat people. Hence why I should probably not carry out research in the area of obesity and public health.

Interesting Julian. Can you point me in the direction of the research?

Can’t remember what the one I was thinking of was called, but a quick google (bottom of first page of results) produced this:

Here you go.

… which is free to view without the need for an Athens login, has some nice pictures and graphs, and would also put foetal pain sensitivity at “only” 28-30 weeks too, as well as postulating later effects on mental health/prersonlaity.

With a five to seven week reduction, will you think about backing down now? 😉

I might consider re-evaluating the 24 week limit perhaps by a few weeks once a consensus on the issue that supports those findings has been made by leading academics in the field.

Interesting study, in no way does it support a drop to 12 weeks though.

Scienti?c data, not religious or political conviction, should guide the desperately needed research in this ?eld. In the meantime, it seems prudent to avoid pain during gestation

…yet earlier in the thread you seemed to be challenging someone’s observations of pain response in a 27 week prem baby, not a 12 week foetus. ❓

Although it is generally accepted that human babies would be born larger and better developed were it not for us walking on our hind legs (to walk on your hind legs not all fours, you have to have a tougher pelvis with a smaller hole through the middle, so the offspring has to come out smaller), the paper I linked also suggests that a human newborn has the same neurological development as that of a month-old macaque monkey that is able to do all sorts of supposedly developed and independent things for itself.

Again, it really is all shades of grey isn’t it?

…yet earlier in the thread you seemed to be challenging someone’s observations of pain response in a 27 week prem baby, not a 12 week foetus.

No, I think you misinterpreted. I was mostly attacking the way in which he challenged that paper. Big difference.

if it were shown that a human foetus could feel pain before 35 weeks.

Shall i do my critique again ?:
They did one study that concluded one thing in relation to one stimulus. I have suggested other things that could be done easily [ if unethically] to show they respond to pain and or discomfort.
As the researchers are wise enough to know what they have and what they have note done can I ask again why you have generalised their specfic result to the general claim that they cannot feel pain
The researchers were actually quite clear about this

The results suggest that specific neural circuits necessary for discrimination between touch and nociception emerge from 35-37 weeks gestation in the human brain.

They dont even mention the word pain never mind generalise it to all forms of pain

This article was posted earlier by JulianWilson.

Pain perception requires two distinctly different components: 1) nociception the sensation of the stimuli and 2) perception with emotional reaction which is the unpleasant feeling that occurs in reaction to the noxious stimuli. These distinct components are processed by the brain in areas anatomically and physiologically distinct from one another (see Human development occurs as an analog rather than digital process.

http://anes-som.ucsd.edu/VP%20Articles/Topic%20C.%20Anand.pdf

The paper seems a little muddles at times though. I’m not sure I like it.

Wiki has a nice little summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonatal_perception

Electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in premature infants probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks; this study asserted that withdrawal reflexes and changes in heart rates and hormone levels in response to invasive procedures are reflexes that do not indicate fetal pain

I’m not using this to give any weight to either side of the argument but this kind of highlights my problem with Jam Bo’s line of reasoning. Just because it might look like it’s in pain doesn’t mean to say that it is.

Also bear in mind the unborn foetus is effectively anaesthetized. Personally I feel this is the strongest evidence against a foetus feeling pain.

He and his team detected the presence of such chemicals as adenosine, pregnanolone, and prostaglandin-D2 in both human and animal fetuses, indicating that the fetus is both sedated and anesthetized in the womb. These chemicals are oxidized with the newborn’s first few breaths and washed out of the tissues, allowing consciousness to occur. If the fetus is asleep throughout gestation then the possibility of fetal pain is greatly minimized.[7] “A fetus,” Mellor told the NYTimes, “is not a baby who just hasn’t been born yet.”

It’s still open to debate though.