Abortion

[refined silver]

Under the current laws, there is the possibility that instead of an abortion a baby is born alive.

In fact a 10 yr British study revealed 1 in 30 aborted fetuses were born alive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6574873.stm

While some were not viable, some were. Currently once the baby is out of the womb the doctors by law should do whatever they can to save it. There is current debate now as to whether live aborted births should receive the same care as miscarriages and even be in the same part of hospital as all the neo-natal equipment. Here are some possibilities.

- Should the same team that performed the abortion also try to resusitate or care for the baby if it is born alive?
- If so, how do they feel if the abortion goes wrong and the baby is born alive? Are they failures? Or should they rejoice at the new baby?
- Should there be two teams there, a "death" team for the abortion and a "life" team if the baby is alive when born?
- Should there be competition between the two teams and scores kept?
- If the baby is born alive should the "death" team cheer the "life" team as it tries to save the baby?
- Should the "life" team cheer the "death" team on as they try to abort the baby or should they seek to sabatage their efforts?
- Should the two teams be friends and get together after work for drinks? If so what would they talk about?
- Should they be enemies? Could they maintain a perfectly professional relationship when each has opposite goals?
- Should the "life" team report the "death" team if they cheat and try to kill the baby after it is born?

And so on. The current laws are far from perfect ethically.

On that note, I think I'm out of here!

 

[Julia]

. Its also pretty rare because the trauma of rape very rarely leads to pregnancies

Really? Could you please post some statistics which confirm this statement?

Truly, Refined Silver, I just can't believe your utter insensitivity in terms of the situation of a raped woman. Why should she have to relive such a vile experience every day for nine months, watching her body change, being unable to continue with whatever her plans might have been?

In your crusade to save a foetus you are quite prepared to ignore the plight of the woman concerned. If I were that woman, I'd say to you: "Mind your own business. Being raped is an unimaginably terrible experience. You have no right to expect me to carry a child as a result of such an assault."

 

[tigerboi]

refined silver you are way out of line

These statements show you have some massive problems,there are some very inappropriate things here that you have said,you need to have a very good look at yourself...in fact mod should pull this...tb

- Should the same team that performed the abortion also try to resusitate or care for the baby if it is born alive?
- If so, how do they feel if the abortion goes wrong and the baby is born alive? Are they failures? Or should they rejoice at the new baby?
- Should there be two teams there, a "death" team for the abortion and a "life" team if the baby is alive when born?
- Should there be competition between the two teams and scores kept?
- If the baby is born alive should the "death" team cheer the "life" team as it tries to save the baby?
- Should the "life" team cheer the "death" team on as they try to abort the baby or should they seek to sabatage their efforts?
- Should the two teams be friends and get together after work for drinks? If so what would they talk about?
- Should they be enemies? Could they maintain a perfectly professional relationship when each has opposite goals?
- Should the "life" team report the "death" team if they cheat and try to kill the baby after it is born?

And so on. The current laws are far from perfect ethically.

On that note, I think I'm out of here!

 

[peterh]

Really? Could you please post some statistics which confirm this statement?

Truly, Refined Silver, I just can't believe your utter insensitivity in terms of the situation of a raped woman. Why should she have to relive such a vile experience every day for nine months, watching her body change, being unable to continue with whatever her plans might have been?

In your crusade to save a foetus you are quite prepared to ignore the plight of the woman concerned. If I were that woman, I'd say to you: "Mind your own business. Being raped is an unimaginably terrible experience. You have no right to expect me to carry a child as a result of such an assault."

I have also heard that it is rare for rape cases to lead to pregnancy, though I don't know the original source.

As mentioned rape cases are about as difficult as it gets, but discussing this appropriately is not being insensitive. Even in these horrendous circumstances a unique human being is created who has the right to live. Babies have been brought up and loved, even from these beginnings. The option of adoption was also mentioned earlier.

She would need a lot of support and care from family, friends, counselors and other professionals during this extremely tough time.

 

[gav]

I have also heard that it is rare for rape cases to lead to pregnancy, though I don't know the original source.

As mentioned rape cases are about as difficult as it gets, but discussing this appropriately is not being insensitive. Even in these horrendous circumstances a unique human being is created who has the right to live. Babies have been brought up and loved, even from these beginnings. The option of adoption was also mentioned earlier.

She would need a lot of support and care from family, friends, counselors and other professionals during this extremely tough time.

Why should a woman who has endured something as traumatic as rape raped still have to go through 9 months of agony knowing that a part of her attacker is GROWING INSIDE HER. If she chooses to have the baby, whether she raises it herself or gives it up for adoption, would take a very, very strong woman. But I for one dont believe she should be forced to carry that baby. It should be her choice.

 

[white_crane]

Things to ponder:
*What if the father wants the child, but the mother doesn't? What rights should the father have?

*What if a person is raped and falls pregnant? (it might be rare, but it is quite possible)
AND that person is only 14 or 15? (or younger)
AND the victim is related to the rapist?

(in most sexual abuse cases, the victim and abuser are related; also closely related parents can produce children with physical/mental impairments, see also next)

*What if the person's lifestyle (eg drug addicts, alcoholics) means that the baby will be at risk of being born with severe disabilities? (obviously the women can be treated, but will they follow through with it?)

*What if one/both of the parents are physically/intellectually impaired?
OR have mental illness?

*Also with regard to unwanted pregnancies (from consensual intercourse) isn't it time that people started taking responsibility for their actions? Abortion seems like the easy way out. Does anyone know the process and/or how easy/hard it is to adopt out a baby? Could this be a viable option? Give the child to someone who will give it a loving and nurturing home.

Really, this is a complex issue with no simple answer.

 

[sam76]

VICTORIA's 15 Catholic hospitals are likely to tell their doctors and nurses to break the law rather than refer women to abortion providers.

A meeting of Catholic hospital heads yesterday unanimously agreed to oppose the state's proposed abortion law, to be debated by Parliament's upper house next month.

The bill would require doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion to refer a woman to someone with no such objection.

"We cannot in good faith provide an abortion or a referral to an abortion provider," said Martin Laverty, chief executive of Catholic Health Australia, who spoke on behalf of the meeting.

"We will not require our doctors to comply with the law. In the event that the bill is passed we will ensure that staff are able to examine their consciences," he said.

Asked directly if hospitals would advise doctors to break the law, he did not respond. Asked if it was likely, he said: "I would not argue with that headline."

http://www.theage.com.au/national/catholic-hospitals-threaten-to-defy-abort-law-20080923-4ml0.html

 

[Julia]

Well, to be fair, I suppose if you were pregnant and went to a Catholic Hospital for advice, you wouldn't really expect anything else, would you?

If I were looking for an abortion, a Catholic institution of any sort is the last place I'd go.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

As men are often neglected in society this is an important point:

*What if the father wants the child, but the mother doesn't? What rights should the father have?

 

[pixel]

Really? Could you please post some statistics which confirm this statement?

Truly, Refined Silver, I just can't believe your utter insensitivity in terms of the situation of a raped woman. Why should she have to relive such a vile experience every day for nine months, watching her body change, being unable to continue with whatever her plans might have been?

In your crusade to save a foetus you are quite prepared to ignore the plight of the woman concerned. If I were that woman, I'd say to you: "Mind your own business. Being raped is an unimaginably terrible experience. You have no right to expect me to carry a child as a result of such an assault."

+1, Julia
especially that "Mind your own business."
There are too many "missionary" types around that try to enforce their own views on the lives of others in a generic way. Whether a woman wants another life to start growing inside her or not is her business and hers alone.

If we can start from that basis, all other considerations become much easier to deal with:
Does she have a partner? If so, does she owe him a responsibility - i.e. did they both intend to start a new life? Are they both mature enough to care for a child? By what time does she forfeit her right to "change her mind" from yes to no?

These questions should be answered in a rational way, weighing up the rights and responsibilities of the maximum of three "persons" involved. If one allows unrelated interest groups to toss their religious beliefs and personal emotions into the melee, that will only confuse the issue and make a satisfactory solution harder - if not impossible.

 

[Smurf1976]

To throw another one into the mix...

If it is being argued about the "rights of the unborn child" in the context of abortion, then surely that argument also applies in terms of general health?

If it is to be illegal to abort then what about mothers who drink (not advisable at ANY level whilst pregnant when you understand how it affects the body), smoke etc? It may not result in death, but FAS or any one of the multitude of possible nasty outcomes are anything but nice.

I see a broader issue here than simply abortion.

 

[sails]

If abortion is necessary, I would like to see it performed VERY early in the pregnancy.

At the age of 17 and not long started in nursing, I saw a miscarried foetus of about four months. I remember I got into trouble because I asked what to do with the "baby" that was sitting in a kidney dish in the pan room. The sister in charge (grumpy old thing too) blew me up because it wasn't a "baby".

But, I still remember this tiny little thing so well formed with such tiny little arms and legs. While they are not viable on their own, I would think killing them in the womb would cause much distress and is cruel in our modern society.

I don't know at how many weeks would be less distressful for the unborn child. But it does seem a whole lot worse than swatting a pesky fly.

PS - I haven't voted because there aren't enough choices. A straight yes or no doesn't allow for rape, medical intervention and other factors.

 

[tollbridge]

Meainigless semantics. If you want to impose morality on society you are going to have to come up with logical reasons why society is better off with abortion being made illegal. For example, theft should be illegal as society would not function properly because there would be no incentive to work and be productive. A society where theft is legal is far worse than a society where theft is illegal. Why is society better off forcing a woman to have an unwanted child rather than allowing abortion?

Personally I think the idea of abortion should be between the mother and father of the baby making me pro-choice. The argument posted by Freddy2 however is weak and based on nothing but his own thoughts.

How can you seriously compare the legalisation of abortion with the criminalisation of theft on the basis of what is good for society? That is absolutely laughable! You asked the question "Why is society better off forcing a woman to have an unwanted child rather than allowing abortion?" expecting it to be rhetorical and supporting your theory 100%. Well it doesn't! A 13 year old could easily answer your question by stating that without human life, society ceases to exist. If you look at it from societies point of view (which is what you asked) then the answer could easily be that society benefits considerably from new human life and is imperative to the very future of and ongoing development towards a better society. Can you see how flawed your argument is?

Of course "societies" answer is silly and doesn't address the individual needs of the mother and father at hand. The real reason why it should be legalised is exactly why it has been (mental health). Instead of focussing on "meainigless (sic) semantics" and "imposing laws based on morality" (all laws are based on morality) focus on the potential threats towards the overall wellbeing of individuals if a mother is placed in such a position.

My arguments for abortion are based on the following:

• The potential for an increase in crime when the mother cannot economically afford to feed her baby.
• The stress placed on an already struggling mental health system to deal with the depression, stress and other issues a mother suffers from when being forced to have a baby against her desire.
• The availability of abortion throughout Australia and the availability of Schedule 9 drugs such as RU486 makes it a law that is nearly impossible to enforce.
• The current laws regarding adoption and the paperwork required to be completed make it a difficult task to see through to completion for a mother who is already struggling with other life issues.

If you were serious about benefiting society then you'd understand that this is a very emotional issue for some people and be a little more sensitive in your arguments rather than speaking out against those who have a differing opinion to yourself. Like I said at the beginning of the post - I'm on your side of the coin with this particular issue. But you need to realise that many people feel very strongly the other way whether due to religious or personal reasons and as part of a good society then you need to respect their opinion by not comparing them to people who want to legalise theft. If you want to loose an argument and not change people's opinion - you're doing an excellent job. If you want to have a decent debate about it and show people a different side of the picture learn some manners, respect and common sense.

Alex

 

[Julia]

But, I still remember this tiny little thing so well formed with such tiny little arms and legs. While they are not viable on their own, I would think killing them in the womb would cause much distress and is cruel in our modern society.

Distress to whom, Sails?
Have you considered the distress to the pregnant woman if she does not want to have a child? And all the ramifications for about twenty years of her having to take responsibility for a child she may not be able to care for? She may not have parents of her own who are able to step into the breach and effectively mother the child.
Who takes responsibility for the child then?

I don't know at how many weeks would be less distressful for the unborn child. But it does seem a whole lot worse than swatting a pesky fly.

That's rather an odd analogy. To imply that having an unwanted child is similar to putting up with a pesky fly seems a bit unreasonable to me.

This is probably a topic about which some of us will never find common ground.
People who have, e.g. religious reasons for objecting to termination won't ever find it acceptable to change their views.
And people who strongly believe in a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body will not succumb to anyone else telling them what they may or may not do.

It's just like euthanasia. Religious people believe only their God may determine when they cease to exist. Those who don't accept religious beliefs can see no reason why the 'other side' are so determined that they must live out their days in often unbearable suffering.

 

[tothemax6]

Just copying this over from the other thread, the gist of it is "abortion is murder, religions are irrelevant".

The fetus is either a person or it is not. If it is, it is murder, if it is not, it is a medical procedure. It is the former.
By no moral principle can the size or location of a person modify his rights, nor does tissue attachment to another human modify his rights, so long as he made no actions to enter these situations himself.
The most obvious definition of 'when my life began' is 'when did I begin to exist as a thing'. This implies two things: a unique embodiment as an entity, a transition to this embodiment from a null state. This is most easily determinable by following a persons life course from now backwards (since 'now' clearly contains that person as a unique embodiment). The transition point the becomes clear: 'the persons cell count transitioned between 0 and 1'.
Life begins at conception, no religious argument needed.

As an additional rebuttal to the 'whats best for the mother' argument, e.g.

My arguments for abortion are based on the following:

• The potential for an increase in crime when the mother cannot economically afford to feed her baby.
• The stress placed on an already struggling mental health system to deal with the depression, stress and other issues a mother suffers from when being forced to have a baby against her desire.
• The availability of abortion throughout Australia and the availability of Schedule 9 drugs such as RU486 makes it a law that is nearly impossible to enforce.
• The current laws regarding adoption and the paperwork required to be completed make it a difficult task to see through to completion for a mother who is already struggling with other life issues.

This applies to a born baby also. If a mother stabs her baby after it has left the womb, its a monstrous murder, but if she had a doctor stab it (youtube abortion to see how a third trimester abortion is performed) the day prior, some jurisdictions declare this perfectly legal. The world of 2011 is truly a "2+2=5,4,100 whatever" world.
The point is, tollbridge, that just because a person can declare themselves 'a mother', that does not suddenly make them entitled to commit violent crime. If we could kill anyone who we consider a stress to us, it would be a exciting world wouldn't it?

I am reminded of the hilarious (I think it was a 'chasers war') skit, in which a woman asks for a 'very late term abortion', and brings in her 20y/old stay at home son, on the grounds that he is a burden on her.

 

[Miss Hale]

Why is it that if you don't agree with abortion you are automatically a religious nutter??

malachii

Exactly, you don't have to be a religious nutter or even religious at all to disagree with abortion.

 

[DB008]

IMO, up to the women/persons involved to decide.

I don't tell you which milk to buy, why should l have 'any' involvement in any other private affairs of you. Your choice.

 

[Julia]

Exactly, you don't have to be a religious nutter or even religious at all to disagree with abortion.

If you're referring to my post above, what I said was:

This is probably a topic about which some of us will never find common ground.
People who have, e.g. religious reasons for objecting to termination won't ever find it acceptable to change their views.

i.e. I suggested as an example that those with religious views would never change their minds.

That's a far cry from suggesting anyone who objects to abortion does so on religious grounds. Maybe just read the post properly before going off in objection.

 

[Miss Hale]

If you're referring to my post above...

Not at all. I was referring to the post made by freddy2, this one,

Don't underestimate the religious nutters ability to force their fairy tale beliefs onto others.

but when I did the quote thingy to agree with malachii I didn't realise the original post wouldn't be there.

 

[Julia]

Not at all. I was referring to the post made by freddy2, this one,

but when I did the quote thingy to agree with malachii I didn't realise the original post wouldn't be there.

OK, thanks for responding, Miss Hale. That's all good.