The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Have you heard about the recent case of a woman having an abortion because she found out that the child would have had a cleft palate and lip?
It's caused something of an uproar because the abortion took place after the 24th week of pregnancy, something that is illegal under the 1967 Abortion Act - unless it is proven that the child will have a serious disability.
A cleft palate and lip is not a serious disability. I know a woman that had a child with a cleft palate. The child had a few operations, and now you'd never know the difference.
Given that this is sometihng that can be corrected with surgery, and it's hardly a new operation, it's hard to see the justification for having the child aborted.
With new technology coming in the field of ultrasounds, parents will be able to see their children in even more detail than before, long before they're ever born. So if we don't like the look of them, or if we think that they might need an operation or two when they're young, can we just get rid of them...? Surely not.
The other question it raises, is whether good looks are now that important in this fickle world, that anyone with any disfigurement is at a serious disadvantage.
Any thoughts?
It's caused something of an uproar because the abortion took place after the 24th week of pregnancy, something that is illegal under the 1967 Abortion Act - unless it is proven that the child will have a serious disability.
A cleft palate and lip is not a serious disability. I know a woman that had a child with a cleft palate. The child had a few operations, and now you'd never know the difference.
Given that this is sometihng that can be corrected with surgery, and it's hardly a new operation, it's hard to see the justification for having the child aborted.
With new technology coming in the field of ultrasounds, parents will be able to see their children in even more detail than before, long before they're ever born. So if we don't like the look of them, or if we think that they might need an operation or two when they're young, can we just get rid of them...? Surely not.
The other question it raises, is whether good looks are now that important in this fickle world, that anyone with any disfigurement is at a serious disadvantage.
Any thoughts?
Page:
This is how I see this:
The abortion has already happened, from what I can tell, so it's too late to do anything anyway.
Plus, the mother has to live with her decision, if she's happy with it, fair enough. She'll have to live with the choice she makes. No one else. Not me, not you. Just her.
It's her choice, she made it.
Enough said.
The abortion has already happened, from what I can tell, so it's too late to do anything anyway.
Plus, the mother has to live with her decision, if she's happy with it, fair enough. She'll have to live with the choice she makes. No one else. Not me, not you. Just her.
It's her choice, she made it.
Enough said.
Surely the surgery that carried out the abortion would be to blame? I thought Doctors had a code of ethics for exactly this sort of reason?
Timmargh wrote:
> The sagacious one wrote:
> Timmy cut his winky off!?
>
> No - just had the tubes cut.
>
> :-X
Tubes? You have more than one tube? Squirt city!
> The sagacious one wrote:
> Timmy cut his winky off!?
>
> No - just had the tubes cut.
>
> :-X
Tubes? You have more than one tube? Squirt city!
The sagacious one wrote:
> Timmy cut his winky off!?
No - just had the tubes cut.
:-X
> Timmy cut his winky off!?
No - just had the tubes cut.
:-X
Timmargh wrote:
>
> I have a 50% chance of passing my disability on to my children which
> is why I have chosen not to have any ... *snip snip*!
Timmy cut his winky off!?
The Swedish, I believe, had a programme a few decades ago where any foetus that was going to be born disabled, ugly or with a low IQ (this may have been established after the birth: I'm sketchy on the details) it would be aborted. Thus they have achieved "genetic supremacy" within their own gene pool. The nation is still, however, trying to come to terms with the morality of what they have done.
It also raises the question: are we going to "evolve" as a species through natural selection (random "freak" incidences where people are born with, say, 12 fingers and become more successfull than those with 10) or because we will be able to manipulate the world's gene pool to achieve our "desired" version of the "perfect" human.
>
> I have a 50% chance of passing my disability on to my children which
> is why I have chosen not to have any ... *snip snip*!
Timmy cut his winky off!?
The Swedish, I believe, had a programme a few decades ago where any foetus that was going to be born disabled, ugly or with a low IQ (this may have been established after the birth: I'm sketchy on the details) it would be aborted. Thus they have achieved "genetic supremacy" within their own gene pool. The nation is still, however, trying to come to terms with the morality of what they have done.
It also raises the question: are we going to "evolve" as a species through natural selection (random "freak" incidences where people are born with, say, 12 fingers and become more successfull than those with 10) or because we will be able to manipulate the world's gene pool to achieve our "desired" version of the "perfect" human.
Darwock wrote:
> It is sad but this entire case is a little bizarre. The whole thing is
> focused on some woman priest, and the papers are full of big
> 'glamour' shots of her, and I saw her on the news yesterday (before I
> knew the story) smiling away like she'd won an award or something.
That's EXACTLY how I see her too. She looks a bit smarmy to me, when this case really isn't anything to do with her (she looks like she's loving the attention).
The parents of the terminated baby and the doctors took the incredibly hard decision to go ahead with the abortion, it was their choice and wasn't taken lightly I'm sure, so for some uppity woman to challenge that just dredges up the bad memories for those involved.
Terminating a child must be a very tough choice to make, but they did it and they wouldn’t have taken such a decision if it not had been for the better, and it surely didn’t just suffer from a relatively simple problem.
It's the parents and doctors choice, not some judge or interfering bint.
> It is sad but this entire case is a little bizarre. The whole thing is
> focused on some woman priest, and the papers are full of big
> 'glamour' shots of her, and I saw her on the news yesterday (before I
> knew the story) smiling away like she'd won an award or something.
That's EXACTLY how I see her too. She looks a bit smarmy to me, when this case really isn't anything to do with her (she looks like she's loving the attention).
The parents of the terminated baby and the doctors took the incredibly hard decision to go ahead with the abortion, it was their choice and wasn't taken lightly I'm sure, so for some uppity woman to challenge that just dredges up the bad memories for those involved.
Terminating a child must be a very tough choice to make, but they did it and they wouldn’t have taken such a decision if it not had been for the better, and it surely didn’t just suffer from a relatively simple problem.
It's the parents and doctors choice, not some judge or interfering bint.
Anyone else think she was the best looking reverend you've ever seen?
As for cleft lips, it smacks of design perfection. Eurgh.
As for cleft lips, it smacks of design perfection. Eurgh.
It is sad but this entire case is a little bizarre. The whole thing is focused on some woman priest, and the papers are full of big 'glamour' shots of her, and I saw her on the news yesterday (before I knew the story) smiling away like she'd won an award or something.
When she's really trying to have somebody arrested because they had an abortion years ago (right or wrong).
When she's really trying to have somebody arrested because they had an abortion years ago (right or wrong).
Meka Dragon wrote:
> A cleft palate and lip is not a serious disability.
It can be and in this case, as far as I am aware, we do not know the severity of the cleft palate and lip.
I agree with abortion. I believe that anyone has the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and any attempt at a total ban will drive the operation underground.
The actual facts of this case are not known yet so my heart tends to lean to sympathy for the mother. I am sure that carrying a child for that length of time and then aborting it was not an easy decision for her to make. How must she be feeling? Someone who doesn't know her, her circumstances or the reasoning behind her decision has decided to take on the doctor who agreed to perform the operation. Again, without knowing the mother involved, how can we know how much grief the decision to terminate cost her and how is she now coping with this being thrown in her face.
> A cleft palate and lip is not a serious disability.
It can be and in this case, as far as I am aware, we do not know the severity of the cleft palate and lip.
I agree with abortion. I believe that anyone has the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and any attempt at a total ban will drive the operation underground.
The actual facts of this case are not known yet so my heart tends to lean to sympathy for the mother. I am sure that carrying a child for that length of time and then aborting it was not an easy decision for her to make. How must she be feeling? Someone who doesn't know her, her circumstances or the reasoning behind her decision has decided to take on the doctor who agreed to perform the operation. Again, without knowing the mother involved, how can we know how much grief the decision to terminate cost her and how is she now coping with this being thrown in her face.
Another important question that arises from this is: do the government have the right to suggest whether people should be allowed to choose to have an abortion?
It's all very well to say it is wrong (which I completely agree with) but would it be right and ethical to impose a complete ban on the operation, as is the situation in Northern Ireland? Do we have the right to choose this or is it so significant that it requires law to stop people from being able to have an abortion?
It's all very well to say it is wrong (which I completely agree with) but would it be right and ethical to impose a complete ban on the operation, as is the situation in Northern Ireland? Do we have the right to choose this or is it so significant that it requires law to stop people from being able to have an abortion?
Page: