Dispatches, C4 last night

Burning Eclipse

(not sure if here is the right forum)

Did anybody watch this last night.

I don't wan't to open the Abortion debate, but the programme was pretty tough to watch in parts, granted one could argue it was necessary to show what happens as much as possible.

Also, did anybody think that they were hugely biased... They didn't even seem to want to show both sides of the argument.

Anybody else have opinions on this??

dior1catboy

I saw it, and I've had one, I couldn't watch the very graphic bits and covered my eyes when they were showing the footage that hadn't been shown before, but I have to say, I thought it was very well done and very informative.

Burning Eclipse

dior1catboy wrote: »

I saw it, and I've had one, I couldn't watch the very graphic bits and covered my eyes when they were showing the footage that hadn't been shown before, but I have to say, I thought it was very well done and very informative.

It certainly was informative, and what it tried to accomplish, it accomplished well.

I just think it was very one-sided, I don't think it worked as a piece of balanced journalism. That said, it opened my eyes to facts I wasn't previously aware of, so in that respect I'm glad I watched it!

Baldie

I tuned into this about a half hour in when the doctor was doing an abortion. I had to turn it off after a half an hour. Very hard stuff to watch when we've just had a baby 4 months ago. I can't belive they are doing abortions up to 26 weeks. That's madness!!!!!

MooseJam

Glad I didn't watch it, the poor babies, abortion is bad mmkayy

davidoco

Burning Eclipse wrote: »

Also, did anybody think that they were hugely biased... They didn't even seem to want to show both sides of the argument.

It did start to seem very biased when they kept returning to the issue about when pain kicks in. It was near the end of the programme before they mentioned that 90% of abortions take place before 8 or 10 weeks.

I thought the mother of two using phrases like "I supposes" "maybe" was starting to make it look like one of those Sky One programmes where they drag out Z list celebs to comment on A list celebs. They just put words in her mouth.

Nevyn

Yes, I did watch it.
The graphic footage was made and used by the anti abortion lobby in america.
Yes it was very one sided.

ScumLord

C4 seem to take a side on some of there programs rather than be impartial. Makes for a more emotional show I suppose.

Is dispatches repeated?

Hrududu

It was very biased.

There was one part in particular where a guy doing 4D scans pointed out that the 20 week old fetus was crying. When the scan had just shown it move its hand over its face. At least they pulled him up on that sh*t, but otherwise it was very heavy handed.

Nevyn

Yes it clearly had an agenda how they dealth with the reps from bpas when considering the emotional and the women distress of the women who present for 23 week terminations was very telling.

Burning Eclipse

ScumLord wrote: »

C4 seem to take a side on some of there programs rather than be impartial. Makes for a more emotional show I suppose.

Is dispatches repeated?

Think you can watch it on some channel 4 on demand thing. Don't know if it's gonna be repeated...

Moosejam, I'm not sure what your going for there.

MooseJam

Burning Eclipse wrote: »

Moosejam, I'm not sure what your going for there.

I was just saying I think abortion is bad, shouldn't be done etc etc

Nevyn

Ok you have stated you opinion , good for you.

MooseJam

yes I have, have you got a problem with people stating their opinions

ntlbell

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes it clearly had an agenda how they dealth with the reps from bpas when considering the emotional and the women distress of the women who present for 23 week terminations was very telling.

Preventing people from committing murder how dare they have an agenda!

cance

oh dear oh dear,

this thread is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

Unshelved

They were using extreme cases to make a dubious point. Here are UK (England & Wales) abortion statistics from 2001 -

Total abortions at under 9 weeks : 75 501
Total abortions at 9-12 weeks: 79 368
Total abortions at 21-23 weeks: 2037

Total abortions at 24 weeks: 24

(Source: www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/AB28_2001/AB28_2001.pdf )

Taking into account the number of late abortions that must have been performed due, for example, to the mother's health, or the viability of the pregnancy, it really is a small number compared to the overall number that took place before the 12-week mark.

Nevyn

Well with some fetuses beng susposedly viable at 24 weeks, you dont' see the anti aboriton lobbiests offering to pay for the 5 to 8 months of icu neonatal care required to ensure that a premy baby can function with out the machines and medices so that it could be adopted
and the list of medical proplerms and conditions that a child which undergoes such intensive treatment suffers was never mentioned. The BPAS rep had to point out the 50% mortaliy rate for those who can be placed in neo natal icu.

Nevyn

ntlbell wrote: »

Preventing people from committing murder how dare they have an agenda!

/me shrugs

I wonder if I will get a baby killer hate mail/pms, it's been a while from the last one but really after 14 years it tends to loose it's edge.

Nevyn

MooseJam wrote: »

yes I have, have you got a problem with people stating their opinions

Yes if they are doing to to derail a thread which the originator of asked people not to do as this is a thread about a tv program and how it's content was handled.

Mind Hunter 85

just to add the figures for
Total abortions at 13-19 weeks -18718

i think thats still a substantial number

Nevyn

Every time I see numbers like that I wonder why the hell there is not proper sexual health and contraception eduction in school and why contraception is not advailible free to all under 25s

ntlbell

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes if they are doing to to derail a thread which the originator of asked people not to do as this is a thread about a tv program and how it's content was handled.

so if you put a thread in AH all you have to do is kindly ask for not to go off topic????

after all these years you haven't learned much really.

Unshelved

ASTA20, you're missing my point, which is that the total number of post 24-week abortions in that year is miniscule compared to the pre 12-week number. The programme used the example of post 24-week abortions to distort the argument, when in fact a tiny number of these abortions actually take place.

ntlbell

Thaedydal wrote: »

Every time I see numbers like that I wonder why the hell there is not proper sexual health and contraception eduction in school and why contraception is not advailible free to all under 25s

you want harding working average joe's to pay for all under 25's to get their rocks off?

eh...ok...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yes.. because it's going to pay for their children too...

also how the hell do you murder a foetus? they're not people.

hopalong85

Mordeth wrote: »

yes.. because it's going to pay for their children too...

also how the hell do you murder a foetus? they're not people.[/QUOTET

They are alive. Matter of opinion as to whether you view a foetus as human tbh.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

so are chickens, do you see what we do to them?

humans have human rights, when the foetus becomes a human then it gets human rights. You can discuss all you want about when that happens (which I'm pretty sure, is what people do, which is why women aren't generally allowed abortions after a certain period), but you don't just get a cell that starts to divide and call it a human arbitrarily.

MooseJam

Mordeth wrote: »

yes.. because it's going to pay for their children too...

also how the hell do you murder a foetus? they're not people.

o rly, so when exactly do they become people in your opinion

hopalong85

Mordeth wrote: »

so are chickens, do you see what we do to them?

humans have human rights, when the foetus becomes a human then it gets human rights. You can discuss all you want about when that happens (which I'm pretty sure, is what people do, which is why women aren't generally allowed abortions after a certain period), but you don't just get a cell that starts to divide and call it a human arbitrarily.

I don't think that's a fair comparison really. An unborn foetus will become a human being. This issue really comes down to personal opinions, that will never change.

Nevyn

ntlbell wrote: »

you want harding working average joe's to pay for all under 25's to get their rocks off?

eh...ok...

Cos it is a hell of a lot cheaper then paying for teen pregnancies via welfare.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I dunno, I'm not a doctor. I'm also not very likely to have an abortion, being a man and all, so it's not something I've had to rationalise personally. But trained specialists, and people with a lot more knowledge than you and me have set standards for when abortion is acceptable. .. what is it, no third trimester? *shrug*.

they know alot more about this than anyody on this thread, and I'm willing to accept their decision.

Mind Hunter 85

sorry Unshelved i understand what your saying is true ,i also would think that post 24 week abortions are mainly for medicial reasons and the numbers are small compared to before 12 weeks .
i was just trying to point out that there are many abortions after 12weeks as well .but i was going off point so nevermind

dior1catboy

Personally, I think the foetus becomes an actual person when it is born, I am in no way saying that the foetus isn't important, but it is not an actual human until it is born, hence the reason its called a foetus and not a baby, people have differing opinions on abortion and this is, of course, ok, as everyone has a right to an opinion, but if you haven't had to make this decision yourself, its impossible to put yourself in that persons shoes, this is something that should be remembered by everyone whether your pro life or pro choice!

MooseJam

dior1catboy wrote: »

Personally, I think the foetus becomes an actual person when it is born, I am in no way saying that the foetus isn't important, but it is not an actual human until it is born, hence the reason its called a foetus and not a baby, people have differing opinions on abortion and this is, of course, ok, as everyone has a right to an opinion, but if you haven't had to make this decision yourself, its impossible to put yourself in that persons shoes, this is something that should be remembered by everyone whether your pro life or pro choice!

there is no difference between a baby when it's inside or outside the mothers body, there is no majical OOW it's suddenly become a person moment

Nevyn

Mordeth wrote: »

I dunno, I'm not a doctor. I'm also not very likely to have an abortion, being a man and all, so it's not something I've had to rationalise personally. But trained specialists, and people with a lot more knowledge than you and me have set standards for when abortion is acceptable. .. what is it, no third trimester? *shrug*.

they know alot more about this than anyody on this thread, and I'm willing to accept their decision.

The limit in the UK is 23 weeks 6 days and only after that due to sever danger to the woman's health or deformity of the fetus.

The program was about just that Mord.

The debate between medical professionals on the advances in neonatal care and the 3d scans and impact on the law about abortion in the UK which was introduced 40 years ago this week.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7042291.stm

The program was made as there is talk about changing that law so that the limit becomes 19 weeks 6 days and that up until 13 weeks 6days a woman only has to get the referal of 1 dr instead of two.
The makers of the program were clearly in favour of the change of the limit.

dior1catboy

MooseJam wrote: »

there is no difference between a baby when it's inside or outside the mothers body, there is no majical OOW it's suddenly become a person moment

Really? Oh ok, so when an egg is fertilised, its a human immediately then, yeah?

Nevyn

dior1catboy humanites would be a better place for that debate tbh, not that I think you will be able to change moosejam or ntlbells opinions/beliefs.

MooseJam

dior1catboy wrote: »

Really? Oh ok, so when an egg is fertilised, its a human immediately then, yeah?

now you have it

ntlbell

Thaedydal wrote: »

Cos it is a hell of a lot cheaper then paying for teen pregnancies via welfare.

Instead of educating them in the first place.......

so what happens single mother at 26? we still have to pay for her? or do we refuse to pay for her because she's old enough to know better? like at 25 she was clueless now she's 26 everything changes?

Why put the burdon on society? put it on the teens parents? surely they have to take some responsibility in it?

Free condoms/pill won't do much IMO.

Snake Plisken

I was reading an article about this show at the weekend and it pointed out that they NHS are finding it harder and harder to find Nurses and Docs to do abortions over 20 weeks. Weather abortion is right or wrong, I really think the show's only job was to show what the fetus experience during the abortion when its over 20 weeks old. And I think that acheived what it set out to do.

dior1catboy

Sorry, don't mean to annoy anyone, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not trying to change anyones mind, this is a very personal subject to me, sorry if I sounded like I was arguing

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you really think a free way to stop getting pregnant, won't stop people getting pregnant?

really?

really?

ntlbell

I see kids 16/17/18 driving high powered cars, wearing designer clothes.

and your telling me a price tag of what ? .25c a day roughly puts them off using contreception??

that;s just moronic

ntlbell

Mordeth wrote: »

you really think a free way to stop getting pregnant, won't stop people getting pregnant?

really?

really?

if it costs .25c a day or so to not get pregant and they have .25c a day and they dont use that way i don't think a free way would stop the people who wouldn't use it in the first place no.

Ciaran500

ntlbell wrote: »

Instead of educating them in the first place.......

No one said it should be instead of education and even the educated can have accidents.

ntlbell wrote: »

put it on the teens parents? surely they have to take some responsibility in it?

You really think parents of a 25 year old are responsible for her getting pregnant?

murphaph

Thaedydal wrote: »

the list of medical proplerms and conditions that a child which undergoes such intensive treatment suffers was never mentioned.

Maybe I picked it up wrong but I'm sure they spoke at length of the possible complications leading to long term problems for severely premature babies.

Anyhoo, the programme was difficult to watch in parts, no doubt about that. No matter how dispassionate one tries to be, when one is confronted with little bits of a foetus in a bowl it makes one uneasy.

I think it is reasonable for the United Kingdom to question their allowable timeframe if science has proven that a baby born at x weeks can survive (even with massive medical intervention) whilst it is still legal to abort a foetus at that same number of weeks. Is that a baby or a foetus?

Despite the images shown, I feel it is still a fundamental right for women to have access to abortion in certain circumstances. The programme has sparked some debate, so that can't be a bad thing. If the vast majority of abortions are performed up to 12 weeks and just 24 abortions were performed at 24 weeks then reducing the limit to 20 weeks or so shouldn't affect many people and still allow access to abortion. I can't but believe that a woman wouldn't know she might be pregnant after 20 weeks. I am sure some women agonise right to the last before opting to abort. Reducing the limit to say 20 weeks would hurry their decision making process but one presumes most decisions would be the same.

A tough subject and as always it attracts the fringes. Comments such as "it's murder" are allowable but add little to the debate in the UK as abortion is already legal! The debate is the timeframe.

ntlbell

Ciaran500 wrote: »

No one said it should be instead of education and even the educated can have accidents.


You really think parents of a 25 year old are responsible for her getting pregnant?

No of course not, and I don't think I should be responsible to pay for a fecking 25yr olds contreception or her child!

see TEEN and 25? see?

Sam Vimes

Mordeth wrote: »

yes.. because it's going to pay for their children too...

also how the hell do you murder a foetus? they're not people.

yes, yes they are. killing a foetus is exactly the same as killing a six month old child. and until we agree on that point, there is no point continuing the debate on abortion. i doubt that Thaedydal would post "/me shrugs" at the death of a baby but i see it as exactly the same thing and have lost a lot of respect for her after that comment

stovelid

ntlbell wrote: »

I see kids 16/17/18 driving high powered cars, wearing designer clothes.

and your telling me a price tag of what ? .25c a day roughly puts them off using contreception??

that;s just moronic

Every 16, 17, and 18 old in the country has a high powered car and designer clothes?

ntlbell

stovelid wrote: »

Every 16, 17, and 18 old in the country has a high powered car and designer clothes?

did I say everyone?