TV Commercial To Air In The UK On Where To Get An Abortion.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think there will synthetic wombs in climate controlled labs. I'm sure woman would love that! No hormones, extra weight, pain etc.

I don't think it's that close, and I don't believe most women would take that option even if available, and I personally think society would lose a lot of its meaning if they do, but then I'm rather old fashioned in some ways

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think it's that close, and I don't believe most women would take that option even if available, and I personally think society would lose a lot of its meaning if they do, but then I'm rather old fashioned in some ways

It's ethically dubious - because programmes like that would almost certainly involve some sort of genetic engineering to create a "designer baby". Not to mention the whole abortion thing wouldn't exactly go away, the only thing it would do is take the decision away from the biological parent/s and put it in the hands of a corporation. If the fetus develops abnormally, who decides whether or not to terminate it?

There are some parallels to slavery too - as you'd potentially have the unborn (on some level) becoming the property of a private corporation. Not to mention, the insurance craziness it would create in the US. What happens if your claim is denied - is your fetus "aborted"?

Edited May 25, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[_Simpson_ 250]

So some teenagers who have sex and get pregnant accidentally - should be forced to carry the can (along with a baby that they don't want) for the rest of their lives?

Are you trying to suggest that a mother would spend the rest of her life hating her child, very few woman would think like that but the ones that would would have no problem giving it up for adoptions. Adoption is the key.

Roe Vs. Wade is entirely irrelevant to the laws of the United Kingdom (which the OP specifically relates to).

Focus Pike, you asked me what rights I have, I dont have any thanks to Roe vs Wade.

I am saying Simpson (if you can get this into your narrow mind) that you seem to have little interest in the practical realities of bringing up all these unwanted children.

So you do want to go down the 'some have more of a right to live than others'.

Not that you really need to speculate very hard to imagine that someone has to bring up the child, pay for its upbringing and education. What do you think - as soon as the child pops out it's raised by pixies and fairies!?

But me speculating that abortion rate would go up is a far stretch? Your argument is just not valid. To try and argue that kids 'without' dont have as much of a right to live as kids 'with' is just ridiculous and stupid. Pro-choice people around the world are turning in there grave.

Edited May 25, 2010 by _Simpson_

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It's ethically dubious - because programmes like that would almost certainly involve some sort of genetic engineering to create a "designer baby". Not to mention the whole abortion thing wouldn't exactly go away, the only thing it would do is take the decision away from the biological parent/s and put it in the hands of a corporation. If the fetus develops abnormally, who decides whether or not to terminate it?

There are some parallels to slavery too - as you'd potentially have the unborn (on some level) becoming the property of a private corporation. Not to mention, the insurance craziness it would create in the US. What happens if your claim is denied - is your fetus "aborted"?

Imagine, you could get a walmart baby! Though of course I buy my babies at Wholefoods, better quality. I get what your saying but I think its inevitable.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

How so? The choice is first made with the act of sex. A man knows the consequences of that and has a choice to go ahead or take precautions if he does not want a resultant pregnancy, and it is in his hands to prevent pregnancy completely if he so chooses with a vasectomy.

Once the decision to have sex has been made, the choices change completely. If both a man and a woman have recreational sex and a pregnancy occurs, because of or despite the precautions made then the choice as to whether to continue that pregnancy has completely different consequences on the man and the woman and it is those differences that drive the ultimate decision making. Remember again that the man must want to be involved in the decision making process, most don't if it's an 'accident' from casual sex but if they are involved, then the woman does have the option and responsibility to take his choices into consideration but ultimately, the fact that the woman get's the final say is a result of the unequal circumstances of being a father and a mother, not because society has decided to be unfair on men.

Its Thunderdome! Two mutual decisions enter, one decision leaves. Sorry we'll just have to agree to disagree. It takes two people to make the decision, and yet only one gets to make the decision that effects two (IMO three) lives.

[Peikko 1,575]

Imagine, you could get a walmart baby! Though of course I buy my babies at Wholefoods, better quality. I get what your saying but I think its inevitable.

Why do you think it's inevitable? When a woman chooses to get pregnant, she often really enjoys the process and journey of pregnancy, and the entire process helps a couple to come to terms with the changes in their lives that are about to happen. Getting a baby from a lab just wouldn't have the same emotional involvement, and most people engaging in pregnancy by choice (which is after all the most common experience by far, let's not let this abortion debate skew our understanding of procreation) want the complete experience, not some sanitized version.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Simpson, you act as though adoption, foster and social care are somehow idyllic solutions. They very much aren't.

I dont act like that, that just all your narrow mind can see. Plain and simple theres good choices and bad choices. Killing baby, bad choice. Letting baby live, good choice.

Newborns will not end up in foster care so that part of your argument is nothing more than a attempt to try to b!tch and complain about how our foster and social care system sucks.

[KaiserD 12]

I said men and woman.

Yes, "own up" you said. Owning up "yes I did this" is just words. Consequences are what matter. A man goes "oops" and a woman has to deal with the repercussions while people are trying to limit her options in how to deal with that responsibility while having her reputation slandered.

Does it directly affect me, no. A lot of crimes dont directly affect me, this should be a crime but you people want to get off on a technicality.

That it's a technicality is just your opinion. Being in ER vomiting blood as part of pregnancy was not a mere "technicality" for me, it just shows you have sweet ignorance as to what pregnancy and birth is like. Must be great to undermine peoples experiences!

As the law sands now all I have is a opinion but me and others will fight to right this wrong. Hopefully someday it will be you with just a opinion.

Yes you want your mere opinion in circumstances nothing to do with you to have more worth/weight than my opinion from my actions and my life. As if your value as a human being is worth more than mine, like I'm not capable of making decent decisions. I am, doesn't matter if you don't think so.

How is it that you gloss over the fact that the baby suffers the most, not you? Abortion is a very selfish thing thing to do, put it up for adoption if you dont want to 'suffer' the consequences. To most a child is a blessing, I would suggest you pro-choice people bless another family by putting it up for adoption instead of throwing it away like its a piece of garbage.

Because the baby-in-making doesn't suffer the most - it is in the process of developing its systems so that it will get to a point where it feels pain, has awareness, all of its organs working together as it begins its journey to a self sustaining being.

Abortion being selfish, again that's your opinion. Everyone's circumstances differ but I have to decide how such a thing would affect multiple people in my life not just me.

I haven't thrown away any human being, that child in that signature is mine from a planned pregnancy. However his journey here for me was hell and if I accidentally got pregnant again I would become so ill (but unlikely to be life threatening) that his quality of life will be severely impaired. Many people with hyperemesis gravidarum go on to have abortions whether they have previous children or not because they simply can't take it, I was really surprised at the number. The HER Foundation had a survey there, but they've replaced it with another HG topic and I can't find the old one, which is unfortunate.

I'm a sensible person, I take precautions and not the kind of person that I would not sleep with anyone if I wasn't in a solid relationship, that's part of my parcel. But I need to know that the option of abortion is there if I need it, even if I don't take it. But regardless of how one might end up in the situation of an unplanned pregnancy, the stigma, assumptions and judgments are always the same.

The circumstances are unequal, but in my scenario the decision making is still in favor of the woman. If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't he's out of luck.

I'm afraid so, but the moment other options of fetus rearing are available I will be supporting those rights for people too!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Why do you think it's inevitable? When a woman chooses to get pregnant, she often really enjoys the process and journey of pregnancy, and the entire process helps a couple to come to terms with the changes in their lives that are about to happen. Getting a baby from a lab just wouldn't have the same emotional involvement, and most people engaging in pregnancy by choice (which is after all the most common experience by far, let's not let this abortion debate skew our understanding of procreation) want the complete experience, not some sanitized version.

You haven't spoken to my wife lol!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Are you trying to suggest that a mother would spend the rest of her life, very few woman would think like that but the ones that would would have no problem giving it up for adoptions. Adoption is the key.

You seem to be assuming that the adoption and social care systems work in an efficient manner. When the big issue of the day is cutting back public spending in the teeth of a recession (one of the first casualties of which is the education sytem). In any case, aren't you forever sneering and pouring scorn on the failure of big government programs?

Focus Pike, you asked me what rights I have, I dont have any thanks to Roe vs Wade.

It has nothing to do with the OP.

So you do want to go down the 'some have more of a right to live than others'.

That isn't the consideration. See below - I'm not going to repeat myself.

But me speculating that abortion rate would go up is a far stretch? Your argument is just not valid. To try and argue that kids 'without' dont have as much of a right to live as kids 'with' is just ridiculous and stupid. Pro-choice people around the world are turning in there grave.

You are suggesting that the abortion rate will increase because of a late night television commercial shown in the UK. There is no reasonable chain of logic to support that conclusion, beyond your personal belief that must be the case.

Pointing out that there are serious economic and practical considerations to giving birth to and raising a child isn't speculation, it is fact. Indeed, it is (or should be) a prime consideration for anyone planning to have a family.

People who cannot afford to raise a child shouldn't have them. It is why there are sensationalist headlines in the news about irresponsible people who have 17 kids all of which are paid for exclusively by the welfare system. It's not good for the taxpayer or for the children brought up in those circumstances.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dont act like that, that just all your narrow mind can see. Plain and simple theres good choices and bad choices. Killing baby, bad choice. Letting baby live, good choice.

FFS You ARE acting like that - proven by the simple fact that you've said precisely jack schitt about about the practical realities and quality of social care in adopting out or bringing up unwanted children. "Letting baby live" might be a good choice to you, but it's simplistic as hell and it is far from the end of the story. Who cares what kind of life baby has, so long as he/she gets to live it. Not you it seems...

Newborns will not end up in foster care so that part of your argument is nothing more than a attempt to try to b!tch and complain about how our foster and social care system sucks.

Dude, you have to address the practical realities of the situation and the system that you are relying upon to give these children good homes. Why don't you want to do that?

Edited May 25, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Peikko 1,575]

Its Thunderdome! Two mutual decisions enter, one decision leaves. Sorry we'll just have to agree to disagree. It takes two people to make the decision, and yet only one gets to make the decision that effects two (IMO three) lives.

You are talking as though it is common place for an unplanned pregnancy to become a battle ground with a man wanting the baby while the woman will not let him have it or the woman wanting the baby and burdening the man with the financial consequences regardless of anything he has done to mitigate the circumstances that led to the unplanned pregnancy and the resulting emotional, financial and life changing consequences of that pregnancy.

On top of that, in the event of disagreement, one decision has to take priority and simply allowing men to rid themselves of the burden of coping with the consequences of an unplanned action should this disagreement take place is unconscionable, the consequences devastating. These are unequal circumstances, nothing can make them equal and because of that, if there is a disagreement, the only way out is to allow the woman to have the final say - anything else results in far greater disparity. There is no perfect solution to this, but this is the best we have for now.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You are talking as though it is common place for an unplanned pregnancy to become a battle ground with a man wanting the baby while the woman will not let him have it or the woman wanting the baby and burdening the man with the financial consequences regardless of anything he has done to mitigate the circumstances that led to the unplanned pregnancy and the resulting emotional, financial and life changing consequences of that pregnancy.

On top of that, in the event of disagreement, one decision has to take priority and simply allowing men to rid themselves of the burden of coping with the consequences of an unplanned action should this disagreement take place is unconscionable, the consequences devastating. These are unequal circumstances, nothing can make them equal and because of that, if there is a disagreement, the only way out is to allow the woman to have the final say - anything else results in far greater disparity. There is no perfect solution to this, but this is the best we have for now.

That's what abortion is isn't it?

[KaiserD 12]

rid themselves of the burden of coping with the consequences of an unplanned action

That's what abortion is isn't it?

Yes and no, perhaps a lesser burden? But for feeling people with human hearts (as in, not the people who use abortion as birth control >.<) it comes with its own consequences.

[KaiserD 12]

Oh I'm sure nobody really cares about this, but just in case (HG Abortion info):

http://www.hyperemesis.org/downloads/Elective%20pregnancy%20termination%20in%20a%20large%20cohort%20of%20women%20with%20hyperemesis%20gravidarum.pdf

Edited May 25, 2010 by KaiserD