dilligaf Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 8 minutes ago, maynragh said: I'm not sure I understand. You've said you think that 24 weeks is too late. But the end of your preferred time frame as stated above is "a time that the foetus could never be viable ex-utero." That time is currently approximately 24 weeks. Can you clarify - you think 24 weeks is too late, why? Or when would your preferred cut off time be, and why? I suggested a sliding cut off point as an idea simply because technology is likely to reduce the viable point of survival if born, hypothetically ultimately to the point of conception. If the definition of viability you wish to use as the cut off point is that determined by the capability to survive if born, then a sliding cut off point is inevitable if you need to draw an arbitrary line somewhere. I'm not sure what you're saying - are you making a point about the quality of life / capacity for self determination for babies born very very early - as in there is an argument for not attempting to save them? I would NEVER say don't save them, but prospective parents need to be aware of the problems they will encounter for many many years. I am lucky not to have been in that situation, but I'm sure that if we had had a baby with "problems" it would still be the most precious thing in the world to us. We are all very different in our views, but a baby is a baby and will always be very special. Education and information is vital to all pregnant woman and any choice they make must be an informed one. But, it has to be the mother's choice at the end of the day and nobody else's. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 I am quite flattered that it is the first time you have liked post I have made. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 (edited) @ maynragh Most people I know hate the very idea of abortion but are pragmatic enough to realise that few have an ideal life and that we make mistakes. Furthermore, nature makes mistakes too and it seems plain wrong to have a 'ban everyone 'cos I don't like it no matter what the reason' attitude. Social media seems to have plenty of judgemental hypocrites drawing conclusions about other's lives based on F.all and this subject often illustrates the worst examples of this. So, nobody likes the idea of it but it happens and a complete ban seems draconian. My view is that we should evolve here to allow it but there must be a time limit unless the mother's life is in jeopardy or the child will be born with significant defects. A potential mother must have enough time to realise she is pregnant, have enough time to have scans etc, have time to make a considered and informed decision and then enough time to take the appropriate action. The question is do we need 24 weeks as per the Uk for this? By then it is entirely possible that a child could survive ex-utero although as someone else said this is far from straightforward at this stage. My personal view is that survival pre 14 weeks is entirely unlikely but is well into the second trimester by which time a potential mother would usually have enough time to fully consider her situation.A time limit sliding scale as medicine advances idea would be laughable if this wasn't such a serious subject. I think abortion should be the potential mother's decision entirely to this point yet so many fervent anti abortionists are male.....Furthermore we should have no final right to coerce any potential mother because of our beliefs. She should be free under law to make her own mind up but it seems entirely reasonable for this to be time limited. I trust this clarifies the reasons for my personal opinion. Edited October 29, 2017 by ballaughbiker Spell 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynragh Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 You’ve stated 24 weeks is too late, because that is around the time a foetus can survived if born at present, which I think is reasonable for anyone. This is your definition of viability - viability if removed from the mother. And yet you are laughing at the idea of a sliding scale? 50 years ago a foetus surviving at 24 weeks seemed impossible. Are you really stating that you cannot envisage technological advancement that would make a foetus viable if removed at 14 weeks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 Had you read my previous post properly, you would be well aware that nobody is laughing. Anyway, you are mistaken if you think that the present or future limit of ex-utero viability is the only criterion on which I base my opinion on how the law should evolve. I cannot envisage ex-utero survival at 14 weeks gestation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 at what week/stage of development are possible physical issues detectable in an embryo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 19 minutes ago, WTF said: at what week/stage of development are possible physical issues detectable in an embryo? That is one reason why the Groningen Protocol is becoming more widely adopted across increasing numbers of European states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Quote at what week/stage of development are possible physical issues detectable in an embryo? I think it's about 18-20 weeks although some will be detectable earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gee Cee Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 So some pro-abortion people are up in arms because anti-abortion protestors showed them some 'disturbing pictures'. Abortion is disturbing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Pictures of aborted remains are a very cheap shot. A video of a joint replacement or a transplant would nauseate many people. Abortion here is readily available and termination even immediately after birth can be had if you know the right people and have the money. In remote rural parts exposure or a swift slash with a knife solves many problems. If people don't want to abort an unwanted pregnancy then fine, don't abort but don't impede those who do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) One trip to the scoop doctor then get on with your own life. Edited December 21, 2017 by gettafa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 1 minute ago, gettafa said: One trip to the scoop doctor then get on with your own life as if nothing had happened. And for those who do not want a child what is wrong with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) Dunno mate. Ask the unborn child. (bit silly that actually because you can't, but hey, pretend you can...pretend you can) Edited December 21, 2017 by gettafa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxb&b Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 12 hours ago, Gee Cee said: So some pro-abortion people are up in arms because anti-abortion protestors showed them some 'disturbing pictures'. Abortion is disturbing. But they weren't just showing the images to pro-abortion people though were they, they were there fall all to see, children, women who have had miscarriages, people who have lost children for any number of reasons. The Hand maidens silent protest for the other side gained a lot more respect and proved you don't need to show sickening images to make your point. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 17 minutes ago, manxb&b said: But they weren't just showing the images to pro-abortion people though were they, they were there fall all to see, children, women who have had miscarriages, people who have lost children for any number of reasons. The Hand maidens silent protest for the other side gained a lot more respect and proved you don't need to show sickening images to make your point. I'm glad this bunch met a bit of opposition from the public. I heard the radio interview and smiled. No need at all for what they did and in my view should have been told bluntly to F off back to where they came from. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.