If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Babies aborted for not being perfect
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
What do you think about this? I think its discusting.
Taken from here, read more
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
0
Comments
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?
I think thats wrong. A baby can survive from 22 weeks if born early.
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.
: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.
:yes:
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.
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.
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.
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?
No its a i think its wrong to abort at such a late stage for a minor defect.
Was I being anti abortion?
What do you mean by social abortion?
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 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?
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.