ayrmad Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 59 minutes ago, Honest Saints Fan said: Because its not a viable baby until 24 weeks gestation. That's absolute twaddle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Cuddy Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 1 hour ago, chomp my root said: In the same way as you can't have sex until you're 16 or can't drink until you're 18 etc. At least in this country. All these things including abortion are arbitrary. 1 hour ago, ayrmad said: That's absolute twaddle. You're both wrong. The age of viability is established by research and advances in medicine that have given a baby born at 24 weeks a good chance of survival. We know those chances increase later than that, but we also know that a child born prior to that has a reduced chance of survival, and that if they do survive they also have a higher likelihood of a life long or life limiting condition related to prematurity. Did you actually think doctors just made that up? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 4 hours ago, Shandon Par said: The state doesn’t intervene in male reproduction though. The whole notion seems like a hangover from a bygone era where women should know their place and do what they’re told. The whole discussion keeps going back to men and trying to compare it to what men feel about it, what their rights and responsibilities are and none of that really matters as men are not the ones carrying the kid and putting their mind and bodies through the wringer. Poor argument here, for me. And the type of argument that only serves to shut down discussion rather than improve it. Women should obviously have a huge say in what happens, but they are carrying a child that half belongs to another human being and that should not just be shouted down. What if the father is desperate for the child to be born? Also, at one point all of us were that 'collection of cells'. In all other situations we treat the protection is life as paramount, yet not when that is inconvenient for the parent? Seems flawed to me. Why should the wean have its life taken away through no fault of its own? I'm not 100% anti-abortion, not by a long shot. But this argument that it's a women's choice and anything else is misogyny is a really poor one. A student union argument. And, like I said, simply designed to end conversation rather than improve it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 3 hours ago, JTS98 said: What if the father is desperate for the child to be born? Tough, them's the breaks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Equalizer Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 8 hours ago, banana said: Thread delivering, well played everyone No-one has directly addressed the framing of this law, though. Should the unborn child and the mother have equal right to life? If so, why? If not, why not? Just fix the poll and f**k off you trumpet. You have started a thread with potential. Don't ruin it by contributing anything more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 5 hours ago, Lisa Cuddy said: You're both wrong. The age of viability is established by research and advances in medicine that have given a baby born at 24 weeks a good chance of survival. We know those chances increase later than that, but we also know that a child born prior to that has a reduced chance of survival, and that if they do survive they also have a higher likelihood of a life long or life limiting condition related to prematurity. Did you actually think doctors just made that up? The decision as to if and if so when abortion is a legal one based on medical advice but the decision is made by people so changeable. Its not like the medical profession change their view on a subject over time either. In Ireland its illegal, that decision is made by people and the debate is whether to change it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 4 hours ago, JTS98 said: Women should obviously have a huge say in what happens, but they are carrying a child that half belongs to another human being and that should not just be shouted down. What if the father is desperate for the child to be born? Tough shit. He faces none of the risks, discomfort, potential dangers etc etc in carrying a child, therefore he doesn't, and indeed shouldn't get a say. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shandon Par Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 4 hours ago, JTS98 said: Poor argument here, for me. And the type of argument that only serves to shut down discussion rather than improve it. Women should obviously have a huge say in what happens, but they are carrying a child that half belongs to another human being and that should not just be shouted down. What if the father is desperate for the child to be born? Also, at one point all of us were that 'collection of cells'. In all other situations we treat the protection is life as paramount, yet not when that is inconvenient for the parent? Seems flawed to me. Why should the wean have its life taken away through no fault of its own? I'm not 100% anti-abortion, not by a long shot. But this argument that it's a women's choice and anything else is misogyny is a really poor one. A student union argument. And, like I said, simply designed to end conversation rather than improve it. You’re backing up my argument, not countering it. Just reads like I touched a nerve with you. All you’re saying is “what about the man’s rights?”. It’s a typical modern trait of entitlement. It’s a very private, personal matter and tough decision that I’d say should be left to the woman and the medical professionals. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Cuddy Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 1 hour ago, chomp my root said: Its not like the medical profession change their view on a subject over time either. No, they very much do as new research and evidence become available. I also have an issue with the poll options, since I'm here. None of them cover my views. A termination is not something I could ever do myself, however that does not mean I apply my personal stance to other women. It is absolutely a woman's right to choose. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 7 hours ago, Lisa Cuddy said: You're both wrong. The age of viability is established by research and advances in medicine that have given a baby born at 24 weeks a good chance of survival. We know those chances increase later than that, but we also know that a child born prior to that has a reduced chance of survival, and that if they do survive they also have a higher likelihood of a life long or life limiting condition related to prematurity. Did you actually think doctors just made that up? No I'm not, there are children who've survived long before 24 weeks therefore "not viable before 24 weeks" is absolute twaddle. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Netan Sansara Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 3 minutes ago, ayrmad said: No I'm not, there are children who've survived long before 24 weeks therefore "not viable before 24 weeks" is absolute twaddle. And there's plenty of children born after 24 weeks that don't survive. Using statistical outliers to justify your view this is rubbish is an inherently flawed argument. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 10 hours ago, whiskychimp said: I agree it's the woman's choice but..... You've had a bit of my jizz inside you therefore I should be financially responsible for a child you've chosen to have against my wishes. Just to play the other side of this. Should have thought of that before having sex then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest Saints Fan Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 8 minutes ago, ayrmad said: No I'm not, there are children who've survived long before 24 weeks therefore "not viable before 24 weeks" is absolute twaddle. If a birth takes places before 24 weeks and the baby dies it is classed as a miscarriage. You are not entitled to maternity leave. It's extremely unlikely doctors would medically intervene in a birth before 24 weeks. It's not absolute twaddle. It's a fact. Your pregnancy is not classed as viable until you hit 24 weeks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 11 minutes ago, ayrmad said: No I'm not, there are children who've survived long before 24 weeks therefore "not viable before 24 weeks" is absolute twaddle. A handy chart. Survival does not imply a healthy baby. https://www.verywellfamily.com/premature-birth-and-viability-2371529 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 54 minutes ago, Lisa Cuddy said: No, they very much do as new research and evidence become available. I also have an issue with the poll options, since I'm here. None of them cover my views. A termination is not something I could ever do myself, however that does not mean I apply my personal stance to other women. It is absolutely a woman's right to choose. Yes, that was kind of my point, in this instance the current view might be the 24 weeks mark, it might change. Even if it didn't, public opinion could push parliament to change the law. Medical opinion is only part of the debate, take alcohol for example. We all know what the research suggests (currently) but its not set in law how much we can drink each week. It would be a vote loser if a party tried to restrict our alcohol intake directly (as opposed to using covert efforts like high tax). My point is that the laws on abortion can (and have been) changed. Whether you agree with the legislation is the debate here it seems. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Honest Saints Fan said: If a birth takes places before 24 weeks and the baby dies it is classed as a miscarriage. You are not entitled to maternity leave. It's extremely unlikely doctors would medically intervene in a birth before 24 weeks. It's not absolute twaddle. It's a fact. Your pregnancy is not classed as viable until you hit 24 weeks. Not being classed as viable and "it's not a viable baby until 24 weeks gestation" ain't the same thing. If I was awaiting a new arrival at 23 weeks I would be less than impressed when they done nowt even although in one study 22/38 kids survived to 2 years old and 11 of those survived free of moderate to severe disability. Edited April 26, 2018 by ayrmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 When it comes to abortion, we should defo go with the needs and opinions of mens rights activists and middle aged politicians rather than the medical professionals and the women themselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Cuddy Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 3 hours ago, ayrmad said: No I'm not, there are children who've survived long before 24 weeks therefore "not viable before 24 weeks" is absolute twaddle. I do so love when old men turn up to school me on medicine and health care, especially when it's an old man trying to tell me about a women's health issue. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Dr Ayrmad strikes again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 3 minutes ago, Lisa Cuddy said: I do so love when old men turn up to school me on medicine and health care, especially when it's an old man trying to tell me about a women's health issue. You're a qualified nurse not a world authority on health issues, I can read the same literature as you. 58% of 23 week gestation reach 2 years old, 60% of 24 week gestation reach 2 years old, those results don't suggest that the survival rate falls off a cliff before 24 weeks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.