Home› Politics & Debate
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

24567

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Down's syndrome is most accurately diagnosed at 18-20 weeks. Is this too late? Should abortions be allowed for these women?

    thats a tough one, which is why i personally never went for the test as i didn't think i personally could do it however i don't know that much about it so can't really comment. I don't really know if its better for the child to live or not tbh.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Which brings me back to my original question: what is the purpose of this thread?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Which brings me back to my original question: what is the purpose of this thread?

    To discuss the article and give views.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And yours is 'I don't know'?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    And yours is 'I don't know'?
    It's called having an open mind, and being prepared to challenge different views. Admitting you don't know the answer to something is not a weakness. That just coming across as arrogant.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mine is that i think it is discusting that people abort thier babys (especially so late on) with minor defects. So thier baby has and odd foot or hand so what?!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tweety wrote:
    Mine is that i think it is discusting that people abort thier babys (especially so late on) with minor defects. So thier baby has and odd foot or hand so what?!
    Exactly. What's wrong with a bit of diversity? Why must we all be the same? If it's something huge that means the baby would have an utterly awful quality of life, I can see the case in that. But for one extra finger? Outrageous.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tweety wrote:
    Mine is that i think it is discusting that people abort thier babys (especially so late on) with minor defects. So thier baby has and odd foot or hand so what?!
    Right, so what do you propose: a change in the law? Specific conditions that can be aborted, or a list of exclusions perhaps?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Right, so what do you propose: a change in the law? Specific conditions that can be aborted, or a list of exclusions perhaps?

    I think minor defects (which the doctors agree are treatable or just minor that they will have good quality of life) shouldn't be aborted for that reason and shouldn't abort late.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    rachie004 wrote:
    I haven't read all of the thread - just want to put my opinion and probably get jumped on for it

    I don't see how aborting a baby/foetus with a 'fixable' birth defect is anymore immoral than aborting a perfectly healthy baby/foetus.. really?

    Unless i am wrong they are aborting babies with minor defects LATER than the guidelines for any baby unless major defects.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have no problem with this approach, outlined in the article, although I can understand why people would.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    rachie004 wrote:
    AH right.. sorry hon, I didn't read most of the thread

    However I shan't expand on my opinions/feelings any further as I know what the general view on the topic is on this site..

    *wanders back out*
    I beg to differ. This is one of those topics where there doesn't seem to be a general view at all. It's simply that some people choose to interpret a debate where we ask questions about abortion as a debate on whether we allow abortion at all. And it blatantly isn't. No one here is saying abortion is wrong. I don't think that, hardly anyone here seems to.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    rachie004 wrote:
    My point exactly
    If anyone does believe it wrong, I'd happily debate it with them. In the USA recently, for instance, several states were moving towards banning abortions altogether, and that provoked a storm of protest here. But the mere fact it's happening suggests there is a large group out there keen to see it happen.

    Abortion is an incredibly emotive debate, anything involving life and death is, and it always will be.
  • Options
    Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Please try to stick to the subject... don't talk about abortions in general, just about the ones that fit this specific pattern. This matter could have some things to talk about, while the matter of abortions in general has been overdone here. There's no point talking about it if no one has new things to say and no one is willing to consider the possibility they're wrong.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish - there's no need to harrange people for posting a thread, if people knew exactly what they thought about everything before posting there would be no need for these boards.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    Kentish - there's no need to harrange people for posting a thread, if people knew exactly what they thought about everything before posting there would be no need for these boards.
    Yeah, apologies. Just trying to work out the objection really.

    Sorry Tweets.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think you can talk about this issue without talking about abortions in general - this is after all about where you draw the line between execptional reasons to go past the normal timeframe for abortions - which is inevitably going to include views from people who wouldn't want any abortion.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    I don't think you can talk about this issue without talking about abortions in general - this is after all about where you draw the line between exceptional reasons to go past the normal timeframe for abortions - which is inevitably going to include views from people who wouldn't want any abortion.
    Last year, there was a huge debate about whether the time frame should be changed going on in the media. Tony Blair himself went on record to say he didn't believe the rules needed to be changed, but that any vote in Parliament would be a free vote. Rightly so - making abortion a political issue would be hideous and despicable.

    Let's say the life of the mother was at risk, or that the baby had a severe defect that would mean next to no quality of life were he/she to be born. But the mother was 25 weeks pregnant. Should that be a barrier to an abortion in those circumstances? Maybe the abortion time limits should be more arbitary, but it's so emotive an issue that I doubt any consensus could be reached on it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    rachie004 wrote:
    I haven't read all of the thread - just want to put my opinion and probably get jumped on for it

    I don't see how aborting a baby/foetus with a 'fixable' birth defect is anymore immoral than aborting a perfectly healthy baby/foetus.. really?

    Totally agreed here. Like it has already been mentioned, most birth defects are treatable - therefore I see no reason for abortion.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd rather get the woman's side of the story instead of the circumstances surrounding the foetus, before making any judgement, if any. Given that we don't know who these women are, or why they chose to abort for these reasons, it seems rather narrow minded to be the judge, jury and executioner.

    I'm very glad the likes of Jepson et al can all pipe in with their moral outrage, but no one knows how they'll act until it happens to them.

    My own opinion? Healthy foetus, foetus with an abnormality etc, makes no difference to me, it's the woman who matters.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    It's immoral to abort a baby because it doesn't look like a 'normal' person. It sickens me.
    Not to be pedantic or anything but you cannot abort a "baby". There is no baby to be aborted.
    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.
    Not to be pedantic or anything but you cannot "murder" a foetus.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    girl with sharp teeth wrote:
    My sister's heart defect is treatable, which is why my mother has not been able to go back to work for the last 15 years as she is practically a full time carer. It's not as simple as that.

    Of course, it would depend on what exactly the defect is. And the parents should have the final say as well.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Not to be pedantic or anything but you cannot abort a "baby". There is no baby to be aborted.

    Not to be pedantic or anything but you cannot "murder" a foetus.
    Of course it's pedantry. It's rhetoric. Get over it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course, it would depend on what exactly the defect is

    Based on? What the Daily Mail thinks is ok?

    Does this:
    And the parents should have the final say as well.

    contradict this?
    Like it has already been mentioned, most birth defects are treatable - therefore I see no reason for abortion.

    If the parents are the ones who make the final decision?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How can the anti-abortionists be taken seriously or even deserve proper debating if they can't even speak in factual terms?

    No abortion is "murder". No aborted foetus is a "baby".

    As long as we are all clear on that we can have a rational debate.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    How can the anti-abortionists be taken seriously or even deserve proper debating if they can't even speak in factual terms?

    No abortion is "murder". No aborted foetus is a "baby".

    As long as we are all clear on that we can have a rational debate.
    In other words, you want a debate, but on your terms. Some debate that would be...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    No aborted foetus is a "baby".
    Why are you so worried about which word is used? To those of an anti-abortion or limited-choice persuasion, a fetus is a baby in terms of it representing a real human life. Fetus is a medical term, and is used by the pro-abortion or pro-choice types to depersonalise the whole arrangement. Both camps use the rhetoric to their advantage. This thread is about whether is it acceptable to abort a fetus with arguably minor abnormalities beyond 24 weeks.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No. In other words I want to ensure I am going to have a rational debate.

    Would you care for instance to engage in a debate about the age of planet Earth with a creationist who dismisses every fact we know are lies spread by ungodly sciencists or who claims fossils were in fact planed by God to confuse us? What would be the point?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    No. In other words I want to ensure I am going to have a rational debate.

    Would you care for instance to engage in a debate about the age of planet Earth with a creationist who dismisses every fact we know are lies spread by ungodly sciencists or who claims fossils were in fact planed by God to confuse us? What would be the point?
    A poor comparison if I may say so.
Sign In or Register to comment.