Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion

1…3031333536…38

Comments

  • #962
    Khannie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    Malari wrote: »
    I meant her life is more important - and what she chooses to do with it.

    Ah, I think what you mean is her comfort, not her life then.


  • #963
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Malari wrote: »
    I meant her life is more important - and what she chooses to do with it.
    Oh right. I get you. And I don't agree for reasons already pointed out: people are equal regardless of their age.


  • #964
    Malari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    Khannie wrote: »
    Ah, I think what you mean is her comfort, not her life then.
    Zulu wrote: »
    Well, it's not her "life" at stake. We aren't talking about life & death pregnancy.

    No we are talking about her life. Her life is more important than the right to live of the unborn. What she chooses to do in her life! Am I not making myself clear? :confused:


  • #965
    cynder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    What has your house got to do with the kids you imagined? You brought the kids into this, not me. You imagine they would not damage spawn because of their subjective love for frogs. I am just pointing out that this is not a useful basis for suggesting anything about abortion. Especially given the lack of internal coherence to the position of those children.... who would happily chow down on baby sheep and deer.

    I repeat though, if you want to base your adult moral opinions on abortion in the imagined actions of children then perhaps this explains much.



    Many things feel wrong to me too. So I simply do not engage in them. However there is a chasm of difference between something being wrong for me, and me espousing that it should be considered wrong in and of itself. There is a divide there that I think we should be aware of.

    If you live your life avoiding abortions because they are wrong to you then that is fine with me. I am not about to argue that you support them or have one. That is up to you.

    However in a discussion forum we more often talk about things being wrong for other people. Wrong in and of themselves. Maybe even arguing that they should be illegal. As such I think if you come on to a forum espousing positions against abortion you should not be surprised if people want something a little more than "It feels wrong to me" or "Kids dont like to squish frog spawn" as an argument.

    If you want to come on to a forum and simply say "I dont like abortion, its wrong to me" then that is fine. People still are going to respond against you however and there is no reason they should not. We can moan "It is my opinion, leave me alone" but it is a discussion forum and if you put your opinion out there, it is fair game. And if you really care about your positions then perhaps it is at least worth asking if you are representing them well, or letting them down, by soap boxing and then back peddling or moaning when people pull them apart.


    Im not here to change anyone's mind, i stated that i dont agree with abortion, for many different reasons.

    Do i have to go through them all over again????

    It will bring us back to the whole when is the unborn baby entitled to a life? After conception, Implantation, When it has a heart beat, When its viable 22-24 weeks or When its out of the womb and breathes air. That for each person is different.

    Doesn't matter how many facts/figures/analogies/scientific terms are shoved in our faces, or how many times we twist what the other person says, out positions dont change.


  • #966
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Malari wrote: »
    No we are talking about her life. Her life is more important than the right to live of the unborn. What she chooses to do in her life! Am I not making myself clear? :confused:
    Yeah, but I take it you don't agree with infanticide?
    What I can't reconcile is, why doesn't this apply to "born" children?


  • Advertisement
  • #967
    Malari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    Zulu wrote: »
    Yeah, but I take it you don't agree with infanticide?
    What I can't reconcile is, why doesn't this apply to "born" children?

    Because once they are born the woman is no longer pregnant and her life isn't directly affected.


  • #968
    Khannie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    Malari wrote: »
    Because once they are born the woman is no longer pregnant and her life isn't directly affected.

    You have to draw the line somewhere and give the unborn priority. I assume you wouldn't allow her to abort the child as she entered labour. Where do you draw the line and decide that the infant takes priority and why?


  • #969
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Malari wrote: »
    Because once they are born the woman is no longer pregnant and her life isn't directly affected.
    Don't say that to parents!

    Sure it is, the child is completely helpless. It requires constant attention.


  • #970
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Zulu wrote: »
    Similarly, you claiming to have done so is not synonymous to you actually having done so.

    No, but my actually doing so is.
    Zulu wrote: »
    right, I must have misinterpreted: My bad.

    You did, and it is. I hope my clarification helped you somewhat though. I will re-clarify it here however:

    1) No I do not want to silence him. In fact I think it useful that he represents his position so weakly as it makes that position look bad which plays to me and my ends.
    2) No I do not want to silence him. I am genuinely interested in hearing the arguments against abortion if people have any to present. Alas none appear to be forthcoming, much less from either of you.
    3) And no I do not want to silence him. However I think it gentlemanly and honest to at least suggest to him he might be well to at least consider point 1). I am happy for him not to, but I consider it at least polite and honest to give him a heads up all the same.


  • #971
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    cynder wrote: »
    Im not here to change anyone's mind, i stated that i dont agree with abortion, for many different reasons. Do i have to go through them all over again????

    You do not _have_ to do anything of the sort and no one is suggesting you do. I am just suggesting that you might want to consider whether you do those positions more harm than good by soap boxing them but copping out of defending them with lines like " i cant produce any facts, its a personal belife, i dont wish to change anyones mind, its my view.". Does it not risk making some readers see that and think your position indefensible, weak and unsubstantiated?

    Not trying to silence you as Zulu suggests, in fact I am HAPPY for you to make your position look indefensible, weak and unsubstantiated. I just thought you might appreciate the heads up as food for thought. If not then simply disregard what I said and move on. All the same to me really.
    cynder wrote: »
    It will bring us back to the whole when is the unborn baby entitled to a life? After conception, Implantation, When it has a heart beat, When its viable 22-24 weeks or When its out of the womb and breathes air. That for each person is different.

    Indeed that is the crux of the entire debate in my view. And yet it does appear to be different for each person. That is why if we are going to have an open discourse on the subject it is worth presenting arguments for each position so we can all come to a conclusion together. That is why I was pointing out that coming here and saying "X is my position because it just is and I cant back it up" does not really help here.
    cynder wrote: »
    Doesn't matter how many facts/figures/analogies/scientific terms are shoved in our faces, or how many times we twist what the other person says, out positions dont change.

    Speak for yourself. I change my positions whenever someone makes a good argument for doing so. If YOU want to admit you never change your positions despite the arguments and evidence presented to you then so be it. But do not presume to speak for anyone else when you do so. Many of us are more than willing to change our positions when the arguments and data compel us to do so!


  • Advertisement
  • #972
    Khannie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I am genuinely interested in hearing the arguments against abortion if people have any to present. Alas none appear to be forthcoming, much less from either of you.

    What a load of nonsense. Go back and read through the thread if you need to.


  • #973
    Malari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    Zulu wrote: »
    Don't say that to parents!

    Sure it is, the child is completely helpless. It requires constant attention.

    No, but you know what I'm saying! :) A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant - her rights, in my and other's opinion - trump the right of the unborn. So if she doesn't want to be pregnant why would she wait till labour to abort? That doesn't make any sense. Her pregnancy is over then.


  • #974
    cynder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    LyndaMcL wrote: »
    Any links to a medical journal, clarifying this? It completely over-rides what I was taught in college and what my GP told me when I questioned her.


    http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/8/1771

    Heres one!


    Quote

    To assess early embryonic growth and development, 361
    pregnancies were studied from 34 to 56 days from last
    menstrual period.     All pregnancies had a subsequent
    successful outcome. Transvaginal ultrasonograpby was performed
    using an Acuson 128 X P/10 with a 5-7.5 MHz
    probe. Gestational sac diameter, embryonic pole length
    and embryonic heart rates were measured. Embryonic
    heart rates were determined by M-mode. Gestational sac
    diameter, embryonic pole length and embryonic heart rate
    increased linearly relative to gestational age and to each
    other. Regression equations comparing gestational sac diameter
    and embryonic pole length as well as comparing
    embryonic heart rate with gestational sac diameter and
    embryonic pole length were constructed. To be normal,
    gestations that have (i) sac diameter of 20 mm and 30 mm
    should contain at least a 2 mm and 5 mm embryo with
    embryonic heart rates of at least 75 and 100 beats per min,
    respectively;     and (ii) embryos measuring 2 mm, 5 mm,
    10 mm and 15 mm should display embryonic heart rates
    of at least 75,100,120 and 130 beats per minute respectively


  • #975
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Khannie wrote: »
    What a load of nonsense. Go back and read through the thread if you need to.

    Followed it since the start. Re-read not required. I have also taken the time to go off line and approach many people on the issue and been similarly disappointed.

    For example the people who set up those stalls near Central Bank in Dublin with all the photos of developing and aborted fetuses. I sat down with a few of them there one day trying to get into their arguments. I exaggerate not at all when I tell you all they said to me was "Look at the pictures... have you seen the pictures.... but the pictures.....".

    I was all ready to hear their side of the argument and the single thing they were capable of offering me was to wave photographs of a fetus under my nose.


  • #976
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Malari wrote: »
    A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant - her rights, in my and other's opinion - trump the right of the unborn.
    I can't agree with this. To me it's tantamount to: "I don't want to be lumbered with caring for my parent suffering from dementia, so my right to a convenient life trumps their right to life." I can't agree with that.
    So if she doesn't want to be pregnant why would she wait till labour to abort?
    Why? Well the "why" is easy: because her childs life depends on it.
    That doesn't make any sense.
    To me, it make no sense not being able to recognise that. :(


  • #977
    cynder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    You do not _have_ to do anything of the sort and no one is suggesting you do. !


    Are you a doctor?


  • #978
    Lingua Franca
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭Lingua Franca


    cynder wrote: »
    Doesn't matter how many facts/figures/analogies/scientific terms are shoved in our faces, or how many times we twist what the other person says, out positions dont change.

    Actually, mine did. Many years ago, in response to an internet forum thread almost like this one (it was an actual discussion with real arguments, not an anti choice soapbox full of vicious slurs and half baked thoughts).


  • #979
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    cynder wrote: »
    Are you a doctor?

    Not sure how my career is relevant to the conversation?


  • #980
    Malari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    Zulu wrote: »
    I can't agree with this. To me it's tantamount to: "I don't want to be lumbered with caring for my parent suffering from dementia, so my right to a convenient life trumps their right to life." I can't agree with that.

    Well I get why you don't agree, but I don't think that's a fair analogy because you don't have any legal requirement to care for a parent with dementia. But I do think if you are unlucky enough to become pregnant despite using contraception appropriate your right to terminate is more important that the right of that foetus to live. I guess we'll never agree on that.
    Zulu wrote: »
    Why? Well the "why" is easy: because her childs life depends on it.
    To me, it make no sense not being able to recognise that. :(

    No, I'm asking if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant and wants to abort it will be done as quickly as possible - why are you asking about 9 month abortions? Why would she wait till that point if she wants an abortion. Your answer is "because her child's life depends on it?" :confused:


  • #981
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Malari wrote: »
    No, I'm asking if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant and wants to abort it will be done as quickly as possible - why are you asking about 9 month abortions?
    No, I got that. I wasn't talking about 9 month abortions in that post.


  • Advertisement
  • #982
    cynder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Not sure how my career is relevant to the conversation?

    Just wondering if your point of view is from medical studies? or medical journals?

    Did you do in depth research?


  • #983
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Lingua Franca wrote: »
    ...an anti choice soapbox full of vicious slurs and half baked thoughts).
    :rolleyes:
    I think your post successfully proves that the slurs come from both sides.


  • #984
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    cynder wrote: »
    Just wondering if your point of view is from medical studies? or medical journals? Did you do in depth research?

    I have done and continue to do so. I have a great interest in human ethics, philosophy, morality, medicine, psychology, psychiatry and more. I would not use past tense about my research like you do. My research is continuous and on going and I try to read as many papers on the subject, and consider as many arguments and view points as I possibly can on the subject.

    I consider none of my positions or opinions or knowledge "closed" on any subject and will happily change them at any time if new arguments or data I did not previously know / consider come to light.

    I hope that answers your question?


  • #985
    Lingua Franca
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭Lingua Franca


    Zulu wrote: »
    :rolleyes:
    I think your post successfully proves that the slurs come from both sides.

    :confused: I never said they didn't.

    What's your point?


  • #986
    Khannie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Followed it since the start. Re-read not required. I have also taken the time to go off line and approach many people on the issue and been similarly disappointed.

    For example the people who set up those stalls near Central Bank in Dublin with all the photos of developing and aborted fetuses. I sat down with a few of them there one day trying to get into their arguments. I exaggerate not at all when I tell you all they said to me was "Look at the pictures... have you seen the pictures.... but the pictures.....".

    I was all ready to hear their side of the argument and the single thing they were capable of offering me was to wave photographs of a fetus under my nose.

    These are weak arguments. I wouldn't be a big fan of any extremism in this debate or in general. I certainly wouldn't resort to waving pictures of foetuses at people. I think you're likely to get very poor or horrifically biased arguments from those at the fringe (i.e. people waving foetus pictures around or shouting from the rooftops about enforced pregnancy).

    For me it is relatively simple:

    Everyone agrees that there is a point during the pregnancy when the priority shifts to that of the life of the child, so let's look at that.

    I think it's fair to say that not even the most extreme of those in favour of abortion on demand would argue that a woman should have the right to terminate up until term (i.e. just before birth) but nobody's crying for the sperm in the condom either (unless you're mental or very attached to your sperm). So we all agree that there's a line somewhere. To me any line that is drawn in other countries where abortion is legal is arbitrary in nature because it's based on time. 24 weeks? Seems very late to me - The child doesn't change that much between 24 and 40 weeks (birth), so why is it OK then but not at 39 weeks? 18 weeks? The child hasn't changed that much versus 24 weeks really. We had a "big" scan at 18 weeks and the level of development is impressive. Individual chambers in the heart, clearly discernible major organs, fully formed spine and so on. It's human to me / not that different when compared to a newborn.

    So from this point I go back one day in time and I say "is this the day when an abortion should be ok?" "what is so fundamentally different today that criminal proceedings would occur versus one day later?" and the answer is, on most days "nothing". This is why time based arguments are poor IMO. Some days bring exceptional change - fertilisation, implantation, heart begins beating. I could understand arguments based around these times (while not necessarily agreeing with them), but they're all way, way earlier than anyone who is pro-choice would say is a reasonable cut off point for abortion.

    Much like you, nobody has given me a good reason for allowing abortion up to 12 weeks, but not 11 weeks 6 days or 12 weeks and 1 day. I have yet to hear a good argument based on those date based lines in the sand that pro-choice people want to draw.


  • #987
    cynder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I have done and continue to do so. I have a great interest in human ethics, philosophy, morality, medicine, psychology, psychiatry and more. I would not use past tense about my research like you do. My research is continuous and on going and I try to read as many papers on the subject, and consider as many arguments and view points as I possibly can on the subject.

    I consider none of my positions or opinions or knowledge "closed" on any subject and will happily change them at any time if new arguments or data I did not previously know / consider come to light.

    I hope that answers your question?

    Just on abortion?
    Is there more to life than just researching abortion and to what end?

    You wouldn't even look at pictures of an aborted fetus, im not one for shoving pics into ones face, there are there to get an emotional response. did you have an emotional response? of course you did! did you look or did you push them away? pictures are research to! they are hard evidence! you must know the procedures so by rights you should want to see the end result to see if it matches up to the description given in the medical journals. morbid curiosity! Most journals are written without emotion, they are factual. It may have arms and legs and look human, yet is not? did your research include anything about the right to life of an unborn child? possible pain? what is the latest at which you would consider abortion ok and why?


  • #988
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    Did anyone see this Dublin declaraton?
    N INTERNATIONAL symposium on maternal healthcare in Dublin at the weekend has concluded that abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother.

    Eamon O’Dwyer, professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynaecology at NUI Galway and a conference organiser, said its outcome would provide “clarity and confirmation” to doctors and legislators dealing with these issues.

    The symposium was organised by the Committee for Excellence in Maternal Healthcare, chaired by Prof O’Dwyer. Other members of the committee include Dr John Monaghan, Dr John Greene and palliative care nurse specialist Sinéad Dennehy.

    While many of the organisers have been involved in anti-abortion events in the past, a spokesman for the group, Dr Eoghan de Faoite, told The Irish Times the event was not linked in any way to the Pro-Life Campaign or any other organisation.

    “All organisers were involved in their professional capacity and were not here to represent any pro-life position,” he said.

    About 140 medical professionals were at the event, including experts in obstetrics and gynaecology, mental health and molecular biology. They presented new research on issues surrounding maternal healthcare, with a focus on high-risk pregnancies, cancer in pregnancy, foetal anomalies, mental health and maternal mortality.

    Prof O’Dwyer and a panel of speakers also formally agreed a “Dublin declaration” on maternal healthcare. It stated: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

    “We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

    “We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

    In a statement, Prof O’Dwyer also said no treatment should ever be withheld from a woman if she needed it to save her life, even if that treatment resulted in the loss of life of her unborn child.

    Its important but it doesn't seem to be getting the publicity it deserves. Especially compared to all the columns and editorials about why abortion is needed, written by typically jack of all trades journalists. Its sad when the people who actually know stuff get insufficient media attention.


  • #989
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Khannie wrote: »
    These are weak arguments. I wouldn't be a big fan of any extremism in this debate or in general. I certainly wouldn't resort to waving pictures of foetuses at people. I think you're likely to get very poor or horrifically biased arguments from those at the fringe (i.e. people waving foetus pictures around or shouting from the rooftops about enforced pregnancy).

    I was afraid of that too but I thought I would at least give them the benefit of the doubt. I had hoped when I approached them that the pictures were there to draw people in and THEN they would hit them with the arguments and data and evidence and reasoning. So I approached them myself to find out.

    But no, the pictures really is their whole point. No more, no less. I could literally get nothing out of any of them more than the pictures and their emotional response to the pictures.

    Heart Bypass surgery is not pretty either. I wonder if I showed them pictures of how unpretty it is would they then rally against the procedure and its morality too? Caricature maybe I admit, but one I can be forgiven for drawing given how they operate those stalls.
    Khannie wrote: »
    nobody's crying for the sperm in the condom either

    I always try when I write on forums to avoid the words "Nobody" and "everybody" because it is invariably wrong. In fact I have encountered quite a number of Catholics who very much do have an issue with sperm lost in condoms.
    Khannie wrote: »
    So from this point I go back one day in time and I say "is this the day when an abortion should be ok?" "what is so fundamentally different today that criminal proceedings would occur versus one day later?"

    Indeed, I also wonder how useful this approach is given that day to day changes are so slight. It would be like trying to pick the point red becomes purple on a rainbow.

    The issue is that legally we do need to draw a line in the sand. This "no True scotsman" approach can be used no matter what time frame you pick. 2 weeks, 20, 40, you can always ask "What about the day before/after that"??

    So I would not reject time based conclusions entirely just because of that. None of them will be perfect and the only other option is an all or nothing approach of reject abortion entirely at any stage.... or allow it at any stage.

    All we can do is pick the BEST time we can. For me I think that is around 16 weeks. Not only because I think there are strong arguments for this... but ALSO because it fits what the abortion seeking public actually _want_.

    The reason I say that is due to these figures here which show that 88% of abortions occur before 12 weeks and well over 90 by 16 weeks. 58% of the remaining 12% say they wish they had it earlier too.

    So while my arguments for 16 weeks are actually applicable to 20 I think it is overkill to fight for 20. 12-16 somewhere would be a sensible figure for me I think as it matches what the actual demand is and is also subjectively easier to defend against people who get antsy the higher the cut off limit goes.


  • #990
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    cynder wrote: »
    Just on abortion?
    Is there more to life than just researching abortion and to what end?

    No. I am interested in those areas of study as a whole, not just applied to abortion.
    cynder wrote: »
    You wouldn't even look at pictures of an aborted fetus

    Huh? When did I ever say that? You are making stuff up now. I have looked at many such pictures and still do on many an occasion.
    cynder wrote: »
    did you have an emotional response? of course you did!

    Not really. I had my standard response to the sight of blood which many people have. Other than that I can think of no emotional response other than awe at the processes of nature and disappointment at the poor level of arguments being offered by anti abortion activists.
    cynder wrote: »
    possible pain? what is the latest at which you would consider abortion ok and why?

    At the very latest I am technically ok with the 24 week cut off but at that point it starts to become somewhat unclear as to what, if any, subjective experience the fetus is capable of.

    I tend to target 20 weeks as my upper cut off when I write about it. If I had to nail my colors to the mast and fight for something I would likely target 16 weeks as a happy medium.

    As for pain, no at these stages I do not see any reason to think the fetus feels any. There are autonomic responses of course which anti abortion activists fall over themselves in their keenness to miscontrue as the fetus feeling pain, but other than that I am not aware of any reason to think they feel any before 20 weeks, let alone 16 or 12.


  • Advertisement
  • #991
    cynder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    No. I am interested in those areas of study as a whole, not just applied to abortion.



    Huh? When did I ever say that? You are making stuff up now. I have looked at many such pictures and still do on many an occasion.



    Not really. I had my standard response to the sight of blood which many people have. Other than that I can think of no emotional response other than awe at the processes of nature and disappointment at the poor level of arguments being offered by anti abortion activists.



    At the very latest I am technically ok with the 24 week cut off but at that point it starts to become somewhat unclear as to what, if any, subjective experience the fetus is capable of.

    I tend to target 20 weeks as my upper cut off when I write about it. If I had to nail my colors to the mast and fight for something I would likely target 16 weeks as a happy medium.

    As for pain, no at these stages I do not see any reason to think the fetus feels any. There are autonomic responses of course which anti abortion activists fall over themselves in their keenness to miscontrue as the fetus feeling pain, but other than that I am not aware of any reason to think they feel any before 20 weeks, let alone 16 or 12.

    Your interested in biology/human body and you cant look at blood?

    To get to know the in depth workings of the body you have to see blood, its not just written work its visual too, videos, photos, hands on, watching people get cut up and organs removed, watching operations, its fascinating. You cant research something thoroughly and not use visual aids.




    Havent read the link, won't comment further till i do!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement