The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Abortion
Having had the news on all evening and just occassionally listening i was shocked to learn the legal time frame was 24 weeks. Now anyone who knows me will know i'm fully supportive of the right to it but 24 weeks, come on thats just short of 6 months.
I'd always believed it was set around 12, i think 16 is pushing it but 24, thats way beyond humane and absolutely wrong, if you're going to get it done you should at least do the right thing and do it before the baby is developed.
Your opinions please
Having had the news on all evening and just occassionally listening i was shocked to learn the legal time frame was 24 weeks. Now anyone who knows me will know i'm fully supportive of the right to it but 24 weeks, come on thats just short of 6 months.
I'd always believed it was set around 12, i think 16 is pushing it but 24, thats way beyond humane and absolutely wrong, if you're going to get it done you should at least do the right thing and do it before the baby is developed.
Your opinions please
Page:
Flock wrote:
> FantasyMeister wrote:
> Flock wrote:
> I'd be more in favour of making the legal limit 16 and only being
> allowed a termination after that point for very good reason.
>
> Out of interest, why 16 weeks? You're talking about a 14cm long
> foetus with eyelashes and eyebrows capable of hiccoughing. The only
> difference in the abortion procedure at 16 weeks and the one at 19
> weeks onwards is that the surgical team don't have to cut off the
> arms and legs first as it's small enough to suck out in one go.
>
> Do you not think thats a good reason in itself then?
No, mainly because both procedures mentioned are 'humane' ways of 'killing'. If the limit was pushed back to 16 weeks there might be a risk of more teenagers discovering they're pregnant too late to do anything legal about it, or more women hooked on drugs who didn't realise they were pregnant until too late, more women who thought they were sterilised and just thought they had a bit of wind, and more expectant mothers discovering that the baby they're carrying has a rare disorder meaning it will be born blind and deaf, all of whom might consider risking a 'back-street' abortion because they didn't know anything until the 16-week wait had passed.
As it stands at present the 24-week period seems to work, even though if you did a pop survey of workers at places like the Marie Stopes Clinics you'd probably find a general concensus that anything past 15 weeks they'd rather not do.
I can understand why so many people want this period reduced, but I think the majority of reasons centre around the fact that they don't like the thought of babies being killed, and perhaps their consciences might be eased a little if we were talking about just a bunch of cells.
My view remains that if it has human DNA and is alive (rather than 'aware') then it can't be classified as anything other than human, and whether you abort at 1 week or 9 months it's a form of euthanasia. The unborn are defenceless and don't have a say in the matter, but then so was Tony Bland (PVS-state resulting from Hillsborough Disaster, courts ruled that although they couldn't administer a lethal injection they could withdraw food and water, so Tony Bland starved and dehydrated to death).
The law permits the withdrawal of life support in cases where there is no 'perceived' worth in keeping a person alive, which in some cases can result in suffering until the time of death, yet it allows us to terminate life when we've no idea how much of a contribution that life could possibly make should it be allowed to be born. Ethics aside I see something flawed with this.
One other issue that frequently crops up in discussions of this nature is who are we to say what a woman should or shouldn't do with her own body? Do any of us have the right to force a woman to bear a child against her wishes? I guess that's why we have governments to make the decision for us :)
> FantasyMeister wrote:
> Flock wrote:
> I'd be more in favour of making the legal limit 16 and only being
> allowed a termination after that point for very good reason.
>
> Out of interest, why 16 weeks? You're talking about a 14cm long
> foetus with eyelashes and eyebrows capable of hiccoughing. The only
> difference in the abortion procedure at 16 weeks and the one at 19
> weeks onwards is that the surgical team don't have to cut off the
> arms and legs first as it's small enough to suck out in one go.
>
> Do you not think thats a good reason in itself then?
No, mainly because both procedures mentioned are 'humane' ways of 'killing'. If the limit was pushed back to 16 weeks there might be a risk of more teenagers discovering they're pregnant too late to do anything legal about it, or more women hooked on drugs who didn't realise they were pregnant until too late, more women who thought they were sterilised and just thought they had a bit of wind, and more expectant mothers discovering that the baby they're carrying has a rare disorder meaning it will be born blind and deaf, all of whom might consider risking a 'back-street' abortion because they didn't know anything until the 16-week wait had passed.
As it stands at present the 24-week period seems to work, even though if you did a pop survey of workers at places like the Marie Stopes Clinics you'd probably find a general concensus that anything past 15 weeks they'd rather not do.
I can understand why so many people want this period reduced, but I think the majority of reasons centre around the fact that they don't like the thought of babies being killed, and perhaps their consciences might be eased a little if we were talking about just a bunch of cells.
My view remains that if it has human DNA and is alive (rather than 'aware') then it can't be classified as anything other than human, and whether you abort at 1 week or 9 months it's a form of euthanasia. The unborn are defenceless and don't have a say in the matter, but then so was Tony Bland (PVS-state resulting from Hillsborough Disaster, courts ruled that although they couldn't administer a lethal injection they could withdraw food and water, so Tony Bland starved and dehydrated to death).
The law permits the withdrawal of life support in cases where there is no 'perceived' worth in keeping a person alive, which in some cases can result in suffering until the time of death, yet it allows us to terminate life when we've no idea how much of a contribution that life could possibly make should it be allowed to be born. Ethics aside I see something flawed with this.
One other issue that frequently crops up in discussions of this nature is who are we to say what a woman should or shouldn't do with her own body? Do any of us have the right to force a woman to bear a child against her wishes? I guess that's why we have governments to make the decision for us :)
English_Bloke wrote:
> Don't agree with this though. I don't see how the development of the
> baby makes a difference.
>
> Is this going along the lines of not wanting to kill anything when it
> looks too human? I don't think it makes any difference to the child
> whether it's 6 weeks or 24 weeks. I can't remember my time in the
> womb, so how would I have known if I'd been killed at 6 months?
No i was going along the lines of if you're going to kill something at least do it before it will know anything about it. There are plenty of arguments about when that is but i'm quite certain the nervous system would be developed after 6 months.
> Don't agree with this though. I don't see how the development of the
> baby makes a difference.
>
> Is this going along the lines of not wanting to kill anything when it
> looks too human? I don't think it makes any difference to the child
> whether it's 6 weeks or 24 weeks. I can't remember my time in the
> womb, so how would I have known if I'd been killed at 6 months?
No i was going along the lines of if you're going to kill something at least do it before it will know anything about it. There are plenty of arguments about when that is but i'm quite certain the nervous system would be developed after 6 months.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> Flock wrote:
> I'd be more in favour of making the legal limit 16 and only being
> allowed a termination after that point for very good reason.
>
> Out of interest, why 16 weeks? You're talking about a 14cm long
> foetus with eyelashes and eyebrows capable of hiccoughing. The only
> difference in the abortion procedure at 16 weeks and the one at 19
> weeks onwards is that the surgical team don't have to cut off the
> arms and legs first as it's small enough to suck out in one go.
Do you not think thats a good reason in itself then?
Really i'd rather it was 12 but i was looking for a compromise for some unknown reason.
EB the words you were looking for was the lesser of two evils i think.
> Flock wrote:
> I'd be more in favour of making the legal limit 16 and only being
> allowed a termination after that point for very good reason.
>
> Out of interest, why 16 weeks? You're talking about a 14cm long
> foetus with eyelashes and eyebrows capable of hiccoughing. The only
> difference in the abortion procedure at 16 weeks and the one at 19
> weeks onwards is that the surgical team don't have to cut off the
> arms and legs first as it's small enough to suck out in one go.
Do you not think thats a good reason in itself then?
Really i'd rather it was 12 but i was looking for a compromise for some unknown reason.
EB the words you were looking for was the lesser of two evils i think.
English_Bloke wrote:
> FantasyMeister wrote:
> involuntary euthanasia
> should be legalised and applied in cases where termination after the
> 24-week period was thought necessary.
>
> Would that not be non-voluntary?
Yup sorry, I meant non-voluntary.
(Always getting them mixed up...).
> FantasyMeister wrote:
> involuntary euthanasia
> should be legalised and applied in cases where termination after the
> 24-week period was thought necessary.
>
> Would that not be non-voluntary?
Yup sorry, I meant non-voluntary.
(Always getting them mixed up...).
Flock wrote:
> I'd always believed it was set around 12, i think 16 is pushing it
> but 24, thats way beyond humane and absolutely wrong, if you're going
> to get it done you should at least do the right thing and do it
> before the baby is developed.
Don't agree with this though. I don't see how the development of the baby makes a difference.
Is this going along the lines of not wanting to kill anything when it looks too human? I don't think it makes any difference to the child whether it's 6 weeks or 24 weeks. I can't remember my time in the womb, so how would I have known if I'd been killed at 6 months?
> I'd always believed it was set around 12, i think 16 is pushing it
> but 24, thats way beyond humane and absolutely wrong, if you're going
> to get it done you should at least do the right thing and do it
> before the baby is developed.
Don't agree with this though. I don't see how the development of the baby makes a difference.
Is this going along the lines of not wanting to kill anything when it looks too human? I don't think it makes any difference to the child whether it's 6 weeks or 24 weeks. I can't remember my time in the womb, so how would I have known if I'd been killed at 6 months?
FantasyMeister wrote:
> involuntary euthanasia
> should be legalised and applied in cases where termination after the
> 24-week period was thought necessary.
Would that not be non-voluntary?
I wish I hadn't read your other post about the abortion process, because like with most things I read, I pictured it.
Would 9 weeks be too early a limit because some people get to 9 weeks without any idea they're pregnant whereas fewer get to 16, 19 or 24?
I have no idea what would happen if my lass got pregnant. I really don't think I'm ready to be a father either mentally or stability-wise, but I dislike the idea of abortion and dread to think of the effect it would have on a relationship.
I can see how sometimes abortion is, well, I don't want to say "the best option", but, I just did.
Tough topic where no one answer is going to be 100% right
> involuntary euthanasia
> should be legalised and applied in cases where termination after the
> 24-week period was thought necessary.
Would that not be non-voluntary?
I wish I hadn't read your other post about the abortion process, because like with most things I read, I pictured it.
Would 9 weeks be too early a limit because some people get to 9 weeks without any idea they're pregnant whereas fewer get to 16, 19 or 24?
I have no idea what would happen if my lass got pregnant. I really don't think I'm ready to be a father either mentally or stability-wise, but I dislike the idea of abortion and dread to think of the effect it would have on a relationship.
I can see how sometimes abortion is, well, I don't want to say "the best option", but, I just did.
Tough topic where no one answer is going to be 100% right
Flock wrote:
> I'd be more in favour of making the legal limit 16 and only being
> allowed a termination after that point for very good reason.
Out of interest, why 16 weeks? You're talking about a 14cm long foetus with eyelashes and eyebrows capable of hiccoughing. The only difference in the abortion procedure at 16 weeks and the one at 19 weeks onwards is that the surgical team don't have to cut off the arms and legs first as it's small enough to suck out in one go.
Why not make it 9 weeks? That way it's just a case of popping a pill or two and mopping up a large blood clot.
> I'd be more in favour of making the legal limit 16 and only being
> allowed a termination after that point for very good reason.
Out of interest, why 16 weeks? You're talking about a 14cm long foetus with eyelashes and eyebrows capable of hiccoughing. The only difference in the abortion procedure at 16 weeks and the one at 19 weeks onwards is that the surgical team don't have to cut off the arms and legs first as it's small enough to suck out in one go.
Why not make it 9 weeks? That way it's just a case of popping a pill or two and mopping up a large blood clot.
I'd be more in favour of making the legal limit 16 and only being allowed a termination after that point for very good reason.
It can take up to 20 weeks for confirmation of foetal abnormalities. Only about 1% of babies born at 22 weeks survive, the majority of babies born between 22 and 23 weeks that do survive are subject to long term disabilities. Only 1 in 4 of babies born at 24 weeks survive, and 1/3rd of these will have long term disabilities. Pro-choice groups say leave it at 24 weeks to protect vulnerable groups of women.
Embryos are sensitive to touch after 7 weeks and can move limbs shortly afterwards, but there's still argument regarding the stage at which embryos can feel pain. Some would argue that all life is sacred, aborting the foetus at any stage denies that future human being the right to life no matter what kind of life it would be.
My personal view is that aborting a foetus is exactly the same as non-voluntary euthanasia, there are sometimes good reasons for doing both but the law is still dithering over non-voluntary euthanasia.
(Voluntary euthanasia is where you request to be killed, involuntary euthanasia is where you declare a wish to live and are killed, non-voluntary is where you can't express your wishes but are killed in your best interests, e.g. a foetus that will be severely handicapped for life).
So whilst there are good medical reasons for the 24-week limit, I'd go further and suggest that as long as it was done humanely and as long as there were sound reasons for doing so, involuntary euthanasia should be legalised and applied in cases where termination after the 24-week period was thought necessary.
Embryos are sensitive to touch after 7 weeks and can move limbs shortly afterwards, but there's still argument regarding the stage at which embryos can feel pain. Some would argue that all life is sacred, aborting the foetus at any stage denies that future human being the right to life no matter what kind of life it would be.
My personal view is that aborting a foetus is exactly the same as non-voluntary euthanasia, there are sometimes good reasons for doing both but the law is still dithering over non-voluntary euthanasia.
(Voluntary euthanasia is where you request to be killed, involuntary euthanasia is where you declare a wish to live and are killed, non-voluntary is where you can't express your wishes but are killed in your best interests, e.g. a foetus that will be severely handicapped for life).
So whilst there are good medical reasons for the 24-week limit, I'd go further and suggest that as long as it was done humanely and as long as there were sound reasons for doing so, involuntary euthanasia should be legalised and applied in cases where termination after the 24-week period was thought necessary.
Abortion
Having had the news on all evening and just occassionally listening i was shocked to learn the legal time frame was 24 weeks. Now anyone who knows me will know i'm fully supportive of the right to it but 24 weeks, come on thats just short of 6 months.
I'd always believed it was set around 12, i think 16 is pushing it but 24, thats way beyond humane and absolutely wrong, if you're going to get it done you should at least do the right thing and do it before the baby is developed.
Your opinions please
Having had the news on all evening and just occassionally listening i was shocked to learn the legal time frame was 24 weeks. Now anyone who knows me will know i'm fully supportive of the right to it but 24 weeks, come on thats just short of 6 months.
I'd always believed it was set around 12, i think 16 is pushing it but 24, thats way beyond humane and absolutely wrong, if you're going to get it done you should at least do the right thing and do it before the baby is developed.
Your opinions please
Page: