Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here

Babies aborted for not being perfect

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
What do you think about this? I think its discusting.
The ethical storm over abortions has been renewed as it emerged that terminations are being carried out for minor, treatable birth defects.

Babies are being aborted with only minor defects.
Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.
Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy.

The revelation sparked fears that abortion is increasingly being used to satisfy couples' desire for the 'perfect' baby.

A leading doctor said people were right to be 'totally shocked' that abortions were being carried out for such conditions.

Taken from here, read more
«134567

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it's a pretty loaded article, but what isn't.

    I'm a bit confused as to what the article is getting at though - is it saying that these abortions are being allowed later than normal abortions due to these defects? That would seem difficult to understand.

    If the abortions are taking place within the normal time limit allowed for abortions, then I don't see any problem - if you've got the right to choose an abortion for a healthy featus, why not one with a birth defect?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its from the Daily Mail.... :yeees:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is basically saying that doctors are saying that treatable defects such as club foot etc are exceptional circumstances, thus allowing abortions to occur later than normally acceptable.
    I think thats wrong. A baby can survive from 22 weeks if born early.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I take it that "extra digits" in the article means an extra finger or an extra toe, for instance? Correct me if I'm wrong there. But what would be wrong with six fingers? Sure, putting on gloves would be a bit tricky, but that's just about it. The Mail has also reported in the past about people with clept palates being aborted, something else which can also be sorted out when born.

    As everyone knows here, I do worry about the 200,000 or so abortions that happen in the UK every year, and discovering that babies are being aborted for not being perfect simply compounds my concerns.
    Renzo wrote:
    Its from the Daily Mail.... :yeees:
    :rolleyes: I knew someone was going to say that. The Daily Mail sells about 2.5 million copies every single day. The majority of its buyers are women. Rest assured if it was from The Guardian or The Independent, Renzo would have no problem with it. It has a readership larger than many newspapers combined, and Daily Mail readers trust their newspaper. Discuss the issue, never mind the bloody source.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    I'm a bit confused as to what the article is getting at though - is it saying that these abortions are being allowed later than normal abortions due to these defects?
    Yes it is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is, it was a little more clear in the actual paper...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tweety wrote:
    It is, it was a little more clear in the actual paper...
    I'm taking a look at a copy of the Mail now. It seems perfectly clear to me. It talks about babies being aborted for minor defects. Nothing about the abortion laws being broken. What is happening may not be illegal, but is sure as hell raises some important questions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    What is happening may not be illegal, but is sure as hell raises some important questions.

    :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    never mind the bloody source.
    The source is usually quite important in discussion, or so we were taught at History GCSE.

    If the abortions are being allowed later then it does raise some important questions about what 'imperfections', as the article calls them, really are detrimental enough to warrant aborting the foetus.

    What it says about us becoming a society that won't accept imperfections, it makes you wonder why they are saying that. Every magazine you read, and indeed in the Daily Mail as well, you see propaganda to try and make you improve yourself, to become perfect. Cosmetic surgery, face creams, Tv shows like 'Turn back your body clock', it's become somewhat standard to be unhappy with yourself and to want to improve, to get rid of imperfections.

    (Did any of that last bit make sense? I know what I mean but I couldn't find the right words.)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the abortions are being allowed later then it does raise some important questions about what 'imperfections', as the article calls them, really are detrimental enough to warrant aborting the foetus.

    What it says about us becoming a society that won't accept imperfections, it makes you wonder why they are saying that. Every magazine you read, and indeed in the Daily Mail as well, you see propaganda to try and make you improve yourself, to become perfect. Cosmetic surgery, face creams, Tv shows like 'Turn back your body clock', it's become somewhat standard to be unhappy with yourself and to want to improve, to get rid of imperfections.
    Putting aside any issues about the Daily Mail itself, it also raises another question. What counts as an imperfection these days? I remember when I was studying Nazi Germany, I came across some stuff about babies being killed because they didn't fit in with Hitler's ideal of a member of the Aryan race. As with much of Nazi history, no one quite knows how much of it is true. However, I can't help but think of "designer babies" when I read this story.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The source is usually quite important in discussion, or so we were taught at History GCSE.

    If the abortions are being allowed later then it does raise some important questions about what 'imperfections', as the article calls them, really are detrimental enough to warrant aborting the foetus.

    What it says about us becoming a society that won't accept imperfections, it makes you wonder why they are saying that. Every magazine you read, and indeed in the Daily Mail as well, you see propaganda to try and make you improve yourself, to become perfect. Cosmetic surgery, face creams, Tv shows like 'Turn back your body clock', it's become somewhat standard to be unhappy with yourself and to want to improve, to get rid of imperfections.

    (Did any of that last bit make sense? I know what I mean but I couldn't find the right words.)

    I agree. And it did make sense.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Putting aside any issues about the Daily Mail itself, it also raises another question. What counts as an imperfection these days? I remember when I was studying Nazi Germany, I came across some stuff about babies being killed because they didn't fit in with Hitler's ideal of a member of the Aryan race. As with much of Nazi history, no one quite knows how much of it is true. However, I can't help but think of "designer babies" when I read this story.
    I see what you mean about Hitler, but in this case it's not one dictator deciding - it's the parents of the foetus.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I see what you mean about Hitler, but in this case it's not one dictator deciding - it's the parents of the foetus.
    Is it? I'm not saying some kind of "force from above" is dictating here, but is it really the decision of the parents? How much information do the parents in question receive before making the decision? If they don't get all the information, it will be much harder to make an informed decision, and on something like a baby's life, you need all the information you can get.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes this article is from the daily mail... so what? It is news and it's factual.

    It's immoral to abort a baby because it doesn't look like a 'normal' person. It sickens me.

    I do believe abortion should be allowed but should only be very limited in extreme circumstances. Therefore having an abortion becauswe it only has 2 fingers is absolutely sick. They should be ashamed of them selves. It's murder.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    They should be ashamed of them selves. It's murder.
    Is having an abortion murder, or did you mean having an abortion because of the child has a disease is murder?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Is it? I'm not saying some kind of "force from above" is dictating here, but is it really the decision of the parents? How much information do the parents in question receive before making the decision? If they don't get all the information, it will be much harder to make an informed decision, and on something like a baby's life, you need all the information you can get.

    So someone gets told their baby that its got a club foot, to me whatever is wrong with their foot i would still go ahead with it if i knew all about it or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Is it? I'm not saying some kind of "force from above" is dictating here, but is it really the decision of the parents? How much information do the parents in question receive before making the decision? If they don't get all the information, it will be much harder to make an informed decision, and on something like a baby's life, you need all the information you can get.
    Well obviously you need all the information before you make a decision like that. The article doesn't say they aren't given all the information, just that 'Ethical groups fear parents are opting for abortions because they are not told of the support and help available if they continued with the pregnancy.'

    If the ethical groups are saying this because of a decline in people joining their groups or whatever, how do they know people aren't being given the information and then choosing to abort anyway?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is this an anti-abortion thread?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Is this an anti-abortion thread?

    No its a i think its wrong to abort at such a late stage for a minor defect.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tweety wrote:
    No its a i think its wrong to abort at such a late stage for a minor defect.
    Worse than a social abortion of a normal fetus?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Is this an anti-abortion thread?
    Not that I'm aware of.

    Was I being anti abortion?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    your-babe wrote:
    Is having an abortion murder, or did you mean having an abortion because of the child has a disease is murder?
    IMO having an abortion is only legitmate if the woman's life is at risk or the childs. In any other circumstance it's murder and I don't agree with it. But i respect a womans choice to have one as long as she is abiding the law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Worse than a social abortion of a normal fetus?

    What do you mean by social abortion?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tweety wrote:
    What do you mean by social abortion?
    An abortion chosen for non-medical reasons. Nothing wrong with the fetus.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    An abortion chosen for non-medical reasons. Nothing wrong with the fetus.


    My personal opinion is i don't like the thought of someone aborting so late, the earlier the better if it's what they want. I am not against them, but i do not like it when people decide at say 20 weeks to abort 'just because'.

    But that is not what this thread is mean't to be about.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tweety wrote:
    My personal opinion is i don't like the thought of someone aborting so late, the earlier the better if it's what they want. I am not against them, but i do not like it when people decide at say 20 weeks to abort 'just because'.

    But that is not what this thread is mean't to be about.
    The article isn't about "just because" abortions, which are limited to less than 24 weeks gestation - social abortions if you will.

    The Mail article is about specific cases where an abortion has been carried out for a known abnormality. You can pick apart exactly what you would like to see defined as an abnormality, but your knee jerk reaction boils down to a question of abortion time limits.

    So the relevance of my question is: would you rather a baby with a cleft palate, for example, was aborted at 26 weeks or a "normal" baby was aborted at 12 weeks?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The normal baby simply because of time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tweety wrote:
    The normal baby simply because of time.
    Right.

    So where's the cut off of fetus/baby for you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Right.

    So where's the cut off of fetus/baby for you?

    I don't have a specific time, i just personally feel the earliest possible time is best.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tweety wrote:
    I don't have a specific time, i just personally feel the earliest possible time is best.
    Down's syndrome is most accurately diagnosed at 18-20 weeks. Is this too late? Should abortions be allowed for these women?
Sign In or Register to comment.