Hooray for Diane Abbott!
Discussion
martin84 said:
Daft for holding the opposite view. Oh how will I manage?
It was your gems in THIS THREAD that earned you muppet status in my view.Funk said:
martin84 said:
Daft for holding the opposite view. Oh how will I manage?
It was your gems in THIS THREAD that earned you muppet status in my view.Eric The Camel said:
fluffnik said:
I'm not convinced that aggressively keeping premature babies alive is necessarily a good thing.
Many of those who can be kept alive will be massively developmentally challenged to the extent that they will never be autonomous...
I agree completely with your point but I wonder if those who support abortion at 24 weeks could explain the difference between termination in utero and the termination of a child in an incubator?Many of those who can be kept alive will be massively developmentally challenged to the extent that they will never be autonomous...
I'm much more than averagely pro-choice - I don't think anyone has a right to force a woman to host an alien and consider her entitlement to evict as absolute.
I'd also be disinclined to intervene to keep premature babies alive where substantial disability is certain...
martin84 said:
Funk said:
martin84 said:
Daft for holding the opposite view. Oh how will I manage?
It was your gems in THIS THREAD that earned you muppet status in my view.
tinman0 said:
Funk said:
Don't be drawn in by Martin84. Pretty much anything he posts I know I will be absolutely opposed to or the opposite opinion of.
Makes sense. Been gone from here a while so not entirely sure who the trolls are these days.Eric The Camel said:
fluffnik said:
I'm much more than averagely pro-choice - I don't think anyone has a right to force a woman to host an alien and consider her entitlement to evict as absolute.
I'm pro-choice as far as reproduction/contraception goes too but where would you draw the line on the date of "eviction", 12 weeks, 24 weeks, 35... Funk said:
martin84 said:
Daft for holding the opposite view. Oh how will I manage?
It was your gems in THIS THREAD that earned you muppet status in my view.The limit was changed from 28 to 24 weeks, sometime after 1987 because the current age of viability had shifted with advances in medical care.
I don't see a good reason not to make a similar shift for the same reason - but all this 12 weeks stuff is absolute bulls
t, loads of women don't even realise they're pregnant by then, including the ones for whom pregnancy would be a genuine disaster for any variety of perfectly good reasons.
The youngest 'verified' premature babies to survive are being born at or just before the 22nd week of gestation. There's no forseeable medical advance that will bring the age of viability any earlier - younger than that and they're just too underdeveloped in all sorts of ways although I think the major problem is lungs.
It doesn't seem entirely reasonable that one 23-weeker gets every effort made to give him or her that (very, very slim) chance of survival and another none at all. Quite apart from anything else I'm not sure it could sit all that well with medical ethics types who (I hope!) are involved in the development of policy on this stuff.
My general feeling would be that it's reasonable to bring the limit for 'elective' abortion outside that at which a baby can currently survive, but no further.
And invest a helluva lot more in good quality early screening and such so that as few women as possible find themselves facing these decisions late in the second trimester... and general education stuff for the oblivious types because 'not realising' happens far too often.
I don't see a good reason not to make a similar shift for the same reason - but all this 12 weeks stuff is absolute bulls
t, loads of women don't even realise they're pregnant by then, including the ones for whom pregnancy would be a genuine disaster for any variety of perfectly good reasons.The youngest 'verified' premature babies to survive are being born at or just before the 22nd week of gestation. There's no forseeable medical advance that will bring the age of viability any earlier - younger than that and they're just too underdeveloped in all sorts of ways although I think the major problem is lungs.
It doesn't seem entirely reasonable that one 23-weeker gets every effort made to give him or her that (very, very slim) chance of survival and another none at all. Quite apart from anything else I'm not sure it could sit all that well with medical ethics types who (I hope!) are involved in the development of policy on this stuff.
My general feeling would be that it's reasonable to bring the limit for 'elective' abortion outside that at which a baby can currently survive, but no further.
And invest a helluva lot more in good quality early screening and such so that as few women as possible find themselves facing these decisions late in the second trimester... and general education stuff for the oblivious types because 'not realising' happens far too often.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff