-- Posted by marshmellowman at 2:46 pm on May 20, 2008 BBC News - "A bid to cut the upper limit for abortions from 24 weeks to 12 weeks has been defeated in the Commons by 393 votes to 71." link I think I agree with the outcome of the voting. Both the Royal Society for Gynaecologists and the British Medical Association have said that there is no new scientific research to support the reduction of the upper limit. I think it's the mother's choice as to what should be done with the foetus, it's her baby after all. The government shouldn't take this chance away, especially if the baby is unwanted. -- Posted by Decadence at 2:47 pm on May 20, 2008 Bastards. -- Posted by Briley 07 at 2:47 pm on May 20, 2008 Woot! -- Posted by swedger at 2:47 pm on May 20, 2008 Good decision -- Posted by BLUEAUTOMATIC at 2:48 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Decadence at 10:47 pm on May 20, 2008 Bastards. Our children have a right to live, even if they are all mucky like you . -- Posted by greatescape at 2:48 pm on May 20, 2008 Agreed. Although it should cost more later on.  If it doesnt already... -- Posted by HotStuffx at 2:49 pm on May 20, 2008 A 13 year old i know through somebody got pregnant but didn't find out until she was 27 weeks gone so she couldn't have an abortion. I wouldn't be suprised if her baby grows up unloved and neglected as she comes from a rough background. People neglect these situations when talking about abortion, I think they were right to not lower the limit. -- Posted by King Kong at 2:49 pm on May 20, 2008 but the baby can live now live out side the womb from 24 weeks -- Posted by marshmellowman at 2:52 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from King kong at 10:49 pm on May 20, 2008 but the baby can live now live out side the womb from 24 weeks Not really. Even at 24 weeks the chances of an aborted foetus living are pretty low. -- Posted by King Kong at 2:53 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 10:52 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from King kong at 10:49 pm on May 20, 2008 but the baby can live now live out side the womb from 24 weeks Not really. Even at 24 weeks the chances of an aborted foetus living are pretty low. I mean premature birth -- Posted by senorita smirnoff at 2:55 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 2:52 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from King kong at 10:49 pm on May 20, 2008 but the baby can live now live out side the womb from 24 weeks Not really. Even at 24 weeks the chances of an aborted foetus living are pretty low. haha -- Posted by rahawr at 3:02 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from HotStuffx at 5:49 pm on May 20, 2008 A 13 year old i know through somebody got pregnant but didn't find out until she was 27 weeks gone so she couldn't have an abortion. I wouldn't be suprised if her baby grows up unloved and neglected as she comes from a rough background. People neglect these situations when talking about abortion, I think they were right to not lower the limit. Theres always putting the baby up for adoption.  Everyone deserves a chance to live. Do you like living? I'm sure at times you must if not all the time, and just imagine not having that right. -- Posted by ColourMyWorld at 3:03 pm on May 20, 2008 yes i agree it is wrong of them to take that away -- Posted by allsmiles at 3:24 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from King kong at 10:53 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 10:52 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from King kong at 10:49 pm on May 20, 2008 but the baby can live now live out side the womb from 24 weeks    Not really. Even at 24 weeks the chances of an aborted foetus living are pretty low. I mean premature birth It's still like... less than 10% survival rate, if memory serves. In any case, the baby is relying on machines to live and thus I would argue that they are not truly alive at that point. The right decision was made. -- Posted by The Samsoniteman at 4:32 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from King kong at 10:49 pm on May 20, 2008 but the baby can live now live out side the womb from 24 weeks Bullshit. Welcome to science. Survival rates for premature babies has not improved significantly at all from ten years ago so there is absolutely no reason to change the law. The amendment was added by reactionaries and was batted down by the rest, rightly so. It had nothing to do with science. This has been a great few days. The termination limit has remained despite the best efforts of the Catholic Church, hybrid human-animal embryos are supported, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill has won the day for science over superstition. -- Posted by mountain hare at 8:28 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 3:24 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from King kong at 10:53 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 10:52 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from King kong at 10:49 pm on May 20, 2008 but the baby can live now live out side the womb from 24 weeks   Not really. Even at 24 weeks the chances of an aborted foetus living are pretty low.    I mean premature birth It's still like... less than 10% survival rate, if memory serves. In any case, the baby is relying on machines to live and thus I would argue that they are not truly alive at that point. The right decision was made. So a person on dialysis isn't alive? I'm sure all the patients with end stage renal failure would be overjoyed to hear that they are actually dead. -- Posted by nikki at 2:25 am on May 21, 2008 I think it should be reduced, but perhaps not to 12 weeks. It's being voted on for 16 weeks at the moment I believe. -- Posted by allsmiles at 5:14 pm on May 21, 2008 Quote: from mountain hare at 4:28 am on May 21, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 3:24 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from King kong at 10:53 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 10:52 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from King kong at 10:49 pm on May 20, 2008 but the baby can live now live out side the womb from 24 weeks        Not really. Even at 24 weeks the chances of an aborted foetus living are pretty low.     I mean premature birth    It's still like... less than 10% survival rate, if memory serves. In any case, the baby is relying on machines to live and thus I would argue that they are not truly alive at that point. The right decision was made. So a person on dialysis isn't alive? I'm sure all the patients with end stage renal failure would be overjoyed to hear that they are actually dead. They wouldn't be alive without the machinery. It's just a bridge to say that they are a part of the machine, and not fully human any more. A person on dialysis is a person who -should- be dead. Is that better? -- Posted by mountain hare at 8:16 pm on May 21, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 5:14 pm on May 21, 2008 Quote: from mountain hare at 4:28 am on May 21, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 3:24 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from King kong at 10:53 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 10:52 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from King kong at 10:49 pm on May 20, 2008 but the baby can live now live out side the womb from 24 weeks   Not really. Even at 24 weeks the chances of an aborted foetus living are pretty low.     I mean premature birth   It's still like... less than 10% survival rate, if memory serves. In any case, the baby is relying on machines to live and thus I would argue that they are not truly alive at that point. The right decision was made.    So a person on dialysis isn't alive?    I'm sure all the patients with end stage renal failure would be overjoyed to hear that they are actually dead. They wouldn't be alive without the machinery. It's just a bridge to say that they are a part of the machine, and not fully human any more. A person on dialysis is a person who -should- be dead. Is that better? You are aware that you just admitted that a dialysis patient is alive, right? Are you going to retain consistency and admit that a fetus is also alive? And your observation that a person on dialysis is a person who 'should' be dead is worthless. Many people continue to live due to medical interventions, who would be dead otherwise. That includes diabetics, haemophiliacs, patients who suffer from severe lacerations, etc . What's your point? I mean, no human being is fully autonomous. If we don't rely on medical interventions to survive, we still rely on food, water and oxygen intake. Quite simply, your distinction between 'shouldn't be alive' and 'alive' is completely arbitrary. -- Posted by smartlake at 11:13 pm on May 21, 2008 I don't see how an abortion earlier in the pregnancy is any different from until moments before the baby/fetus comes out.  If abortion at 12 weeks (or whatever) is legal, then abortion at 32 weeks should be.  I think that abortion is wrong, but I have to respect the right of a woman to decide whether she wants something in her or not.  And in the process choosing between heaven and hell. -- Posted by nikki at 1:29 am on May 22, 2008 Quote: from smartlake at 7:13 am on May 22, 2008 I don't see how an abortion earlier in the pregnancy is any different from until moments before the baby/fetus comes out. If abortion at 12 weeks (or whatever) is legal, then abortion at 32 weeks should be. I think that abortion is wrong, but I have to respect the right of a woman to decide whether she wants something in her or not. And in the process choosing between heaven and hell. The difference is at 32 weeks a baby can easily survive outside the womb, whereas at 12 weeks it clearly couldn't. -- Posted by Fauna at 4:57 am on May 22, 2008 The amendment was written up by a nutjob Christian Fundamentalist lawyer who also thinks that Islam and homosexuality are the works of the Devil. I'm glad she's been ignored. -- Posted by allsmiles at 3:09 pm on May 22, 2008 Quote: from mountain hare at 4:16 am on May 22, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 5:14 pm on May 21, 2008 Quote: from mountain hare at 4:28 am on May 21, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 3:24 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from King kong at 10:53 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 10:52 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from King kong at 10:49 pm on May 20, 2008 but the baby can live now live out side the womb from 24 weeks            Not really. Even at 24 weeks the chances of an aborted foetus living are pretty low.           I mean premature birth        It's still like... less than 10% survival rate, if memory serves. In any case, the baby is relying on machines to live and thus I would argue that they are not truly alive at that point. The right decision was made.       So a person on dialysis isn't alive?       I'm sure all the patients with end stage renal failure would be overjoyed to hear that they are actually dead.    They wouldn't be alive without the machinery. It's just a bridge to say that they are a part of the machine, and not fully human any more. A person on dialysis is a person who -should- be dead. Is that better?   You are aware that you just admitted that a dialysis patient is alive, right? Are you going to retain consistency and admit that a fetus is also alive?   And your observation that a person on dialysis is a person who 'should' be dead is worthless. Many people continue to live due to medical interventions, who would be dead otherwise. That includes diabetics, haemophiliacs, patients who suffer from severe lacerations, etc . What's your point?   I mean, no human being is fully autonomous. If we don't rely on medical interventions to survive, we still rely on food, water and oxygen intake. Quite simply, your distinction between 'shouldn't be alive' and 'alive' is completely arbitrary. Poor lexical choices on my behalf (which I'd like to point out, I corrected in my last post!). That aside, it's a fucking opinion. I personally would rather be shut off than be kept alive by a machine, unless I go ahead with brain augmentation when it becomes a little more mainstream, in which case I'd no longer consider myself human or alive in the same sense (you know, there are different concepts of "alive," which is what I was getting at when I said that they wouldn't be alive). My definition of alive is no less arbitrary than any other. A dead body that has not decomposed would still function with a little electricity. So not even death is the definite terminus of life. As such, it is up to us AS INDIVIDUALS to define life. You don't like my definition? Fine. You don't like the fact that I do not consider those relying on machines to be truly alive, derrived from the fact that I don't believe that people with organ failures should be kept alive? Fine. That does not change the fact that it is up to ME to define what I consider life to be.   As for haemophiliacs and diabetics dying... well yes. That would remove haemophilia and at least genetic diabetes from the gene pool. I can see the benefits from breeding them out. Sorry if you've got to look at everything morally, but there would be a lot of benefits to the species. -- Posted by mountain hare at 4:50 pm on May 22, 2008 So now you're engaging in semantics. Good stuff. Ever taken Biology 101? -- Posted by allsmiles at 11:39 am on May 23, 2008 Can't say I have, no. They don't offer a "Biology 101" course here.