Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Martin_1962 on 21 May 2008, 09:33:48
-
With interest.
Not too happy though.
Good to see the egg research bit go through, but for IVF - I have always thought that a marriage certificate should be required, may be old fashioned but there is a limited pot of NSH money/
As to abortion - that should be lowered, premature babies that age can survive. My personal thoughts are different to what I would support if that makes sense, BTW I am thinking rationally not emotionally.
My twins were premature!
-
Question, why is it ok to use technology to save premature babies. But not ok to use technology to end pregnancy ?
I personally have no real opinion either way, would lust like to how people justify this.
BTW my wife was premature in 1966 if it was not for incubators/technology of the time she would not be here.
Mike
-
Question, why is it ok to use technology to save premature babies. But not ok to use technology to end pregnancy ?
I personally have no real opinion either way, would lust like to how people justify this.
BTW my wife was premature in 1966 if it was not for incubators/technology of the time she would not be here.
Mike
Simiply I think due to that babies get fully formed quite early - until then they are a bunch of cells, and doctors look upon the task as wrong.
My opinion is it should be earlier but I do not know by how much, but it should be enough that there would be absolutely no chance of survival. I'd go for something like 3 months.
At least we will get a sensible discussion without rants here :y
-
I find it very interesting that it is mostly the male politicians whom become so exercised concerning matters of women`s reproductive fertility and such moral issues generated by reproductive technology.
My personal feelings are that such matters (and that includes abortion) are entirely and solely the concern of the individual woman.
The State should tread carefully and beware of micro-managemental 'tinkering'; lest the moral-maze of gender, personal and medical issues, lead to the raising of the spectre of societal Eugenics.
-
Question, why is it ok to use technology to save premature babies. But not ok to use technology to end pregnancy ?
I personally have no real opinion either way, would lust like to how people justify this.
BTW my wife was premature in 1966 if it was not for incubators/technology of the time she would not be here.
Mike
Simiply I think due to that babies get fully formed quite early - until then they are a bunch of cells, and doctors look upon the task as wrong.
My opinion is it should be earlier but I do not know by how much, but it should be enough that there would be absolutely no chance of survival. I'd go for something like 3 months.
At least we will get a sensible discussion without rants here :y
Certainly won't get a rant out of me on this one. I think it is very emotive subject. I suppose it is about playing god in some small way.
I think I would like to see a lot more education/research on the subject before any new laws/rules are passed.
Mike
-
I find it very interesting that it is mostly the male politicians whom become so exercised concerning matters of women`s reproductive fertility and such moral issues generated by reproductive technology.
My personal feelings are that such matters (and that includes abortion) are entirely and solely the concern of the individual woman.
The State should tread carefully and beware of micro-managemental 'tinkering'; lest the moral-maze of gender, personal and medical issues, lead to the raising of the spectre of societal Eugenics.
Debs, I really wish I had your command of the English language.
Few people have it, I would not like to have an argument with you. You would so win easily.
Mike
-
I think I would like to see a lot more education/research on the subject before any new laws/rules are passed.
Mike
That is the thing - I don't think that politians as a breed are that knowleagable, definitaly not of the science and technology side.
-
.....
Debs, I really wish I had your command of the English language.
Few people have it, I would not like to have an argument with you. You would so win easily.
Mike
Did you not already know that women, no matter the subject, are always right? ::) ::) ::) :y :y
-
My personal feelings are that such matters (and that includes abortion) are entirely and solely the concern of the individual woman.
There are always multiple sides and for a pregnancy there is always at least 3 sides Mother Father Child(ren).
There is a point when the unborn baby changes from a bunch of cells into a person - when is that point?
We did have a miscarriage 2nd time. It upset my wife a lot more than me - I had seen the scan - just the foetal sac and a small pin head sized lump, no development, (normally would have been a lot bigger) a few days later it was no more. I found it easy to cope as there was no baby, it was a non viable. We then later had the twins.
The State should tread carefully and beware of micro-managemental 'tinkering'; lest the moral-maze of gender, personal and medical issues, lead to the raising of the spectre of societal Eugenics.
There is too much government tinkering on all aspects of our life, they seem to spend all the time inventing laws and adding restrictions to life.
-
I think I would like to see a lot more education/research on the subject before any new laws/rules are passed.
Mike
That is the thing - I don't think that politians as a breed are that knowleagable, definitaly not of the science and technology side.
Agreed, they seem to have studied politics and little else. As unfortunate as it may seem I would like to put a minimum age limit for politicians, and these people must have worked a minmum of 10 years in the private sector. Not as it seems now 5 years at uni, 5 years in local council offices and then they become political.
These people have no idea of real life. And then these people try to tell us how we should live our lives.
But I fear I am drifting of subject here.
Sorry
Mike
-
I think I would like to see a lot more education/research on the subject before any new laws/rules are passed.
Mike
That is the thing - I don't think that politians as a breed are that knowleagable, definitaly not of the science and technology side.
Agreed, they seem to have studied politics and little else. As unfortunate as it may seem I would like to put a minimum age limit for politicians, and these people must have worked a minmum of 10 years in the private sector. Not as it seems now 5 years at uni, 5 years in local council offices and then they become political.
These people have no idea of real life. And then these people try to tell us how we should live our lives.
But I fear I am drifting of subject here.
Sorry
Mike
No problem with thread drift - where else can we all chat like adults?
-
.....
Debs, I really wish I had your command of the English language.
Few people have it, I would not like to have an argument with you. You would so win easily.
Mike
Did you not already know that women, no matter the subject, are always right? ::) ::) ::) :y :y
I asked for that really ;D
-
Its a difficult one, I feel that clearly the abortion limit needs to be tied into the standard scan/test dates (22 weeks if I remember correctly) plus some thinking time.
I suspect that most abortions which are carried out at such a late stage are on medical grounds following the results of the late scan/tests (although as usual, we wont ever hear the truth I suspect).
Remember also that offically the cells are considered an embryo from 4 weeks on and the heart starts to beat at around 5 weeks!
-
Its a difficult one, I feel that clearly the abortion limit needs to be tied into the standard scan/test dates (22 weeks if I remember correctly) plus some thinking time.
I suspect that most abortions which are carried out at such a late stage are on medical grounds following the results of the late scan/tests (although as usual, we wont ever hear the truth I suspect).
Remember also that offically the cells are considered an embryo from 4 weeks on and the heart starts to beat at around 5 weeks!
There is already no limit on medical matters, there have been cases of abortions at 38 weeks for missing limbs.
This is the social rather than medical limit.
-
Trouble is that its not nearly as clear as this because the law states that terminations beyond 24 weeks can only be carried out for series mental and physical disabilities and hence its open to a large variation in standards.
There have been cases where for instance a fetus with a cleft lip and pallet has been aborted yet one with Downs was refused.
Plus, the chances of a sub 24 week fetus surviving has not increased at all in the last 15 years so why should it suddenly change now?
-
There are always multiple sides and for a pregnancy there is always at least 3 sides Mother Father Child(ren).
There is a point when the unborn baby changes from a bunch of cells into a person - when is that point?
As with all morally taxing matters, there are many aspects....but one remains at the zenith; "the mother bears the child", and with the greatest of respect to fathers, or rather 'Dads' (as distinct from those whom only contribute semen to the zygote) it is still she alone whom carries the personal, moral, medical and emotional implications for her pregnancy: either full-term or fore-shortened (for what-ever reason) and it is only she; ideally with the support of a partner and/or family whom can know in her heart and mind what is for the best.
As a woman, my personal feelings concerning sentience and pregnancy are that birth represents the beginning of a person`s life....with the pregnancy, forming a part of the mother`s life.
-
To add my two pennies worth...
I agree with Debs that it is a decision for the woman on whether she is ready or suitable for carrying, then nuturing a child through to adulthood and beyond, which is a life long committment. It is a woman's body that creates and supports this new life, and as the woman should have soveriegn rights over that body, if a woman believes she cannot realistically provide a satisfactory life for the infant, with all of life's basic needs and the emotional support it requires, then she alone should have the right to terminate.
However, that stated any decision by her should be made before 20 weeks, unless a major medical complication arises, after which time the embryo has the potential to live without the mother's body. Medical staff have often reported that aborted embryos of over 20 weeks have shown signs of life for some time after. This has indeed caused distress to staff who according to medical journals do not want to carryout abortions unless for pressing medical reasons.
Emotions, physical considerations, practical implications, human rights, and, yes, religion, all are involved in this very complex subject which has few, if any, easy answers. We can only trust and hope that a honourable consensus will avail, with the wise and good establishing a decision that will satisfy the majority in this country.
I am pleased that this is all open to an across party free vote for our politicians to vote with their moral conscience, conforming we trust with the wishes of their constituents, rather than a political view.
But, I do feel that it is a great handicap that there is not a majority of female politicians in Westminster to properly represent the views of woman, and we can only put our faith in men to express our concerns and wishes. May God help them in their task.
-
To add my two pennies worth...
I agree with Debs that it is a decision for the woman on whether she is ready or suitable for carrying, then nuturing a child through to adulthood and beyond, which is a life long committment. If a woman believes she cannot realistically provide a satisfactory life for the infant, with all of life's basic needs and the emotional support it requires, then she alone should have the right to terminate.
However, that stated any decision by her should be made before 20 weeks, unless a major medical complication arises, after which time the embryo has the potential to live without the mother's body. Medical staff have often reported that aborted embryos of over 20 weeks have shown signs of life for some time after. This has indeed caused distress to staff who according to medical journals do not want to carryout abortions unless for pressing medical reasons.
Emotions, physical considerations, practical implications, human rights, and, yes, religion, all are involved in this very complex subject which has few, if any, easy answers. We can only trust and hope that a honourable consensus will avail, with the wise and good establishing a decision that will satisfy the majority in this country.
I am pleased that this is all open to an across party free vote for our politicians to vote with their moral conscience, conforming we trust with the wishes of their constituents, rather than a political view.
But, I do feel that it is a great handicap that there is not a majority of female politicians in Westminster to properly represent the views of woman, and we can only put our faith in men to express our concerns and wishes. May God help them in their task.
:y Succinctly well-observed Lizzie....`may the Lord help them with their conscience and rectitude. ::)
-
Abortion is a terrible thing, especially I would imagine for the lady going through it. My worry has always been that abortion is used by some as a quick fix to a problem. Surely if you are responsible you should take adequate precautions ( Male and female), and if not be grown up enough to deal with any 'accidents'.
I would agree the limit should be lowered as the thought of a living viable baby being terminated is, to me, just awful. Obviously some social and medical circumstances make it difficult/ impossible, but abortion should, IMO, be an absolute last option. Lots of couples are waiting to adopt so, if at all possible, that should be the option. I'm sure also that abortion leaves terrible mental scares with some Ladies.
I have a relative that was very early so I suppose that helps me come to these conclusions. This is just my old fashioned opinion and I hope it doesn't offend... :)
-
Abortion is a terrible thing, especially I would imagine for the lady going through it. My worry has always been that abortion is used by some as a quick fix to a problem. Surely if you are responsible you should take adequate precautions ( Male and female), and if not be grown up enough to deal with any 'accidents'. I would agree the limit should be lowered as the thought of a living viable baby being terminated is, to me, just awful. Obviously some social and medical circumstances make it difficult/ impossible, but abortion should, IMO, be an absolute last option. Lots of couples are waiting to adopt so, if at all possible, that should be the option. I'm sure also that abortion leaves terrible mental scares with some Ladies.
I have a relative that was very early so I suppose that helps me come to these conclusions. This is just my old fashioned opinion and I hope it doesn't offend... :)
I know and understand where your thoughts are on this and in a perfect world this is how it should be, but in too many cases the people involved are neither responsible enough to take precautions or grown up mentally to make the ideal decisions for themselves and the child. Indeed often the couples are no more than children themselves, but it must be that the girl / woman, with perhaps assistance from their mother if possible, make the decision that is right for them at that instance in time, providing as I would advocate it is before 20 weeks.
-
This has nothing to do with politics or religion. Politics is legal financial fraud & religion at it's best is for often well educated but weak minded folk to fall back on in the misguided belief they'll go to heaven so don't fear death. Most of us live in the real world & have grasped the concept of a lifespan & are happy with it.
For many years i brought my son up as a single DAD but i appreciate that's not always the case, so despite that i still believe it's the woman's choice to abort if she's not ready for parenthood.