Stand your ground in the battle for unborn babies

[nemarsde]

Originally Posted by J A Eyers

Are you?

Who isn't? If God turned up and asked you to drop everything to do his will, wouldn't you?

Of course, it's never God who asks, is it. It's always some so-called holy man claiming to be God's authorised spokesperson.

[JACKASS]

It's amazing how quickly this thread turned from debating abortion to taking potshots are religious hypocrisy.

If folks want to live their lives by a certain philosophy, that's fine, just keep that philosophy out of my science. Besides to me, saying, "I believe something that is unprovable" is much less credible than being able to say "I can prove something that is unbelievable".

[madbomber1998]

Originally Posted by J A Eyers

Are you?

Ya, I try. I guess that's the best I can say - I know I'm not perfect. But if I feel like God wants me to do something, I do it.

Originally Posted by nemarsde

Who isn't? If God turned up and asked you to drop everything to do his will, wouldn't you?

Of course, it's never God who asks, is it. It's always some so-called holy man claiming to be God's authorised spokesperson.

I ignore those. I only do what I believe God is telling me to do. Not what some sham is telling me.

[Glexn]

I can't put myself into a certain category, but I'm fairly satisfied with, "God knows my heart, if I stay out of trouble and don't be an arsehole it'll probably all work out fine."

[nemarsde]

Originally Posted by JACKASS

It's amazing how quickly this thread turned from debating abortion to taking potshots are religious hypocrisy.

They're one and the same really.

[JACKASS]

Originally Posted by nemarsde

They're one and the same really.

Possibly. I'm just fascinated by the fact that so many fundamentalists spend so much time fixated on what other people do with their genitalia.

Hell, if you want to put on a teddy and shove bowling pins up your ass while singing "Bohemian Rhapsody", that's your business. As long as you're not hurting anyone else, then there's really no reason for anyone to be concerned with what you do to get yourself off. Whether that's cool with your god is between you and it/him/her/them.

Granted, I'd rather not bear whitness to that spectacle, but that's what craigslist is for.

[Miss Lucifer]

Originally Posted by Semirhage

I can't put myself into a certain category, but I'm fairly satisfied with, "God knows my heart, if I stay out of trouble and don't be an arsehole it'll probably all work out fine."

Amen to that, brother.

[Damiox]

OMG...Get A LIFE.....GAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEE

[Miss Lucifer]

Did the sarcasm go over your head, or are you baffled by the thread in general?

[Chris]

Welcome to the forums, Damiox. Be sure to read the FAQ and forum rules so that your stay here isn't cut short.

[Salvage Guy]

this should be updated:

Stupid Forum

The 'Stupid Forum' of Gamegossip is the one area which might be considered 'anything goes' (within reason) and spamming is the norm. Please note that any posts made in the Stupid Forum do not increase your post count.

[Glexn]

I'm glad I don't have powers in this forum, right now, that guy would have his arse so deleted. He's been registered for five years now, though.

[Herne the hunter]

Maybe he just types really slowly.

[Glexn]

Thinks pretty slowly, too.

Who remembers their password on a forum they've never posted on for fives years? Has surely he's cleaned out his cookies or reinstalled his browser in that time. I'm starting to feel baffled.

[Greyhaven]

Adoption is not a simple answer.

Last year:

There were 50+ adoptive parents willing to adopt a healthy caucasian baby.

There were under 10 adoptive parents willing to adopt a bi-racial baby.

There were under 3 adoptive parents willing to adopt a healthy black child.

Do not get me started about how many are willing to adopt handicapped children.

Adoption is not an easy answer. The cost alone stops thousands of people every year from adopting. A typical closed adoption runs no less then 15k not including legal fees, travel, and birth mother expenses. I wish every person stupid enough to not user contraception could put the child up for adoption but that isn't reality.

Also, any child that is not adopted goes into foster care or ends up left in a ditch somewhere. Most adoption agencies will only take healthy children.

So in the end the birth parents truly must think long and hard about their choice. This is one facet of life I wish did not exist...it just breaks my heart knowing someone has to make a choice that deals with a life growing inside them.

-just my 2 cents.

[J A Eyers]

Isn't there a perception, a stereotype perhaps, that black kids up for adoption in the US are the unwanted offspring of diseased drug addicts and prostitutes?

It is very sad. Someone I work with was ruled out for adoption in the UK, so they had to look to China, of all places, where, sadly, there are plenty of unwanted girls shut in orphanages because of the one-child-only rule. They started going through the process over a year before the kid they eventually ended up adopting was even conceived... and she was a full year old before they were able to go and fetch her.

In some ways, though, I do think there's something slightly wrong with perfectly suitable parents adopting (or having to adopt) from overseas, whilst there are plenty of kids in their own country in care homes and the like. And a special pox on these Hollywood celebrities going shopping for foreign kids to improve their offspring portfolio.

With regards to abortion, the UK has just had the first major vote on its abortion laws in almost 20 years. The government voted to keep the status quo, the limit at 24 weeks. I was surprised, actually, to learn in the course of the debate, that the US actually has the most lax abortion laws in the West, at 26 weeks, I think. That's double what it is in most of Europe. Given that it's a political hot potato in the US, you'd expect it to be the other way round.

[Glexn]

I don't understand the 26 week limit bit, simply because I know nothing about this. Is it that you can't give away a 27 week old baby? The other way around? Or did I completely miss the point?

[dedhed]

it's based on the accepted age of viability of the fetus. a child born prematurely at 24 weeks has a good chance of survival if given appropriate post-natal care [read: incubators and specialist staff]. advancements in medical care and technology over the past decade have meant that premature births at as early as 20 weeks may survive. the logic runs that if the fetus could survive outside the womb, aborting it is wrong.

the trouble with viability is that medical care and technologies are ever-advancing. the age of viability will be pushed back further and further, until the day when a fetus will be able to survive outside the womb from the moment of conception, effectively banning abortion by the back door. it is not a suitable scheme to base such a prohibitive measure against freedom of choice upon.

[Glexn]

Someone needs to create a man-pill that doesn't require testosterone injections every 6 weeks, or a reliably reversible vasectomy. And one that is guaranteed painless after the snip, too. I would've gotten one if not for that...

[J A Eyers]

Originally Posted by dedhed

it's based on the accepted age of viability of the fetus. a child born prematurely at 24 weeks has a good chance of survival if given appropriate post-natal care [read: incubators and specialist staff]. advancements in medical care and technology over the past decade have meant that premature births at as early as 20 weeks may survive. the logic runs that if the fetus could survive outside the womb, aborting it is wrong.

the trouble with viability is that medical care and technologies are ever-advancing. the age of viability will be pushed back further and further, until the day when a fetus will be able to survive outside the womb from the moment of conception, effectively banning abortion by the back door. it is not a suitable scheme to base such a prohibitive measure against freedom of choice upon.

Why shouldn't it be the basis on which the cut-off date is decided? If a foetus can survive independently of the mother, then you have no business aborting it. The freedom of choice and conscience argument (which is why I support abortion in theory) can only go so far. If the cut-off date is just an arbitrary date, then there's not much point having one at all. No one surely would argue in favour of partial birth abortions for any other reason than medical necessity, but couldn't the freedom of choice argument be extended that far?

I understand that's an extreme, and also that we're talking a very tiny percentage of abortions. If I recall the rough figures used in the debate this week, out of 600,000 carried out annually in the UK, only 3,000 are carried out late in the term (i.e. after a date that would have been affected by the suggested law changes), which is what, half a percent?

[StrangeWill]

Originally Posted by Semirhage

Someone needs to create a man-pill that doesn't require testosterone injections every 6 weeks, or a reliably reversible vasectomy. And one that is guaranteed painless after the snip, too. I would've gotten one if not for that...

Women seem to have quite the mountain of health risks involving birth control. Makes making a decision as to which uber-effective method you want to lean towards difficult... and for guys, we don't get shit.

[Miss Lucifer]

I think another really important thing they need in terms of contraceptives is method against STDs that a woman can use independantly. Would solve a lot of "condoms are the man's job" type thinking, and help combat HIV/AIDS in areas where women don't have the agency to demand condom usage.

[Mishra]

Originally Posted by Semirhage

Someone needs to create a man-pill that doesn't require testosterone injections every 6 weeks, or a reliably reversible vasectomy. And one that is guaranteed painless after the snip, too. I would've gotten one if not for that...

i really wish that was soon, i feel really lame sometimes when girls im dating have to go on the pill, i'd gladly go on the pill. reproductive precautions should be responsibilities of both parties, as well as disease precautions

[Greyhaven]

[quote=J A Eyers;2036309]Isn't there a perception, a stereotype perhaps, that black kids up for adoption in the US are the unwanted offspring of diseased drug addicts and prostitutes?
[quote]

I do not know the reason behind the numbers. But here in the States Adoptive parents are generally white middle to upper class. So I would think there is a stereotype involved.

[yee haw]

Originally Posted by BullpupDFWM

Wow. Believe it or not, this post actually strengthened my belief in a woman's right to choose.


Convicts? Iraqi civilians? The millions of people living in the United States without access to healthcare?

Healthcare in america is a joke!
Socialized medicine is a joke!
Abortion is fucking murder, plain and simple!

[Mishra]

oh wow plain and simple? well that just puts my mind at rest. hey guys, debate over, we have a winner, and it's yeehaw.

[StrangeWill]

Originally Posted by yee haw

Healthcare in america is a joke!
Socialized medicine is a joke!
Abortion is fucking murder, plain and simple!

2/3rds of all pregnancies are murder too then eh?

[dedhed]

Originally Posted by J A Eyers

Why shouldn't it be the basis on which the cut-off date is decided? If a foetus can survive independently of the mother, then you have no business aborting it. The freedom of choice and conscience argument (which is why I support abortion in theory) can only go so far. If the cut-off date is just an arbitrary date, then there's not much point having one at all. No one surely would argue in favour of partial birth abortions for any other reason than medical necessity, but couldn't the freedom of choice argument be extended that far?

I understand that's an extreme, and also that we're talking a very tiny percentage of abortions. If I recall the rough figures used in the debate this week, out of 600,000 carried out annually in the UK, only 3,000 are carried out late in the term (i.e. after a date that would have been affected by the suggested law changes), which is what, half a percent?

well the point is that medical progress will advance to the point where the fetus will be able to survive without the mother from the moment of conception. just because it may or can survive doesn't mean that a woman should be forced to carry it to term if she don't want to. there's also the question of medical intervention. a baby born at 24 weeks (never mind 20) will be kept alive only with the aid of round-the-clock medical care. if it could survive independently of the mother without such treatment, i think this argument would have more sway. i'm not suggesting that an arbitrary cut-off point is the way forward, simply that viability isn't necessarily the right basis for it either.

[J A Eyers]

But babies born as little as three weeks early usually require prolonged hospital care, so using that argument you could move the cut-off date even further back. I think that would be counter-productive, though. Whilst I think most people are not opposed to abortions that are chemically-induced miscarriages, I suspect far more would shy away from the legality of it all if more of them were surgical abortions (i.e. a lethal injection to the heart of the foetus), which is what is required after 20 weeks. As it is, only a very tiny minority are carried out.

As for a woman being forced to carry it to term, the idea that pregnancies are always accidental rather than caused by negligence is on thin ice, given that a combination of the Pill and A N Other form of contraception pretty much guarantees you complete protection.

[dedhed]

i'm not entirely convinced that the accident/negligence distinction has any bearing on the debate anyway. while obviously it's not a good idea to promote a culture of irresponsibility, i would doubt that the decision to get an abortion is as carefree as certain elements would have us believe. the stereotype of the sinkhole estate bicycle merrily slouching down to the abortion clinic every few months for her regular womb-enema exists, certainly...but they aren't the ones receiving abortions at that late stage in the pregnancy. as you say, abortions over the 20-week limit are incredibly rare, and most of those, i would imagine, are by people who either weren't aware of the pregnancy (it happens more often than you would think), those subject to radical change in their lives (partners leaving, losing a job, etc.), those having difficulty with finding the time or funding (especially here in NI; where thanks to our religious hangover, abortions necessitate a trip to the mainland), or even those who are having to come to terms with such a difficult decision.

to the wider debate in general; forcing a child on someone who cannot afford it, or simply does not want it, as a societal method of 'teaching responsibility' is far from being a good thing. the mere fact of permitting the potential of the alive to become a life (this concept itself is of critical importance to the entire issue) is often taken to be the highest objective, without regard for quality of life. from a utilitarian perspective at least, it is arguably better not to exist at all than to be born into a situation of relative poverty to a person of 'questionable' moral value that didn't even want you in the first place.

besides, even if the aforementioned sinkhole slapper was prevented from using abortion-as-contraception and was forced to carry the pregnancy to term, no doubt she'd be decried by the selfsame sources for 'sponging off the state', or for inevitably bringing up the children in her own image. grumble grumble grumble!