Keep abortion out of Ireland

doctoremma

prinz wrote: »

Yes that would be disingenuous. "Protecting the psychological welfare of the mother" covers everything from 'I was drunk and got knocked up' to 'I'm afraid my boyfriend/husband/relevant other party would leave me' to 'I'm single' to 'I can't afford a baby'.

Yeah, I get it, I should have thought that clear form my post...:cool:

prinz wrote: »

I'm against illegal dumping.

Good for you. In theory, I'm not sure I care too much.

prinz wrote: »

Is the only consistent position then the legalise dumping wherever you want? I mean that would allow the maximum number of people the maximum freedom of their own personal choice on whether to dump at the side of a road, or use proper channels.

When someone's personal choice infringes on your own, then you can complain.

prinz

doctoremma wrote: »

Good for you. In theory, I'm not sure I care too much..

Well done. I think I'll use that the next time someone tells me about their abortion. Or about how I should be pro-choice.

doctoremma wrote: »

When someone's personal choice infringes on your own, then you can complain.

So I can't complain about anything that I've mentioned in my last post until after I've been robbed, my garden is full of rubbish, my property has been vandalised, the state can't provide x service because nobody paid taxes, I've been knocked down by an uninsured driver...... fantastic. I'll remember to complain afterwards. It's sure to be of benefit to me then.

qrrgprgua

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Yes, its not clear to whats going on when you look at the bigger picture. My personal views on the subject are certainly not made up yet, but if we are told that God sees all life as precious, then why are miscarraiges such a hugely common issue in nature? Surely the motives of a God should be questioned here. The doesnt seem to be an explanation in the bible as to why its so prevelent. Im just interested on religous peoples views on this.

Why does God allow XYZ.. we are go into discussion for years on this topic alone.

What is clear from a Religious and from a Natural point of view is that we are commanded by our conscience to not kill. Just because we have corrupted our conscience and we tell ourselves its not really a person does not mean its not a Person we know its wrong.

doctoremma

prinz wrote: »

Well done. I think I'll use that the next time someone tells me about their abortion. Or about how I should be pro-choice.

Eh?

prinz wrote: »

So I can't complain about anything that I've mentioned in my last post until after I've been robbed, my garden is full of rubbish, my property has been vandalised...I've been knocked down by an uninsured driver

Well, you can't lodge a complaint until it's happened to you. What do you do, phone the police prior to a robbery?

If someone is illegally dumping at the top of your road, it's infringing on your right to not live in a road that's a public dumping ground (if, indeed, such a right is codified). Complain, campaign.

If someone accesses abortion, it doesn't impinge on any of your rights whatsoever.

doctoremma

qrrgprgua wrote: »

we tell ourselves its not really a person does not mean its not a Person we know its wrong.

I'm not sure that's right. You think a fertilised embryo is a person, I don't. I certainly think it human and I certainly ascribe some value to its life, but I don't think it a person.

The problem here is that I recognise your POV, you don't recognise mine.

prinz

doctoremma wrote: »

If someone accesses abortion, it doesn't impinge on any of your rights whatsoever.

It impacts society as such it does impact me. It doesn't have to impinge on rights, it just has to have a societal impact. With a societal impact we all get a say. So thanks, but I'll use my vote however I see fit.

doctoremma wrote: »

The problem here is that I recognise your POV, you don't recognise mine.

The problem here is that you confuse recognising a POV and accepting it. I recognise the POV that some people want to carry guns around. I don't accept they should have that right.

Wh1stler

prinz wrote: »

Whooooooooooooosh! What's that flying over your head?

I don't know; perhaps you or Plowman can enlighten me.

And speaking of whooooooooooooosh, where did I suggest that alcoholics should be killed?

doctoremma

prinz wrote: »

It impacts society as such it does impact me. It doesn't have to impinge on rights, it just has to have a societal impact. With a societal impact we all get a say.

Of course. But how it might affect society (or not) is an extension of your opinion. What kind of societal impacts do you anticipate? Given that the majority of developed countries permit abortion, it might be difficult to argue that it causes some kind of societal collapse?

Irish women are getting abortions, that's the bare fact. Women all over the world are getting abortions, that's the bare fact. The WHO has some interesting stats to show that access (or not) to abortion makes little difference to rates, it simply places women in a position where they have to have unsafe abortions.

Your abortion-free society doesn't exist. What do you think will happen if it's legal in Ireland?

prinz wrote: »

So thanks, but I'll use my vote however I see fit.

I would not have it any other way. I'd place my life on the line to ensure you retain your right to vote. You?

prinz wrote: »

The problem here is that you confuse recognising a POV and accepting it. I recognise the POV that some people want to carry guns around. I don't accept they should have that right.

Some people do have the right to carry guns. Nonetheless, guns are usually bad for society, with very measurable and horrific effects. Someone with a gun might kill me. Someone getting an abortion does no harm to me.

prinz

Wh1stler wrote: »

I don't know; perhaps you or Plowman can enlighten me.

Sarcasm. You completely missed it in PDN's post.

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

So, since alcoholism is also a problem, then the equivalent to abortion as an answer would be to kill off a few alcoholics?

I was once an alcoholic who slept on the streets. I am so grateful that Christians didn't treat me as a 'problem' but as a human being who could experience redemption.

Once again for the hard of thinking:

Do-gooders would do better to concentrate on and save the millions of smokers and alcoholics whose souls are in jeopardy as opposed to concentrating on aborted foetuses whose souls are not.

prinz

doctoremma wrote: »

Of course. But how it might affect society (or not) is an extension of your opinion. What kind of societal impacts do you anticipate? Given that the majority of developed countries permit abortion, it might be difficult to argue that it causes some kind of societal collapse?

I'd rather not live in a society which simultaneously attempts to remove prejudices and ignorance on one hand, and 'removes' undesirables on the other. Look at the numbers of Downs Syndrome diagnoses in the womb in the UK and how many are actually born. I would not choose to live in a country where we slap each other on the back and cheer on our athletes in the Special Olympics, then turn around and tell pregnant women that they should abort DS babies. I don't want to live in a society where any type of disability carries the death sentence. I don't want to live in a society where we could facilitate the aborting of females because they weren't male. I don't want to live in a society, where I walk past the barbershop, the bakers, the post office, and the place where we sanitise a form of ethnic cleansing prior to birth. I don't want to live in a place that allows citizens of the country grow up knowing they are on a list somewhere that says 'Suitable for abortion' etc.

doctoremma wrote: »

I would not have it any other way. I'd place my life on the line to ensure you retain your right to vote. You?

Yes I would. I have never, would never and will never deny people the right to vote. From my own experience however I have been told numerous times that my vote shouldn't count, always from the pro-choice side.

doctoremma wrote: »

Some people do have the right to carry guns. Nonetheless, guns are usually bad for society, with very measurable and horrific effects. Someone with a gun might kill me. Someone getting an abortion does no harm to me.

..and you can also measure the effects of abortion. Again see DS numbers in the UK for a very clear example. You don't think it's horrific that women in already traumatic circumstances are being pushed into having abortions? You don't think it's horrific that dozens of children in the UK are delivered alive following botched abortions and then left to die?

Wh1stler

prinz wrote: »

Sarcasm. You completely missed it in PDN's post.

LOL, psyche and whoooooooooooosh, what's that flying over your head? Though I don't expect that you can see beyond the plank that is sticking out of your eye.

I was employing the same device of misinterpretation that PDN seems so fond of. So it was you, and Plowman and undoubtedly others too who missed my sarcasm.

How PDN can take my suggestion that the 'alcoholics need to be saved' and make that into 'alcoholics should be killed' is both typical and quite beyond me.

Millions die annually worldwide from the effects of alcohol and tobacco but I have yet to see a thread entitled 'Get alcohol and tobacco out of Ireland' or similar.

I further suggested that the alcohol and tobacco industries are effectively making human sacrifices; why has noone taken issue with me on this?

And finally, on the right to have a gun thing; what is the difference in having an abortion in order to protect ones own interests and shooting someone with a gun in order to protect ones own interests?

Why should women have to 'let nature take its course' to protect some religious notion of a moral code when a man with a gun can act in self defence and acceptably kill someone who is unarguably an actual 'person'?

Before you answer any of this, please re-read the post to make sure that you do not misinterprate it.

Benny_Cake

Wh1stler wrote: »

Millions die annually worldwide from the effects of alcohol and tobacco but I have yet to see a thread entitled 'Get alcohol and tobacco out of Ireland' or similar.

I further suggested that the alcohol and tobacco industries are effectively making human sacrifices; why has noone taken issue with me on this?

There is nothing to stop you from starting such a thread should you so wish to do so. I think the point could be made that an adult has the choice of whether to have a drink or smoke a cigarette, but the unborn child gets no such choice in terms of abortion, but in any case, they are completely unrelated issues.

Wh1stler wrote: »

And finally, on the right to have a gun thing; what is the difference in having an abortion in order to protect ones own interests and shooting someone with a gun in order to protect ones own interests?

Why should women have to 'let nature take its course' to protect some religious notion of a moral code when a man with a gun can act in self defence and acceptably kill someone who is unarguably an actual 'person'?

Before you answer any of this, please re-read the post to make sure that you do not misinterprate it.

Define "one's own interests"? Many would say that you have the right to use a gun to protect your family should your home be broken into, but few would argue that a person has the right to shoot someone who jumps ahead of them in a queue. Extreme cases but it comes down to self defence. Now if the life of the woman was at risk from continuing the pregnancy, no one would argue that a doctor shouldn't take whatever steps are necessary to save the life of the woman.

Finally, I would have thought that most people have some sense of a moral code, whether they are religious or not. The abortion debate cuts across religious lines to some extent, there are pro-choice Christians and pro-life atheists. I think people can sincerely disagree over the issue while trying to understand where the other person is coming from.

Wh1stler

Hyperduck wrote: »

Wealth is not inherently evil as certain anti-Catholic folk like to believe.

What did Jesus mean regarding rich men, heaven, camels and the eye of a needle?

It seems to me that Jesus was saying that being wealthy practically precludes rich people from going to heaven.

If being wealthy is not a sin then why should Jesus had even bothered saying such a thing?

prinz

Wh1stler wrote: »

So it was you, and Plowman and undoubtedly others too who missed my sarcasm.

I'm sure it was.

Wh1stler

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There is nothing to stop you from starting such a thread should you so wish to do so. I think the point could be made that an adult has the choice of whether to have a drink or smoke a cigarette, but the unborn child gets no such choice in terms of abortion, but in any case, they are completely unrelated issues.

You didn't re-read the post did you?

I'm not a Christian and therefore I have no intention of pressing my morality on anyone so I won't be starting such a thread. I'm going to the pub soon anyway.

The point is, and you have conveniently missed it, the religious opposition to abortion has nothing to do with life or death and everything to do with saving souls. Christians are quite happy to ignore the bombs being dropped on Iraq and Afghanistan; to support the right to have guns (which are designed for the soul purpose of killing; to accept millions of deaths each year through alcohol and tobacco; why is that?

I have suggested that this is a form of human sacrifice that is acceptable to Christians. And since the souls of children go directly to heaven, why should Christians be concerned about abortion? These are souls that do not require saving. And women that abort are liable for their choices in the same way that alcoholics and smokers are for theirs.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Define "one's own interests"? Many would say that you have the right to use a gun to protect your family should your home be broken into, but few would argue that a person has the right to shoot someone who jumps ahead of them in a queue. Extreme cases but it comes down to self defence. Now if the life of the woman was at risk from continuing the pregnancy, no one would argue that a doctor shouldn't take whatever steps are necessary to save the life of the woman.

Finally, I would have thought that most people have some sense of a moral code, whether they are religious or not. The abortion debate cuts across religious lines to some extent, there are pro-choice Christians and pro-life atheists. I think people can sincerely disagree over the issue while trying to understand where the other person is coming from.

Then you disagree with prinz who stated that no Christian will support abortion which suggests that only non-Christians choose abortion.

Why don't you challenge those Christians with that view?

Finally, do you think that women who become pregnant through being raped should be condemned to motherhood?

prinz

Wh1stler wrote: »

Then you disagree with prinz who stated that no Christian will support abortion which suggests that only non-Christians choose abortion.

Actually the poster is of the very same strain of thought as myself when it comes to life saving medical treatment resulting in the death of the foetus. Perhaps you should spend more time reading the posts on this one and less time complaining about threads that don't exist.

Benny_Cake

Wh1stler wrote: »

You didn't re-read the post did you?

I'm not a Christian and therefore I have no intention of pressing my morality on anyone so I won't be starting such a thread. I'm going to the pub soon anyway.

The point is, and you have conveniently missed it, the religious opposition to abortion has nothing to do with life or death and everything to do with saving souls. Christians are quite happy to ignore the bombs being dropped on Iraq and Afghanistan; to support the right to have guns (which are designed for the soul purpose of killing; to accept millions of deaths each year through alcohol and tobacco; why is that?

I have suggested that this is a form of human sacrifice that is acceptable to Christians. And since the souls of children go directly to heaven, why should Christians be concerned about abortion? These are souls that do not require saving. And women that abort are liable for their choices in the same way that alcoholics and smokers are for theirs.

Big supposition on your part. There are huge numbers of Christians who disagree with all the positions you just mentioned. I'm anti-war, anti-gun (generally) and would support the right to drink or smoke if a person so wishes.

Wh1stler wrote: »

Then you disagree with prinz who stated that no Christian will support abortion which suggests that only non-Christians choose abortion.

Why don't you challenge those Christians with that view?

Finally, do you think that women who become pregnant through being raped should be condemned to motherhood?

Well,I'm not sure what Prinz's position is, but not all Christians agree on all issues. I would disagree with the pro-choice position but I respect freedom of belief, so I'm not going to start saying other people aren't Christian.

As to your final point, it's something I admit I struggle over - I'm unsure to be honest. I'd suggest your arguments might hold more water if you stopped stereotyping Christians as foaming at the mouth Bill O'Reilly types.

Wh1stler

prinz wrote: »

I'm sure it was.

1, A woman chooses to have an abortion because she feels unable to cope with either motherhood or the state of being pregnant.

2, A woman gives birth to a child that will suffer for two days before dying in order to perform certain rites dictated by, and satisfying the moral requirements for, her religion.

Which of the two women is more selfish; the one who prevents the suffering of a child or the one who causes the suffering of a child?

Bear in mind that to knowingly cause suffering is an act of cruelty.

And just in case you want to disagree with this, here is the definition of cruelty:

cruelty [ˈkruːəltɪ]
n pl -ties 1. deliberate infliction of pain or suffering
2. the quality or characteristic of being cruel
3. a cruel action
4. (Law) Law conduct that causes danger to life or limb or a threat to bodily or mental health, on proof of which a decree of divorce may be granted.

Wh1stler

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps you should spend more time reading the posts on this one and less time complaining about threads that don't exist.

Where did I complain?

You really do need to consult a dictionary before using words.

Wh1stler

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Big supposition on your part.

What was?

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd suggest your arguments might hold more water if you stopped stereotyping Christians as foaming at the mouth Bill O'Reilly types.

Which would be valid if I did but I don't.

marienbad

prinz wrote: »

Yes that would be disingenuous. "Protecting the psychological welfare of the mother" covers everything from 'I was drunk and got knocked up' to 'I'm afraid my boyfriend/husband/relevant other party would leave me' to 'I'm single' to 'I can't afford a baby'.



I'm against illegal dumping. Judging from the bags of rubbish that are regularly dumped at the top of the road I live on I can assume there are quite a few people with a different moral viewpoint on dumping illegally. Is the only consistent position then the legalise dumping wherever you want? I mean that would allow the maximum number of people the maximum freedom of their own personal choice on whether to dump at the side of a road, or use proper channels right? Does that actually make the slightest bit of sense to you in a society where we all have to pool some degree of personal sovereignty to live together?

Do people have different moral standpoints on theft? Assault? Vandalism? Drug abuse? Paying tax? Car insurance? Should we as a society say 'ah sure here, there are too many different standpoints... they can all do whatever they like, that gives everyone maximum freedom'?

Yes people do have different moral standpoints all over the place , but I agree with you about pooling personal sovereigity and the question is where and when we do that .

The methodology should be to limit personal freedom and choice as little as possible.

It is not so long ago where that concensus in Ireland excluded contraception as we effectively took the catholic church position as law.
Would you wish to return to that ?

The other extreme is late term abortion , I don't see anyone advocating that .

The morning after pill - would you allow that ?

prinz

Wh1stler wrote: »

You really do need to consult a dictionary before using words.

Cool story bro!

marienbad wrote: »

It is not so long ago where that concensus in Ireland excluded contraception as we effectively took the catholic church position as law.
Would you wish to return to that?

Again with contraception :rolleyes: as it happens no I wouldn't.

marienbad wrote: »

The other extreme is late term abortion , I don't see anyone advocating that.

Really? Perhaps you should read the thread, at least one poster on this thread has advocated abortion at any stage.

Benny_Cake

Wh1stler wrote: »

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Big supposition on your part.

What was?

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd suggest your arguments might hold more water if you stopped stereotyping Christians as foaming at the mouth Bill O'Reilly types.

Which would be valid if I did but I don't.

You posted:

Christians are quite happy to ignore the bombs being dropped on Iraq and Afghanistan; to support the right to have guns (which are designed for the soul purpose of killing; to accept millions of deaths each year through alcohol and tobacco; why is that?

I would hold that many, if not a majority of Christians around the world are against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and aren't gun nuts. Maybe you didn't intend to generalise but it read that way.

qrrgprgua

Wh1stler wrote: »

1, A woman chooses to have an abortion because she feels unable to cope with either motherhood or the state of being pregnant.

2, A woman gives birth to a child that will suffer for two days before dying in order to perform certain rites dictated by, and satisfying the moral requirements for, her religion.

Which of the two women is more selfish; the one who prevents the suffering of a child or the one who causes the suffering of a child?

Bear in mind that to knowingly cause suffering is an act of cruelty.

And just in case you want to disagree with this, here is the definition of cruelty:

cruelty [ˈkruːəltɪ]
n pl -ties 1. deliberate infliction of pain or suffering
2. the quality or characteristic of being cruel
3. a cruel action
4. (Law) Law conduct that causes danger to life or limb or a threat to bodily or mental health, on proof of which a decree of divorce may be granted.

Its called motherhood.. Most women would never ever kill their child not matter how handicapped they are.

I think you will find medicine has advanced in many directions dealing with pain and disability... Sadly some medics think wasting money on the disabled is a waste of time.

marienbad

prinz wrote: »

Cool story bro!



Again with contraception :rolleyes: as it happens no I wouldn't.



Really? Perhaps you should read the thread, at least one poster on this thread has advocated abortion at any stage.

One poster ? Really ? Give us a break , either discuss in good faith or lets leave it.

What about the morning after pill- would you allow that ?

prinz

marienbad wrote: »

One poster ? Really ? Give us a break , either discuss in good faith or lets leave it.

You said you didn't see anyone advocating late term abortions. I said there was a poster on this very thread who does advocate late term abortions. Physician heal theyself.

The argument about when personhood arises is irrelevant, if a woman wants a late term abortion then that should be her right and nobody else's business.

Post #544 in case you are wondering. Now perhaps you'd like to discuss things in good faith seeing as how you made the erroneous claim.

doctoremma

prinz wrote: »

I would not choose to live in a country where we slap each other on the back and cheer on our athletes in the Special Olympics, then turn around and tell pregnant women that they should abort DS babies.

Nobody tells pregnant women to abort Down syndrome babies, that's a false statement - either you have no knowledge of the ethics of genetic counselling or you have presented a rather large strawman. Women are given the option of having the test - not all accept - and talked through the results, with ALL the outcomes and possibilties. At no point will any genentic counseller recommend an abortion and if they do, they should lose their job. Down syndrome can carry dreadful risks and dangers for the baby, it's not all about the 'high-functioning Down's, as seen on TV' (sorry to sound flippant). The burden of care can be enormous and each person will feel differently about how well they can cope with that burden. Also, there will be a huge confirmation bias in correlating Down syndrome tests with the number of resultant abortions - the women asking for the tests are, almost by definition, those more likely to consider all options after the result.

In fact, the number of babies being born with Down syndrome has increased in the UK, despite positive prenatal testing. This presumably reflects how the parents see improved care options, improved education options and so forth.

prinz wrote: »

I don't want to live in a society where any type of disability carries the death sentence.

I work in Genetic Medicine and I can assure you that there are some disabilities that no child deserves to be born with (or even allowed to suffer with in the womb, before a pre- or post- birth death). I have spent much time crying during work hours at the horror of biology. Not all disabilities are necessarily problematic but some are. Anyone who thinks another person's child should suffer pain in the name of their own moral code is going to get short shrift from me.

How do you feel about embryo screening after an IVF process?

prinz wrote: »

I don't want to live in a society where we could facilitate the aborting of females because they weren't male. I don't want to live in a society, where I walk past the barbershop, the bakers, the post office, and the place where we sanitise a form of ethnic cleansing prior to birth. I don't want to live in a place that allows citizens of the country grow up knowing they are on a list somewhere that says 'Suitable for abortion' etc.

I'm sorry but this is simply hyperbole.

We don't allow gender selection and even refuse to reveal gender after a scan where it is felt it might be a problem. I see no reason why that should change.

'Ethnic cleansing' what?!? I can't see your point at all. Can you explain what you mean by this?

And lists? What lists?!?

prinz wrote: »

You don't think it's horrific that women in already traumatic circumstances are being pushed into having abortions?

To what circumstances are you referring?

prinz wrote: »

You don't think it's horrific that dozens of children in the UK are delivered alive following botched abortions and then left to die?

Well then, we talk abut the limit, no?

marienbad

prinz wrote: »

You said you didn't see anyone advocating late term abortions. I said there was a poster on this very thread who does advocate late term abortions. Physician heal theyself.



Post #544 in case you are wondering. Now perhaps you'd like to discuss things in good faith seeing as how you made the erroneous claim.

I think you are aware of my point , that they is no significant evidence for demand for late term abortion from any quarter in this country and therefore it is just a red herrring.

Now can you answer my question on the morning after pill ?

prinz

doctoremma wrote: »

Nobody tells pregnant women to abort Down syndrome babies, that's a false statement -.

I have spoken to a woman who was a recipient of this advice.

Yesterday the BBC News website ran a selection of comments on this issue by members of the public. One in particular, by Heather of Livingston, Scotland, is worth reproducing in full here: "I was told that my daughter had Down's when I was about 12 weeks pregnant and every doctor, gynaecologist I saw tried to convince me a termination was the best option. I was still offered this at 26 weeks! One reason given to me by a cold-hearted consultant was that 'these babies put a strain on the NHS'. My daughter was stillborn and when pregnant again, I refused all tests apart from a scan. It's not society who are looking for the 'perfect baby', it's the medical profession."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-shame-on-the-doctors-prejudiced-against-down-syndrome-1033813.html

Are you saying this lady is lying?

She did not expect, she says, to be told by the consultant and a nurse that she should have a termination because her child could otherwise be a ‘burden’ on society. In fact Marie and her husband spent thousands of pounds on legal fees – it wasn’t about the money but Marie wanted the medical staff to examine their procedures. She felt she’d been rushed into having a termination and didn’t want the same thing to happen to another mum.

http://sellyourstoryuk.com/2011/10/27/abortion-downs-syndrome/

This woman lying?

A baby born alive after a botched abortion at 21 weeks is among the worst cases reported in the UK. The little girl, who had Down's Syndrome, lived for three hours after being delivered. Her parents claim they were "coerced" into a termination by staff at Macclesfield District General Hospital. They were later told that their baby had not "really" been alive, even though she was clearly breathing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-512129/66-babies-year-left-die-NHS-abortions-wrong.html

doctoremma wrote: »

We don't allow gender selection and even refuse to reveal gender after a scan where it is felt it might be a problem. I see no reason why that should change.

So? All the person involved has to do is claim an abortion to safeguard her 'psychological wellbeing'. Didn't you concede that this reasoning can be used to procure and abortion for any number of actual reasons? Oops seems the boat has sailed on this one..

The clinician then asked the woman if she had considered her options, to which the woman replied: “Oh, absolutely … I can’t have it, this baby, because of the gender, so that’s just how it is …” replied the woman.
A termination was then booked for the following week.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/02/23/196535.html

doctoremma wrote: »

'Ethnic cleansing' what?!? I can't see your point at all. Can you explain what you mean by this?

As above. People having abortions on grounds of disabilities, on grounds of gender etc.

doctoremma wrote: »

And lists? What lists?!?

Who decides what exactly constitutes a 'severe foetal abnormality'?

doctoremma wrote: »

Well then, we talk abut the limit, no?

They have limits in the UK don't they? Why are dozens of babies delivered and left to die? What good was the limit to them?

Botched abortions mean that scores of babies are being born alive and left to die, an official report has revealed. A total of 66 infants survived NHS termination attempts in one year alone, it emerged.
Rather than dying at birth as was intended, they were able to breathe unaided. About half were alive for an hour, while one survived ten hours.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-512129/66-babies-year-left-die-NHS-abortions-wrong.html

Anywho, going round in circles as these threads eventually tend to do. I'll stick to my position, you'll stick to yours.