Baby born at 21 weeks survives-should we revisit abortion laws?

Hrududu

also the non-national population in ireland is probably going to increase to the point that by 2050, there will be more of 'them ' than 'us'. i'm NOT saying completely close the borders, but we should try to out breed them.

I cannot believe in this day and age somebody would voice an opinion like this. You do realise 1 generation down the line 'they' would also be Irish and would be a part of 'our' culture. Or would the colour of their skin mean none of their descendents could call themselves Irish?

Mrs_Doyle

I'm sorry, I haven't read the entire thread, although I see it has veered slightly off topic.
In response to the original Post, the UK Abortion Law states:

Abortion is legal in the UK up to the 24th week of pregnancy. However, if there is a substantial risk to the woman's life or if there are foetal abnormalities there is no time limit.

My little sister was born at 24 weeks, and if you could see her now I believe you would be in favour of laws, such as the above, being changed.

She is so healthy, so fit and so intelligent. I just cannot understand how a child, as developed as she was at birth, could legally be aborted.

JC 2K3

Mrs_Doyle wrote:

I'm sorry, I haven't read the entire thread, although I see it has veered slightly off topic.
In response to the original Post, the UK Abortion Law states:


My little sister was born at 24 weeks, and if you could see her now I believe you would be in favour of laws, such as the above, being changed.

She is so healthy, so fit and so intelligent. I just cannot understand how a child, as developed as she was at birth, could legally be aborted.

You love her now, this love has developed due to her being born. If your parents didn't want her and she was aborted you would not have developed this love for her and you would be unaffected by her lack of existance.

If you want to believe that life is sacred and can't be destroyed etc. that's fine, it's your personal belief. However, I don't care about an unborn child who's termination will have zero effect on the world, and since there's no societal impact, there's no reason for it to be illegal.

metrovelvet

Mrs_Doyle wrote:

My little sister was born at 24 weeks, and if you could see her now I believe you would be in favour of laws, such as the above, being changed.

She is so healthy, so fit and so intelligent. I just cannot understand how a child, as developed as she was at birth, could legally be aborted.

Why because at 24 weeks they LOOK like babies? They have some fat on them that helps identify the form? So when there's no fat there and they still look like aliens or lima beans with heartbeats then aborting them should be legally endorsed and this is all based on fat?

Dontico

Hrududu wrote:

I cannot believe in this day and age somebody would voice an opinion like this. You do realise 1 generation down the line 'they' would also be Irish and would be a part of 'our' culture. Or would the colour of their skin mean none of their descendents could call themselves Irish?

never said anything about the colour of peoples skin. anyone born in this country is able to call themselves irish. its cultures that mix well with ours i dont like.

Dontico

JC 2K3 wrote:

You love her now, this love has developed due to her being born. If your parents didn't want her and she was aborted you would not have developed this love for her and you would be unaffected by her lack of existance.

If you want to believe that life is sacred and can't be destroyed etc. that's fine, it's your personal belief. However, I don't care about an unborn child who's termination will have zero effect on the world, and since there's no societal impact, there's no reason for it to be illegal.

i dont know if ms doyle is going to responed to this, i would imagine she would find this post offensive.

"i dont care if your sister was killed".
saying "terminated" is just away of distancing our selves from other, weaker, denfenseless, life forms.

JC 2K3

Offensive how?

I wasn't referring to her sister when I said "terminated" I was refferring to babies in general. And replace "termination" with "murder" or "killing" if you like, I've no qualms about using any of those words.

I don't care how weak or defenceless they are, just because they exist doesn't mean we have to care for them, and considering that killing them doesn't affect us or society what's so wrong with it?

metrovelvet

So how to you justify that?

How for example would killing you off be of any negative effect to society?

JC 2K3

My parents, relatives and friends would be negatively emotionally affected by my loss, ie. people care about me.

metrovelvet

Well, so would the mother and her family be affected by the loss of the baby.

Jesus Wept

Dontico wrote:

the problem with abortion laws in other countries is that irish people can go over thier and murder OUR children.

since irish and british doctors share medical info allready, it make sence to me that the gov should informed when an irish person gets an abortion. sentance should 18years community service. or jail.

wow, lol, you really need a grip, in my view.

My personal view is that anyone who wants an abortion should have one and that it is a bigger injustice to bring a child into the world that isn't 100% wanted and will be cherished and given a great shot at life (its a tough auld world).

I also think that no one should have a baby that was conceived due to a rape, I think this would be incredibly cruel on the child.

Dontico wrote:

when an Irish person gets an abortion. sentence should 18years community service. or jail.

Too bizarre for words.

Dontico wrote:

irish people can go over thier and murder OUR children.

They are not 'our children', they are their parents, and they are a feutus. Some random person's child/children/feutus in Timbuktu/Kerry/etc are not your child or 'our children'.

Dontico wrote:

it make sense to me that the gov should informed when an Irish person gets an abortion. sentence should 18years community service. or jail.

It would make sense if we pulled our country out of the dark ages.

Mrs_Doyle

JC 2K3 wrote:

I don't care how weak or defenceless they are, just because they exist doesn't mean we have to care for them, and considering that killing them doesn't affect us or society what's so wrong with it?

I don't now you, your existence does not affect me, or the majority of society, so if someone was to hurt or murder you, should we not care if they be brought to justice? Seeing as how your life is of no real importance to most of us, as we have never met you, killing you wont affect society.

JC 2K3

Mrs_Doyle wrote:

I don't now you, your existence does not affect me, or the majority of society, so if someone was to hurt or murder you, should we not care if they be brought to justice? Seeing as how your life is of no real importance to most of us, as we have never met you, killing you wont affect society.

Aha, key phrase here being "most of us" as opposed to "none of us". If nobody cared about me and I had absolutely no connections with any people or had any impact on society whatsoever then I could be killed, sure. However, that is an unfeasable situation as there is no possible way someone would not have at least a few hundred people they are associated with and would care about their death, which would account for a small effect on a small section of society. Besides, there's no reason to kill me, and if you permitted killing me then you could kill anyone, and people who are already members of society killing each other would be disastorous. In the case of a foetus the only person that "knows" it is the mother and possibly the father, and it's her/their decision to kill it or not, and no matter how many babies are aborted there is no direct effect on society.

Dontico

The-Rigger wrote:

wow, lol, you really need a grip, in my view.

My personal view is that anyone who wants an abortion should have one and that it is a bigger injustice to bring a child into the world that isn't 100% wanted and will be cherished and given a great shot at life (its a tough auld world).

one cannot know if some leses life is going to be crap.
why not murder all handicaped peopple? i think hitler would agree with you.

The-Rigger wrote:

I also think that no one should have a baby that was conceived due to a rape, I think this would be incredibly cruel on the child.

one shouldnt be punished for someone elses crimes.

The-Rigger wrote:

They are not 'our children', they are their parents, and they are a feutus. Some random person's child/children/feutus in Timbuktu/Kerry/etc are not your child or 'our children'.

i think it makes sence, for the country to run better, that the child is property of the state and the parents have an obligation to do whats best for the child. please not that the state is democratically elected.

Cantab.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Aha, key phrase here being "most of us" as opposed to "none of us". If nobody cared about me and I had absolutely no connections with any people or had any impact on society whatsoever then I could be killed, sure. However, that is an unfeasable situation as there is no possible way someone would not have at least a few hundred people they are associated with and would care about their death, which would account for a small effect on a small section of society. Besides, there's no reason to kill me, and if you permitted killing me then you could kill anyone, and people who are already members of society killing each other would be disastorous. In the case of a foetus the only person that "knows" it is the mother and possibly the father, and it's her/their decision to kill it or not, and no matter how many babies are aborted there is no direct effect on society.

The mother, at the very least, knows. She is part of society, and therefore society suffers (not to mention the years of post-abortion counselling and trauma that the woman must endure, which must be dealt with by society). Imagine how a woman's future husband would feel, knowing that his grilfriend/fiancee underwent an abortion.

May I ask you a simple question? Do you have sympathy for women who suffer still births?

Cantab.

Dontico wrote:

...i think hitler would agree with you...

It appears to me that Godwin's Law is more prevalent in abortion debates.

Jesus Wept

Dontico wrote:

one cannot know if some leses life is going to be crap.
why not murder all handicaped peopple? i think hitler would agree with you.

Clearly you are an idiot, I think you should get banned for this type of crap, though I'm probably not arsed contacting a mod.

Hitler would agree with me? murder all handicapped people? Aligning me with Hitler? This is an outrageous and stupid comment to post, I did not say anything of this nature or even anything that could be misconstrued as this! You are a clown.

Dontico wrote:

one shouldnt be punished for someone elses crimes.

Having a baby that was conceived because of a rape is punishment to the baby in my opinion.

Dontico wrote:

i think it makes sence, for the country to run better, that the child is property of the state and the parents have an obligation to do whats best for the child. please not that the state is democratically elected.

I really don't even know if anything your posting you are serious about or if you are just trying to stir up conversation, because the comments you are making are so ridiculous.

JC 2K3

Cantab. wrote:

The mother, at the very least, knows. She is part of society, and therefore society suffers (not to mention the years of post-abortion counselling and trauma that the woman must endure, which must be dealt with by society). Imagine how a woman's future husband would feel, knowing that his grilfriend/fiancee underwent an abortion.

The woman is the one who makes the decision to have the abortion, therefore she must be able to handle it. Years of post-abortion counselling? Please, that's extreme generalising, saying every woman will need it. It's all societal guilt in any case, if abortion was accepted as a standard procedure there'd be no guilt and no need for counselling. And forgive me for not understanding your logic, but why would a woman's future husband care?

Cantab. wrote:

May I ask you a simple question? Do you have sympathy for women who suffer still births?

Yes, for any trauma the women may suffer, not for the foetuses.

Jesus Wept

Cantab. wrote:

It appears to me that Godwin's Law is more prevalent in abortion debates.

lol, great post ,post of the day!

Hadn't heard of this.


Who guessed Post #139?! Come up to the front and collect your prize!

Cantab.

JC 2K3 wrote:

The woman is the one who makes the decision to have the abortion, therefore she must be able to handle it. Years of post-abortion counselling? Please, that's extreme generalising, saying every woman will need it. It's all societal guilt in any case, if abortion was accepted as a standard procedure there'd be no guilt and no need for counselling. And forgive me for not understanding your logic, but why would a woman's future husband care?

I would never marry a woman who knowingly had an abortion. Our moral stance would just be completely incompatible.

And why should society accept abortion? I (and many others like me) are part of society too you conveniently seem to have forgotten, and I for one, will not just roll over and allow the destruction of life in its most vunerable form to happen willy-nilly under some neo-feminist banner of "a woman's right to choose".

JC 2K3 wrote:

Yes, for any trauma the women may suffer, not for the foetuses.

But why would she feel trauma at all if the foetus is just a blob of cells? I assume you'd feel sorry for a woman who just got her hair cut then as well?

Bradidup

Rock Climber wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6377639.stm

Tiny little thing and she lives In my opinion hoovering a baby like that out of it's mothers body would be murder.

It's time abortion wasn't allowed beyond 10 weeks as you now run the risk of killing a viable human being.

All abortion is murder. Theres absolutly no difference between what was carried out in the Nazi death camps to the Jews than to what is going on in any of todays abortion clinics.

The following link are very disturbing.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Abortion%20is%20Murder/death_camp.htm

Cantab.

JC 2K3 wrote:

The woman is the one who makes the decision to have the abortion, therefore...

Therefore nothing, because it's not her sole decision. The child has a father too you know. In adittion, society are duty-bound to protect life. Or maybe you're advocating that because the female physically supports life, the father/society have no say until it's geographical position changes to that of outside the womb???

JC 2K3

Cantab. wrote:

I would never marry a woman who knowingly had an abortion. Our moral stance would just be completely incompatible.

That's you, your personal outlook. Avoid women who've had abortions like I might avoid women with characteristics I dislike.

Cantab. wrote:

And why should society accept abortion? I (and many others like me) are part of society too you conveniently seem to have forgotten, and I for one, will not just roll over and allow the destruction of life in its most vunerable form to happen willy-nilly under some neo-feminist banner of "a woman's right to choose".

This has NOTHING to do with feminism. It's to do with allowing people to make a choice regarding a procedure which some may find morally wrong but many others don't have a problem with and would like it to be available.

Cantab. wrote:

But why would she feel trauma at all if the foetus is just a blob of cells? I assume you'd feel sorry for a woman who just got her hair cut then as well?

She feels trauma due to the fact she's lost a baby she wanted. If you read my posts you'll see I never once have used the "it's not a real human" or "it's just a blob of cells" argument. It's the convenient killing of a young human before they've integrated into society.

Cantab. wrote:

Therefore nothing, because it's not her sole decision. The child has a father too you know. In adittion, society are duty-bound to protect life. Or maybe you're advocating that because the female physically supports life, the father/society have no say until it's geographical position changes to that of outside the womb???

Society are duty bound to protect society, not life, well perhaps life within society, but a baby inside a woman has not yet integrated into society. And again, stop jumping to conclusions and read my other posts where I almost aways write "mother/father's choice".

InFront

Have been a bit busy just saw your reply...

bluewolf wrote:

Infront:
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,54944,00.html

That SARA system is some sort of new invention (apparently) whose relevance to the topic is questionable. If you’re asking whether that particular machine is reliable or not I’d have to say that based on that artickle, I don’t know, do you?

You're not denying that brain activity can be measured from eight weeks, are you? There really is no doubt about that tbh, I don't see how it's up for debate.

EM field not the same as a functioning brain.

Of course it's not. However, electrical activity within neurons of the brain indicates a brain that is functioning.

As I said earlier, brain activity does not mean the child is conscious. I'm not convinced that the child is ever conscious before birth. But conscious is such a non-specific term, I'm not sure how it can even be gauged, whether you're for abortion or against it. That's why I have a problem with people who say that abortion is out once the brain is functioning, if they think that the functioning brain puts the child on a higher plateau of value compared to one that is not yet functioning, but will be if left alone.

As for your last link - I'm confused - are you suggesting teenagers have no capacity for sentience?

Your argument was

So, to be safe, I say once its brain is fully formed - which I'm sure we can certainly verify - that's the cut off point

My response was an article demonstrating that even in teenagers the brain is not fully formed. In fact I think I could dig out a paper somewhere where new neural development had been detected in a seventy year old male some years ago. The brain is just not fully formed at birth, but yet you say abortion is ok until the brain is fully formed. That's my point.

Zombrex

Bradidup wrote:

All abortion is murder. Theres absolutly no difference between what was carried out in the Nazi death camps to the Jews than to what is going on in any of todays abortion clinics

Or in the dirty tissues of teenage boys up and down the country.

Millions die each night in bedrooms around the world.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

You're not denying that brain activity can be measured from eight weeks, are you? There really is no doubt about that tbh, I don't see how it's up for debate.

The problem is that you define "brain activity" as a detectable electric field inside the foetus brain. You can certainly detect an electrical field in the foetus's brain by 40 days. Is that brain activity? All most certainly not. You can detect an electrical field inside the foetus's heart and eye balls too. A human foetus generates an electrical field because it is alive and growing.

InFront wrote:

Of course it's not. However, electrical activity within neurons of the brain indicates a brain that is functioning.

As I said not necessarily. All areas of the human body generate electrical activity simply by being alive. The cells in the human brain are no different.

InFront wrote:

As I said earlier, brain activity does not mean the child is conscious. I'm not convinced that the child is ever conscious before birth. But conscious is such a non-specific term, I'm not sure how it can even be gauged, whether you're for abortion or against it.

Why then can you say that you don't think the child is ever conscious before birth? On what criteria do you gauge to make that assessment if as you say consciousness itself is so hard to assess?

InFront wrote:

That's why I have a problem with people who say that abortion is out once the brain is functioning, if they think that the functioning brain puts the child on a higher plateau of value compared to one that is not yet functioning, but will be if left alone.

Its called the "better safe than sorry" theory.

If your assessment that the foetus has not formed higher brain functions (sentience, consciousness, personality etc) until it is born then I would have absolutely no trouble saying that you can abort a foetus at any stage during pregnancy.

But I don't think that is true, and I would rather air on the side of caution than protect foetuses that are not yet "beings" rather than destroy ones that have become beings.

InFront wrote:

My response was an article demonstrating that even in teenagers the brain is not fully formed.

As far as I know teenagers have developed the necessary higher brain functions that distiguish humans for other animals.

Cantab.

JC 2K3 wrote:

That's you, your personal outlook. Avoid women who've had abortions like I might avoid women with characteristics I dislike.

I have little respect for a woman knowingly who undergoes an abortion.

JC 2K3 wrote:

This has NOTHING to do with feminism. It's to do with allowing people to make a choice regarding a procedure which some may find morally wrong but many others don't have a problem with and would like it to be available.

How many pro-life feminists are there out there do you think? Also how many homosexual pro-lifers are there out there do you think? It's all part of a liberal grand social plan to undermine the Catholic Church and fool people into a false utopian dream that ultimately leads in misery.

JC 2K3 wrote:

She feels trauma due to the fact she's lost a baby she wanted. If you read my posts you'll see I never once have used the "it's not a real human" or "it's just a blob of cells" argument. It's the convenient killing of a young human before they've integrated into society.

You are hung up on this notion of "integrated into society". Since when is integration into society the sole criteria required to asess whether someone is worthy of living or not? Should we just kill all murderers and child rapists and retards then? Your integration theory is a pathetic attempt at defining the criteria for worthiness of life.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Society are duty bound to protect society, not life, well perhaps life within society, but a baby inside a woman has not yet integrated into society. And again, stop jumping to conclusions and read my other posts where I almost aways write "mother/father's choice".

Ok so it is all down to geographical positioning then. Mmm.

Nevyn

Do you really think there was no abortion before feminism ?

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

You can certainly detect an electrical field in the foetus's brain by 40 days. Is that brain activity? All most certainly not..

I'm just not having this argument with you. There is neurolgical activity, can you just post whatever scientific proof you seem to believe there is to the contrary? Or where you are getting the idea from? I mean, the heart is beting wicknight - what do you think is making it beat?? blood cells? It is neurological activity. The neurons are functioning, they fire on the heart, the heart engages is systole and diastole - it beats in rhythmic pattern. It's not magic, it's neurology.

Why then can you say that you don't think the child is ever conscious before birth?

where did I say that? I said I'm not convinced that the child is ever conscious before birth, I have no reason to presume it is depending on what consciousness actually means from person to person. And as I already said, consciousness is some completely abstract quasi scientific term that has no precise meaning for th purposes of an abortion debate.

I'm not the one saying that the child needs to be conscious to deserve life.

On what criteria do you gauge to make that assessment if as you say consciousness itself is so hard to assess?

Again, i don't bring consciousness into it or try to assess it. You seem to.

As far as I know teenagers have developed the necessary higher brain functions that distiguish humans for other animals

That's true, and it's not being argued. As I explained in the point you're quoting from, I was simply pointing out that the brain has not yet fully formed either at birth or in early childhood - a fully formed brain is the cutoff point that one poster was using.

JC 2K3

Cantab. wrote:

How many pro-life feminists are there out there do you think? Also how many homosexual pro-lifers are there out there do you think? It's all part of a liberal grand social plan to undermine the Catholic Church and fool people into a false utopian dream that ultimately leads in misery.

:rolleyes:

I'm afraid I can't continue to argue with you due to A)You bringing religion into it, and B)You're laughable idea that Liberalism is a conspiracy.