Abortion - And An Obsessive Sanctimonious Cleric

[kite]

I dont think I would agree with that rog, that could be a nightmare if the father disagreed, but I agree in principle that its the mothers decision (before its born at least) and noones elses business

[manxman8180]

This is probably one of the most emotive subjects (if not THE most) and I readily admit to not knowing enough about the finite details to debate it properly.

 

Kite - I understand where you're coming from.

 

I truly can see both sides of the argument, but if I had to come down in a certain camp then I would opt for abolishing abortions, other than for clear medical reasons (again, an area open for debate).

 

Then again, this could all be affected by the fact that I'm off to Hospital on Monday (with my partner) for a 20 week scan.

[kite]

Again Rog - what constitutes 'trivial disabilities'?

 

You and Kite are effectively advocating disability cleansing.

Boiled down into a Darwinian survival of the fittest then sure, but in a civilised society that is unacceptable.

 

Kite obviously doesn't feel any unborn child at any point has a right to life - fair enough.

 

But by allowing abortion carte blanche it will surely provoke a lack of social responsibility.

 

To say an unborn disabled child has no right to life could then permate through and devalue the rights of disabled people generally.

A lot of hard work has gone into removing the stigmas and discrimination disabled people face.

Having such disregard for unborn disabled children/foetuses would surely undermine that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I cant agree. as far as I am concerned the immediate concern should be the parents who will be faced with huge expense, a lifetime of being a carer, the sadness of your child not having a normal life and stress beyond belief

 

to put above and beyond that the general feelings and experiences of other disabled people who have nothing to do with that child is madness.

at the end of the day it is the mother and father who will shoulder the burden, and that is what should count, not some imaginary disabled person who might get the hump because a child was aborted who had the same problems as them

[ans]

if it was their own child yes, but the ton of children sitting waiting to be fostered or adopted all over the world who are perfectly healthy seems to show not if it isnt their own.

 

The vast (and I mean vast) majority of those are from poor countries in the Third World or Eastern Europe. It's very difficult proceduraly and financially for anyone to adopt from there. The other tiny fraction remain because it's very difficult to be approved for adoption or fostering. Some loony left wing organisation always seems to be denying potentially brilliant parents because they're too old, not gay enough or the wrong colour.

 

You present a child with a very minor disability to those people and ask them to sign on the dotted line, and you make it that simple to do so, they're snap your arm off to get your pen.

[P.K.]

I cant agree. as far as I am concerned the immediate concern should be the parents who will be faced with huge expense, a lifetime of being a carer, the sadness of your child not having a normal life and stress beyond belief

 

to put above and beyond that the general feelings and experiences of other disabled people who have nothing to do with that child is madness.

at the end of the day it is the mother and father who will shoulder the burden, and that is what should count, not some imaginary disabled person who might get the hump because a child was aborted who had the same problems as them

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As the father of a disabled child I can assure you that yes it has it's burdens but equally it has it's rewards.

 

-

[kite]

The vast (and I mean vast) majority of those are from poor countries in the Third World or Eastern Europe.

and I wonder if the lack of easily available abortions in such countries bears any relevance?

I am sure parenting a child with disbilites can be extremely rewarding PK, but that does not mean we should be forcing women to have babies they do not want, equally so, the fact that someone may possibly adopt said child is also not a good reason to force a woman to birth an unwanted baby.,

conspicious in their absense where are the women on this thread, as always the men have far to much to say about an issue only very indirectly affecting them .

[Paul H]

How anyone can preach on abortion when they have no experience of what it feels like to be directly involved is quite beyond me. Who the hell is she to judge?

[ans]

as always the men have far to much to say about an issue only very indirectly affecting them .

 

I'm sorry. What?

 

We're not talking about additional medical complications of pregnancy or, in this case of the cleft palate, an increased risk to the mother. We're talking about the upbringing of the child.

 

I would have thought that was an equal and joint responsibility, not something that "indirectly" effects them at all. That's both dismissive and offensive to any bloke who's a responsible parent.

[kite]

no not the upbringing, that has everything to do with men too of course, but abortion itself.

[ans]

Ok, but we're talking about an abortion because of the difficulties of bringing up a slightly disabled child. If you want to open the topic up to the wider issue of abortion in general, that's fine, but it's not what everyone else is talking about.

[kite]

I dont know why you keep refering to slightly disabled. as I read it, the baby had a deformity that can be a sign of downs syndrome, that is a major disability not a minor one

[Paul H]

Is it better for a parent to mourn the loss of an unborn child than to raise a child with a life time of sorrow?

 

There is no easy answer and until someone comes up with a good answer people should not judge the actions of people who are forced to decide.

[ans]

I dont know why you keep refering to slightly disabled. as I read it, the baby had a deformity that can be a sign of downs syndrome, that is a major disability not a minor one

 

As I read it, under the 1967 Abortion Act a cleft lip and palate is not a serious handicap. That's all that was known.

[P.K.]

I'm agreeing with ans. Scary.

 

I personally think that the disabilities this unborn child seemed to have were insufficient cause for what took place. However I don't think I know enough about the personal circumstances of the parents to condemn or otherwise.

[kite]

I agree with you Paul. ans the result of the court case determined that the doctors believed the cleft palate and lip were signals of a serious disability, I am assuming they mean downs?

 

quote from article:

 

Jim England, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for West Mercia CPS, said that the doctors who authorised the termination had decided in good faith that there was a "substantial risk" that the child would be seriously handicapped if he or she was born. "In these circumstances I decided there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that there should be no charges against either of the doctors," he said.

 

could a cleft palate even be classed as a disability? isnt it a "deformity" albiet a slight one rather than a disability as such