Right to Life

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Spilt from Embryo research topic ~Griffin

You split my comments which WERE about the end-results of embronic research into right-to-life?

I split at the point where the thread started drifting again back into questions pertaining to right to life type ideas.

The end-results of the envisaged embryo research is treatments for disease.



edit oh woops I hit modify instead of quote. Sorry Bob. Repost if you can remember what you said.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Well that explains my question.

[Griffin NoName]

Actually, to be entirely fair to Bob, I had to decide where the drift started. It was hard to split further down than Bob's thread without losing the thread of the debate, which is why I split it at Bob's, though the drift wasn't obvious til later, the source of drift was in Bob's tho he wasn't so much drifting.....

I am quite happy for Bob to repost his post in embryo thread again .... as it was covering both areas..... ie. same post in both threads....  ***

...just shows how the drift happens...... well it shows how I see it drifting.....


*** I'd copy it for you Bob, but then it would show as my post not yours...

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Actually, to be entirely fair to Bob, I had to decide where the drift started. It was hard to split further down than Bob's thread without losing the thread of the debate, which is why I split it at Bob's, though the drift wasn't obvious til later, the source of drift was in Bob's tho he wasn't so much drifting.....

I am quite happy for Bob to repost his post in embryo thread again .... as it was covering both areas..... ie. same post in both threads....  ***

...just shows how the drift happens...... well it shows how I see it drifting.....


*** I'd copy it for you Bob, but then it would show as my post not yours...

I ain't mad or even remotely upset. No, really! 

I was just confused, is all.

But, that ought to be old hat-- I'm easily confused.

[Sibling Chatty]

But, that ought to be old hat-- I'm easily confused.

Oh, NOOOOEZ!! I'm contagious...

[Griffin NoName]

Having spent hours listening to all forms of argument surrounding right to life today (see politics) I'll extract the bits that interested me.

Argument One - Viability - the scientists say no progress has been made in the last 18 years to alter the viability of a fetus (baby) (arguments about which to call it) from 24 weeks (current UK cut off for abortion, set 18 years ago) - viability at 22-23 weeks gestation is around 7%-8% and hasn't altered.

Arguments were put forward that the research (two studies) that produced these figures most recently was inaccurate - if they had looked solely at hospitals with the best neonatal equipment, viability would be shown to be greater earlier.

Of course, the fact is there are very few "best" and no realistic likelihood of more. Women in labour often now find nearest or local hospitals have no beds and they get sent all over the place. Anywhere there's a bed.

Argument Two - diagnosis of some disablities isn't made until 18-22 weeks. Reducing from cut off at 24 weeks for abortion would reduce the time for difficult decisions and make it impossible to have a choice for some. Especially since it often takes two weeks to get an abortion after the decision is made.

Argument Three - often the most vulnerable who have late abortions, and is also a very low percentage of total abortions.

Argument Four - Pain - when does a fetus (baby) begin to feel pain? Research is making progress on this.

Argument Five - Professionals - NHS doctors "appear" to refuse to carry out abortions after 16 weeks. All abortions after 16 weeks are farmed out to private agencies. In all the private agencies carrying out abortions in the UK, there only two doctors who are British citizens; all others are from abroad.

Argument Six - Why are fetuses (babies) (late abortions) given lethal injections into the heart in the womb if they aren't "alive" or "viable". (apparent answer seems to be standard procedures introduced after some aborted babies were found to be able to breathe for six or seven minutes).

Argument Seven - The embryo research bill will mean viability will improve so legislate now (um wot yeh we may get to mars so start packing now).

Argument Eight - One year olds aren't independently viable (I really liked that one).

Argument Nine - 3/4 of women want abortion stopped   (WHAT??? where does that one come from>>>>>>>>> two different MPs both made this claim).

Argument Ten - getting an abortion in the Uk is like going to the hairdressers. (I liked this one too LOL).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What did not crop up in the debate:

1. Why not make abortion freely available until the moment of Birth having happened at which point someone other than the fetus breeder can look after it?

2. Pain?  Give it pain killers. Explain about the beer volcano. If it understands, don't allow the abortion.

3. Why even debate changing abortion limits given the baby is UNWANTED given that significant numbers of children live in abject poverty?  Especially, why should this particular bunch of people debate it when they are responsible for not lifting all chidlren out of poverty? (ditto, parents on street drugs, neglect, abuse etc etc).

4. Why even debate changing abortion limits given the baby is UNWANTED given that significant numbers of the elderly live in conditions worse than animals are allowed to? Especially, why should this particular bunch of people debate it when they are responsible for it. Right to a start to Life?  NOT before we have a right to an END to Life - living with quality or being allowed to choose to be put out of our misery. How can anyone debate the start of life without including in the debate the end to life? Why have log jams at both ends?

5. Tell people the truth about what it is like to be a single parent looking after a severely handicapped child. Telling them what State and Charitable help is available is meaningless without the living recorded daily life of being a single carer - the good, the bad. THEN they can make a properly informed choice.

6. Why assume the unborm child wants to be born? How the hell do they know?

7. Why assume the Right to Life is more important than what a very severely disabled child might experience as a living hell? How do they know?

8. Incorporate the discussion on SATS and Incapacity and Disability Benefits and immigration that are currently a war being waged. SATS pre birth. If the birth regulator cannot foresee a place for the infant in a prospective job 18 years hence, abort.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All of which is to say, the thinking on these issues seem so muddled I'm surprised it's possible to legislate at all.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

All of which is to say, the thinking on these issues seem so muddled I'm surprised it's possible to legislate at all.

Why should muddle issues stop legislation?

I'm with you-- there ought not to be ANY legislation specific to abortions-- the standard medical limits which protect adults ought to apply to the mother only....IMHO.  (and, for the sake of this argument, any woman who's pregnant is automatically considered "adult" for purposes of medical care).

[anthrobabe]

I agree-- no legislation regarding abortions.

We have literal warehouses of the elderly/disabled here in the USA(I suspect it's almost global, but it seems to be expecially negative here in the USA, comments welcome)--- I wish some of the anti-abortion folk would get another hobby, like visiting the old folks home or helping a single mother care for her profoundly disabled adult child for example.
They demand a woman give birth-- then to hell with her let her fight it out on her own from then on.

[Aggie]

Disagree.  I DO think there should be legislation regarding abortion - in the form of standards so that it is being performed in a safe and by medically accepted methods.  Regulate the crap out of it so that women who decide for themselves that they need one can be sure that they are getting it done safely.

Oh, and while they're at it, legislate the right for women to access abortion services when/if needed.


I'm strong supporter of properly legislated standards. Government interference is just fine with me provided that the government is working to serve the people, not whoever has the money to pay high-power lobbyists.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Disagree.  I DO think there should be legislation regarding abortion - in the form of standards so that it is being performed in a safe and by medically accepted methods.  Regulate the crap out of it so that women who decide for themselves that they need one can be sure that they are getting it done safely.

Oh, and while they're at it, legislate the right for women to access abortion services when/if needed.


I'm strong supporter of properly legislated standards. Government interference is just fine with me provided that the government is working to serve the people, not whoever has the money to pay high-power lobbyists.

"...getting it done safely."

That would be covered on the "...the standard medical limits which protect adults ought to apply to the mother only" part of my post.

If the world were rational, then the procedure would automatically be covered under standard medical procedures.    No need for special legislation, special this-that-the-other-thing.

MOST medical procedures are NOT specifically covered by law.  Why should this one be any different?   There is a general clause, that one cannot practice medicine without a medical license.  That ought to do it.  In the case of abortions?  One, if one is rational, would seek out either a specialist, or else someone who's done many in the past.   Either special training, or experience would suffice.

But, alas, we don't live in a rational world, do we?   Noooooo.   

[Aggie]

"...getting it done safely."

That would be covered on the "...the standard medical limits which protect adults ought to apply to the mother only" part of my post.

I suspected that's what you were getting at, but wasn't sure.

If the world were rational, then the procedure would automatically be covered under standard medical procedures.    No need for special legislation, special this-that-the-other-thing.

MOST medical procedures are NOT specifically covered by law.  Why should this one be any different?   There is a general clause, that one cannot practice medicine without a medical license.  That ought to do it.  In the case of abortions?  One, if one is rational, would seek out either a specialist, or else someone who's done many in the past.   Either special training, or experience would suffice.

But, alas, we don't live in a rational world, do we?   Noooooo.   

Forgot that medicine is largely a self-regulating industry.  But agreeing on the lack of rationality - and also should make the point that given the time sensitivity and emotional involvement of the situation, it's hardly reasonable that a prospective abortion patient is likely to compare doctor's track records (or even have a choice - if there's one provider in a given area, how far would the patient be willing / able to travel to find a better doctor?). 

It's not quite the same as checking references on the contractor you are hiring to retile your kitchen next month.

[Griffin NoName]

Sorry, um, no I'm not, to reduce the seriousness, but gives whole new meaning to "I am getting my kitchen re-fitted" - and everyone knows kitchen fitters often do botched jobs.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Both Agujjim and Griffin have made some serious points.

However, as I grow older, I've become more suspicious of "just any old doctor" .... just ask Chatty!

My neuro-hand surgeon was listed as "top in his class" and indeed, he was.... but.

He FAILED to ask ME about the desired results on my hand surgery.

His goal was ascetics FIRST.  Function, second.

Had he asked... I WOULD HAVE INSISTED on function first-- even if it meant a weird-shaped hand/finger(s).   

Thus, in a rational world, a woman would have already picked out her abortionist, yes?     Assuming that she is one of those for whom that is an option.  For some women, it is not--they cannot abide the thought of taking even a potential life.  I can respect that, and it is exactly why it ought to be up to HER, only.

I strongly suspect that I'd be in that category, had I been born with a uterus-- I'm strongly pro- living things.

On the other hand, I'm quite willing to terminate my pet, when his/her life becomes unbearable to him/her.  Indeed, I've done just that-- was very, very hard on me, but was the correct thing to do, I think.

I think, that when young women come of age that they are able to conceive, they ought to be counseled on the subject of abortions, and where they might obtain one, if they desired.  And options-- always with the options.

But that would be a strictly rational world..... *alas* none such exists, so far as I know.

Too many men seem to think that they actually own their own genes!

And that being a biological ancestor to someone actually MEANS something...... as IF!

*bleah*

As Heinlen quipped once, "Nobody owns their genes.  At best, they rent them for a time..."  (from Lazarous Long, in The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, if my memory serves)

[Sibling Chatty]

In a sane world, a gynecologist would be educated and capable of performing the needed surgery or procedure.

They ARE, they all know how to do D&C's, they've done them in residency, and it's just that the emotional baggage added to a D&C is the problem. OK, that and the whole male dominance thing.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

So, female gynecologists don't have the attitude?