Abortion, the real Truth!! BEWARE

joseph brand

Just glanced at an article in yesterdays copy of 'The SUN', (not my kind of paper), about a letter sent in from a nurse who works in a gynaecological ward that regularly deals with late terminations.

DO not read on if faint hearted, SERIOUSLY!!


The columnist, Jane Moore, was arguing about lowering the limit from 24 to 20 weeks.

The nurse remains anonomous, so she shall be called Kay.

Kay is the single mother of a toddler. Father abandoned whilst she was pregnant. Life is tough and she is continously exhausted but she says: "I didn't for one minute consider a termination and that was solely because of my experiences at work.

Kay worked in NHS for 10 years before moving to her current post and she thought she'd seen everything. But nothing has troubled her as deply as her recent experiences.

Apparently at 20 weeks, tablets can be given to kill the foetus prior to expulsion. But at 24 weeks, the foetus is sufficiently strong enough to survive the treatment and many are born with signs of life.

"....but having cut the umbilical cord on one who survived, then had to watch him gasp for breath for ten minutes on the side of a sink before he died, that sight will haunt me for ever"

The reason given for that particular termination was that the mother's current boyfriend had a toddler son who might get jealous of a new baby.

Maybe it is because I am due to be a father this summer, that I am utterly and overly disgusted that this happens in the world today. Who the hell stands by and watches such butchery take place before their very eyes.
The mother here was no mother at all but an animal. :mad:

Shame on them all. I feel sick right now. :mad:

Chalk

the sun, the last bastion of real reporting.

what makes you think they wouldnt make that letter up to further their agenda,
it sounds like bs to me.
and as for the mothers reason, where did they gain access to those records,
from the same nurse?

yeah great, you cant trust the nurse at tha clinic to keep your confidentiality but trust the sun.

are you really sure they arent just trying to undermine what these women have a right to do?

Nevyn

At the moment the situation in the U.K. is very troublesome.

On one hand you have desperate couples having IVF and thier babies being born at 22 weeks ( 5 and 1/2 mnths where the lungs are working) and those
babies being put in ICUs and enduring an ordeal of a first year as a preme baby.

On the other 'terminations' can be carried out up until 24 weeks, in certain
circumstances, and later if there is defect or deformity.

Ideally the couples that are paying a lot of money up to 6 grand for IFV and
even more for the hospital cost for a preme baby would instead adopt
the children of the women who dont want kids and yet find themsleves in
such a predicament. But we dont live in an ideal world.

Terminations can be carried out from about 8 weeks and onwards but due
the fact we live in charming Ireland and the cost of travel a lot of women
dont or cant get to a clinic until they are 12 to 16 weeks making the whole
proceedure and recovery a lot harder.

Sleepy

Thaed wrote:

On the other 'terminations' can be carried out up until 24 mnths, in certain circumstances, and later if there is defect or deformity.

So you're saying babies come with a 15 month money back guarantee now then? :eek:

To be fair, as soon as I saw the sensationalist subject line (reminiscent of a Weekly World News headline tbh), I knew this would be someone quoting some bull$hit fluff piece in one of the tabloids.

Zulu

"what these women have a right to do" - well thats the whole debate isn't it? Do people have the right to terminate life? ...for convenience?

I personally don't think so - but hey, I'm only a guy so my opinion is irrelevant. (end sarcasm)

Lemming

"The Real Truth".

There's an unreal truth too?
So which is the truth if both are the truth? :rolleyes:

Ardent

But at 24 weeks, the foetus is sufficiently strong enough to survive the treatment and many are born with signs of life.

I'm no medical expert but I would imagine that you have signs of life long before 24 weeks. But hey, 24 weeks makes the moral pill easier to swallow for some I'm sure. No matter which way you cut it, no pun intended, it's murder and I don't see how it's any less awful at 20 weeks than it is at 24 weeks. My own humble opinion.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote:

"what these women have a right to do" - well thats the whole debate isn't it? Do people have the right to terminate life? ...for convenience?

I personally don't think so - but hey, I'm only a guy so my opinion is irrelevant. (end sarcasm)

Ummm .. difficult one .. I personally believe in early term abortions, but have issues with late term abortions. Not being religious my belief is that life starts when a human starts to become self-aware. Now this is a difficult thing to pin down, but it is clear that a handfull of cells is not self-aware.

On the other hand it has been argued that the state has no right to force a woman to carry a child, even if the child is deamed a "life" from conception, any more than the state has a right to force a person to donate organs or blood to save another person. If the child cannot survive outside the woman, the state has no right to force the woman to carry the child. You do get into the area of parental responsibility then.

Difficult one.

I do think these "shock" style campaigns are a bit silly though. What exactly did people think happened to aborted foetus? It does smack a bit of BS though. I don't think a 24 week old foetus could survive for ten minutes in a skin on its own. AFAIK the procedure kills the foetus before it is removed.

Chalk

i cba having a "moral" argument about this tbh, its been done over adn over.

in the uk they have a legal right, ok?

Beruthiel

well if the sun said it
it must be true :rolleyes:
so joseph brand, what are you saying, that we should not allow women to make a choice because it makes you feel sick?

Zulu

Beruthiel wrote:

what are you saying, that we should not allow women to make a choice because it makes you feel sick?

People should not be permitted to kill.
The fact that it makes someone sick is irrelevent.

Ardent

Beruthiel wrote:

well if the sun said it
it must be true :rolleyes:
so joseph brand, what are you saying, that we should not allow women to make a choice because it makes you feel sick?

Why do people always sidestep the issue of life and bang on about choice?

Zulu

Wicknight wrote:

my belief is that life starts when a human starts to become self-aware. Now this is a difficult thing to pin down, but it is clear that a handfull of cells is not self-aware.

What if a person was to lose their perception of self-awarness due to an accident. Would it be ok to kill them?

On the other hand it has been argued that the state has no right to force a woman to carry a child, even if the child is deamed a "life" from conception,

A society should have the morality to protect it's citizens.

If the child cannot survive outside the woman, the state has no right to force the woman to carry the child. You do get into the area of parental responsibility then.

indeed. It's a child. It's not an issue of forcing a woman to carry her child. It's about not helping people kill their child.

I do think these "shock" style campaigns are a bit silly though.

We'll both agree on that, it demeans the whole issue imo.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I've been down this road once before on roads (and should have learned my lesson! ). It's an issue that people seem to be either completly for or against. For the record, while I would tend to agree on the whole "self-awareness", I drew my line with the morning after pill. I just can't agree with abortion.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote:

What if a person was to lose their perception of self-awarness due to an accident. Would it be ok to kill them?

We do, all the time. People who are brain dead often have life support turned off, when it has become they will never regain conscienceness

Zulu wrote:

A society should have the morality to protect it's citizens.

Well the argument goes, and it isn't my argument, that we do not have the right to force another person to give up bodily privacy to save another life. For example if you were going to die without one of my kidneys you still cannot force me to give you it. I could let you die, and it would be a horrible thing, but it is still within my right to do so. So it goes, the mother has the right to remove the baby from her body, if the baby cannot survive then that is horrible but within the rights of the mother to do so.

Zulu wrote:

indeed. It's a child. It's not an issue of forcing a woman to carry her child. It's about not helping people kill their child.

Well in countries that outlaw abortion, the issue is forcing a woman to carry her child. If a woman terminates her pregnency she is punished by law. So in effect the state forces the woman to use her body to sustain the life of another. (like I said, that isn't my argument, but it is an argument for abortion). But at the same time the state forces parents to look after their children, even if the children are a burden on them. So that would be a counter argument to the idea that the state cannot force a woman to give up her body for another life, even if the life is her child.

An interesting question is, is it illegal (parental negligence) for a parent to refuse to give blood or other biological needs to their child? Can the state force a parent to give a child a kidney under the idea of parental neglisgence?

Beruthiel

Zulu wrote:

People should not be permitted to kill.

don't even think that deserves a response

ardent wrote:

Why do people always sidestep the issue of life and bang on about choice?

there is no issue side stepped
what a woman decides to do with her own body with regards to this subject, is not your or my business

Zulu

Wicknight wrote:

Well the argument goes, and it isn't my argument, that we do not have the right to force another person to give up bodily privacy to save another life. For example if you were going to die without one of my kidneys you still cannot force me to give you it.

You see, the thing is: nature didn't intend us to be giving away kidneys willy-nilly. Animals, for example don't give them away. It's only through very serious surgery that it can be done. On the other hand, nature did intend women to have children.

I don't like the idea of the state punishing people for doing it, but I don't think it should be encouraged.

That story about the couple who had a late abortion because the child was going to have a cleft palate for example was dispicable.

Perhaps if women could have an abortion - but had to surrender their womb... (he says plummeting from the sky in flames!)

Zulu

Beruthiel wrote:

what a woman decides to do with her own body with regards to this subject, is not your or my business

What if I decide to kill somebody with my body, say if I sit on a child. That ok then? ...well not a child - a baby. ...well not a baby - just a new born baby, that ok then?

*Page*

You Joseph brand are the evil person. Some woman may have to do this. This may not be the ideal out come. But stuff happens in life..

Leave the poor woman alone, and stop calling them animals.. The only person that is sick is you for regurgitating this bile!

Nevyn

Zulu wrote:

It's about not helping people kill their child.

Abortion is not new, infact the medical herioglyphs show egyption practices
for carrying out abortions.

As long as there had been men and women there have been unwanted pregnacies and women finding ways to resolve the matter.

At least this need is being dealt with as a health issue and has moved beyong
a coat hanger or dirty knife and folding table for a lot of women.

But with eimgration into this country being a new thing it is well known that
women that can not travel out of the country for fear of not being allowed back in are turning to back street abortionist and things are going to get a
lot worse for the already limited oby/gyn services here.

Ardent

Wicknight wrote:

We do, all the time. People who are brain dead often have life support turned off, when it has become they will never regain conscienceness

There are other examples of loss of perception or self-awarness other than being merely brain-dead.

Well the argument goes...the mother has the right to remove the baby from her body, if the baby cannot survive then that is horrible but within the rights of the mother to do so.

I don't think the aim of abortion is to remove the baby from the mother's body in the hope that it might survive.

Well in countries that outlaw abortion, the issue is forcing a woman to carry her child. If a woman terminates her pregnency she is punished by law. So in effect the state forces the woman to use her body to sustain the life of another. (like I said, that isn't my argument, but it is an argument for abortion). But at the same time the state forces parents to look after their children, even if the children are a burden on them.

Which countries outlaw abortion while at the same time outlawing adoption?

Beruthiel

Zulu wrote:

What if I decide to kill somebody with my body, say if I sit on a child. That ok then? ...well not a child - a baby. ...well not a baby - just a new born baby, that ok then?

what if the sky was pink instead of blue?

lomb

Zulu wrote:

What if I decide to kill somebody with my body, say if I sit on a child. That ok then? ...well not a child - a baby. ...well not a baby - just a new born baby, that ok then?

nothing is morally right or morally wrong just what we think is (or society). its all in the mind at the end of the day. valueing a human life above that of say a bacteria is just nonsense the fact that someone distinguishes is just a take on it , life is life that is the only known.

Lemming

Zulu wrote:

On the other hand, nature did intend women to have children.

You are overlooking an important point here which I don't recall ever having seen raised on boards before with regards abortion and/or childbirth. Whilst childbirth is part of nature in so far as women are biologically capable of it, it is not "perfectly natural" so to speak (bear with me here) and carries a high degree of risk for both mother and unborn, even though it occurs within nature.

Nature isn't forgiving....

Perhaps if women could have an abortion - but had to surrender their womb... (he says plummeting from the sky in flames!)

You'd be about right on that plummeting from the sky in flames bit Zulu ...

At the end of the day, the option to proceed with an abortion is a deeply intimate and personal issue between the two people involved in inception. Nobody else has the right to tell them what to do in that regard. And that, as they say, is final. Anything else is to force one of society's most grave responsibilities upon someone who may not be ready for it. A child is not a fashion accessory or something "cute" to fawn over for 5 minutes before handing it back.

*Page*

what about the people that cannot afford to have a baby in this day in age?

you know if a working woman gets pregnant she might loose her child?
what if there are other factors.. quality of life. what if the parents cant give a child a sutible up bringing. adoption for som woman isn't always the best soultion think about the mental affect on the child!!

we do not live in a perfect world but abortion's have been happening back to BC, I not saying its right, but i certanly not saying its wrong!!!

who gives you the say to tell another human how they should live their lives?

Ardent

Beruthiel wrote:

what a woman decides to do with her own body with regards to this subject, is not your or my business

That's a flat out stupid thing to say. What if that woman was my wife, for example, or my daughter? Would it be my business then? Even if I was opposed to killing a life or simply wanted a daughter/son/grand-daughter/grand-son, heyyyy it's her choice! Whatever she wants to do with her own body is none of my business so it must be ok.

*Page*

it is none of your business if your of age children, get pregnant, or pierce or tattoo themselves or even have abortions!!!!

lomb

Ardent wrote:

That's a flat out stupid thing to say. What if that woman was my wife, for example, or my daughter? Would it be my business then? Even if I was opposed to killing a life or simply wanted a daughter/son/grand-daughter/grand-son, heyyyy it's her choice! Whatever she wants to do with her own body is none of my business so it must be ok.

that goes back to my statement whether its wrong or not to take any life. we kill life everyday when we wash our hands or spray dettol on our worktops is this wrong? who knows?
the fact is it doesnt matter if u are taking a life of anything as long as it is not ur own or affects u in someway physically/emotionally/financially. the world is teeming with life and death.

society deems abortions upto a a certain term acceptable and legal so that is all that matters legally, it is for each mother and partner to make up their own minds

Zombrex

Ardent wrote:

There are other examples of loss of perception or self-awarness other than being merely brain-dead.

Such as? Even a very mentally disabled person still is conscience, still can think, if not on the same level as humans with fully functioning brains. But I think you would get a fair few objections if you claimed that serverly mentally disabled people are not conscience or self-aware (ie down graded to the mental level we regard lower animals)

My point was that once the brain begins to fully develop, once there is a possibility that the baby is actually beginning to process information and becoming self-aware (ie. think) then I start to have issues with abortion, because I define human life as being the thoughts and emotions of the person, not their physical body. A persons arm doesn't have right to life if seperate from their body. I have no moral issues with early term abortions because the handful of cells destroyed are not, in my view, a human life.

Ardent wrote:

I don't think the aim of abortion is to remove the baby from the mother's body in the hope that it might survive.

I never said it was.

Ardent wrote:

Which countries outlaw abortion while at the same time outlawing adoption?

Who said anything about adoption? I am talking about it being illegal kick your child out of the car up the Dublin mountains and say off you go.

Gurgle

Lemming wrote:

and carries a high degree of risk for both mother and unborn, even though it occurs within nature.

True, in 3rd world countries.
Not true in the developed world.
With the variety and availability of contraception available today, there is no excuse for abortion.
The only 'optional' abortions I see any justification for are pregnancies from rape. Otherwise, you if play the game you have to accept the prize. If you don't want to keep it, give it to one of the thousands of couples in Ireland who do.

Lemming

Ardent wrote:

That's a flat out stupid thing to say. What if that woman was my wife, for example, or my daughter? Would it be my business then? Even if I was opposed to killing a life or simply wanted a daughter/son/grand-daughter/grand-son, heyyyy it's her choice! Whatever she wants to do with her own body is none of my business so it must be ok.

Your wife notwithstanding (and even then not necessarily), you are absolutely correct in saying that it is none of your business.

Your wants do not dictate that any child of yours should be forced to bear such a grave responsibility. To imlpy otherwise is quite simply being very very selfish and childish.

BuffyBot

I do love the "It's evil, we must stop it" brigade. Be realistic, it's a practice which will live on in some shape or form as long as the human race does. Putting it back in the back-alleys helps no one.

As for the "what if it's my X" argument, it's is the choice of the individual carrying the child in the eventuality. If the father is around, all well and good his input needs to be sought - but the casual wants of a family member who "wants" new relative isn't a good enough reason to have a child on it's own. The ability to care for, and provide a reasonable future for the child onthe part of the primary caregiver (most likely the mother in these situations) is a lot more important.