Abortion

[vasiliflame]

Maybe help each other learn braille because you end up born premature and blind.

You stepped over the line how dare you say me and my brother would have been blind and we be doing Braille together that was not a scenario. That was what Happened to us my mother was struck by my father and she lost my brother not me... Like I been say I am not pro or against and I have only been putting my view about a certain instance

I wonder what the consensus is on elective reduction of multi-foetal pregnancies, e.g. finding out you're expecting twins and aborting one while carrying the other to term.

So my point on the subject as a surviving twin in a scenario that didn't have this choice I wondered what if he still survived what would he be like.. And to set the record straight twins run in my family and none of them are blind,

I have not deviated from that subject. I was just trying to get a point across that anyone can have multiple baby's from just sex, infertility issues you are aware you may have to do this as these are the risks with fertility procedures and trying to use that in this context isn't viable .. As I understood the question a girl gets knocked up then finds out she is having healthy twins she may have planned a baby she may not but there is a chance of that egg splitting regardless if its planned or not ... So then to choose to abort one I feel this is like flipping a coin is unfair for the surviving sibling who may find out.

So if you are aware of certain risks and decided to not wear protection or other means of contraception you have to deal with the consequences either abort them both carry them full tem or don't get pregnant ....

 

[Danoff]

No, not selective termination of an abnormal foetus. My original question was about elective reduction for maternal reasons...

That is what I said.

You stepped over the line how dare you say me and my brother would have been blind and we be doing Braille together that was not a scenario. That was what Happened to us my mother was struck by my father and she lost my brother not me... Like I been say I am not pro or against and I have only been putting my view about a certain instance

That was a scenario. Happens all the time with multiples. Multiples increases the risk of being born premature, and premature babies easily end up blind.

So my point on the subject as a surviving twin in a scenario that didn't have this choice I wondered what if he still survived what would he be like.. And to set the record straight twins run in my family and none of them are blind,

Doesn't happen every time. But it is a significant risk, especially as the number of babies goes up.

As I understood the question a girl gets knocked up then finds out she is having healthy twins she may have planned a baby she may not but there is a chance of that egg splitting regardless if its planned or not ... So then to choose to abort one I feel this is like flipping a coin is unfair for the surviving sibling who may find out.

Yup, it's unfair. Life isn't fair. Having twins greatly increases the chances of something bad happening to the babies (like blindness) or the mother.

So if you are aware of certain risks and decided to not wear protection or other means of contraception you have to deal with the consequences either abort them both or don't get pregnant ....

You'd rather have been aborted? Your life, knowing that a fetus was lost with you in the womb, is so terrible that you'd rather be dead. Unbelievable.

 

[KSaiyu]

That is what I said.

You said:

"Elective as in - we want the mother to have a high chance of surviving and the babies to have a high chance of not having crippling and life-threatening disorders."

The mother is in no danger from carrying the pregnancy to term. She elects to reduce the number born at the end of the pregnancy. I'm not sure where you are getting an increased chance of survival for either the foetesus or the mother from.

 

[vasiliflame]

You'd rather have been aborted? Your life, knowing that a fetus was lost with you in the womb, is so terrible that you'd rather be dead. Unbelievable.

You cannot grasp the simple concepts we have both now tried to explain to you so now this will be last I will reply to your comment's

My situation that wasn't a option if you stop skimming post and actually take the time to read them maybe you will grasp most of whats being said...

 

[Famine]

The mother is in no danger from carrying the pregnancy to term.

Lolwut?

Are you aware of just how dangerous pregnancy is? In the UK, even with our super-duper NHS that gives you everything for "free" unless it's glasses, dentistry or prescription drugs, we're running at 8 deaths per 100,000 live births - and this has barely changed in the last 20 years.

And that's just deaths - and live births.

 

[KSaiyu]

Relative to the decision, i.e. the decision to abort is because having twins was not planned, rather than terminating because of the increased risk of complications from a multifoetal pregnancy. I put "is in no danger" for the sake of not being pedantic. We are at danger all the time and live with those risks, I didn't think I would need to qualify that here.

 

[vasiliflame]

Lolwut?

Are you aware of just how dangerous pregnancy is? In the UK, even with our super-duper NHS that gives you everything for "free" unless it's glasses, dentistry or prescription drugs, we're running at 8 deaths per 100,000 live births - and this has barely changed in the last 20 years.

And that's just deaths - and live births.

Wales we get all that free buddy glasses dentist and prescriptions only England don't strangely

 

[Famine]

Relative to the decision, i.e. the decision to abort is because having twins was not planned, rather than terminating because of the increased risk of complications from a multifoetal pregnancy. I put "is in no danger" for the sake of not being pedantic. We are at danger all the time and live with those risks, I didn't think I would need to qualify that here.

But multifoetal pregnancies increase the risk compared to single pregnancies...

Compared to single pregnancies, rates of hypertension increase by an order of magnitude, rates of pre-eclampsia triple, rates of gestational diabetes triple, rates of maternal death double. Half of twins are premature and low birthweight and are six times more likely to die in the third trimester or at or around birth.


Pregnancy is amazingly risky and harmful, twin pregnancy moreso (and triplet even more). "Fetal reduction" is often used as an elective treatment.

 

[Liquid]

Wales we get all that free buddy glasses dentist and prescriptions only England don't strangely

We don't get free glasses and you only get free dentistry if you're on jobseeker's.

Not that that has anything to do with the point Famine was making.

 

[vasiliflame]

We don't get free glasses and you only get free dentistry if you're on jobseeker's.

Not that that has anything to do with the point Famine was making.

Ahhh ok I thought dentist was free too, I know my son can get free glasses maybe because he's under 9

 

[KSaiyu]

But multifoetal pregnancies increase the risk compared to single pregnancies...

Compared to single pregnancies, rates of hypertension increase by an order of magnitude, rates of pre-eclampsia triple, rates of gestational diabetes triple, rates of maternal death double. Half of twins are premature and low birthweight and are six times more likely to die in the third trimester or at or around birth.

Pregnancy is amazingly risky and harmful, twin pregnancy moreso (and triplet even more). "Fetal reduction" is often used as an elective treatment.

Yes they are, but my point was concerned with the view of termination for the reasons of the mother not on the grounds of her health. You are bringing up something related but not relevant to my original question.

 

[Famine]

Yes they are, but my point was concerned with the view of termination for the reasons of the mother not on the grounds of her health. You are bringing up something related but not relevant to my original question.

You can't divorce the two, but also I wasn't referring just to her health - note the mortality rates for twins compared to single births.

Being pregnant with twins is more deleterious to health than being pregnant with a single foetus and whether or not the mother is healthy now doesn't really have any bearing on the fact she is at significantly enhanced risk of poor health and death down the line - as are the foetuses she's carrying.


Foetal reduction greatly enhances the survival rate of mother and pregnancy - whether it's done for existing medical reasons or just because, in your example, she only wanted one. What's my opinion on a woman terminating one foetus because she's got two but wants one? Same as it is for a woman who's got one and wants none - I don't care, it's not my body or my decision.

 

[KSaiyu]

You can't divorce the two, but also I wasn't referring just to her health - note the mortality rates for twins compared to single births.

Being pregnant with twins is more deleterious to health than being pregnant with a single foetus and whether or not the mother is healthy now doesn't really have any bearing on the fact she is at significantly enhanced risk of poor health and death down the line - as are the foetuses she's carrying.

Foetal reduction greatly enhances the survival rate of mother and pregnancy - whether it's done for existing medical reasons or just because, in your example, she only wanted one. What's my opinion on a woman terminating one foetus because she's got two but wants one? Same as it is for a woman who's got one and wants none - I don't care, it's not my body or my decision.

I think you can divorce the two, and sometimes it's necessary in the current environment.

For instance I had to do an SSC last year about gestational diabetes and not one of us in a group of 5 thought about suggesting abortion as a treatment option. Neither of the two judges brought this up either, and I haven't seen or heard of a consultation where this option has been brought up. You could say we would all be doing a disservice to the patient, particularly with the high risks of subsequently developing a chronic condition, and maybe that's an argument for the future. Saying that, what's to stop people from aborting in the future on the grounds of having desirable traits, such as eye or hair colour, or a genetic makeup more likely to produce an intelligent child should the technology become available?

 

[Famine]

I think you can divorce the two, and sometimes it's necessary in the current environment.

People who use foetal reduction see the health benefits whether that was their intention or not - just as people who quit smoking because it's expensive see the health benefits.

For instance I had to do an SSC last year about gestational diabetes and not one of us in a group of 5 thought about suggesting abortion as a treatment option. Neither of the two judges brought this up either, and I haven't seen or heard of a consultation where this option has been brought up. You could say we would all be doing a disservice to the patient, particularly with the high risks of subsequently developing a chronic condition, and maybe that's an argument for the future.

Would it be a viable solution?

Saying that, what's to stop people from aborting in the future on the grounds of having desirable traits, such as eye or hair colour, or a genetic makeup more likely to produce an intelligent child should the technology become available?

What's to stop them aborting on the grounds of having undesirable traits, such as inheritable illnesses and disorders, or gender?

To both questions, nothing. Why would we want to stop them?

 

[Danoff]

So if you are aware of certain risks and decided to not wear protection or other means of contraception you have to deal with the consequences either abort them both carry them full tem or don't get pregnant ....

You'd rather have been aborted? Your life, knowing that a fetus was lost with you in the womb, is so terrible that you'd rather be dead. Unbelievable.

You cannot grasp the simple concepts we have both now tried to explain to you so now this will be last I will reply to your comment's

My situation that wasn't a option if you stop skimming post and actually take the time to read them maybe you will grasp most of whats being said...

Now who's skimming?

You said, carry them both to term or abort both. Meaning if you're not going to carry both to term you shouldn't carry either to term. This means that you think that if one fetus is aborted, that the other would rather not live, even if the mother wanted it. This means that you yourself would rather have not survived your prenatal brother. It's quite clear. And yes, that's true even though your prenatal brother was not aborted.

Yes they are, but my point was concerned with the view of termination for the reasons of the mother not on the grounds of her health. You are bringing up something related but not relevant to my original question.

I don't think it's separable. The health consequences will inherently be involved in any decision to reduce. "Well, we really only wanted one anyway, AND it improves our chances of making sure that one is healthy." See how that works? It will be involved. The more fetuses that are involved in any given pregnancy, the more the topic will center around the health impacts. By the time you're talking about 4, it's the doctors who are urging you to make the right decision. More than that and it's Oprah who is celebrating how brave you are for risking everyone's health just so that you don't have to make a difficult decision.

 

[KSaiyu]

To both questions, nothing. Why would we want to stop them?

I'm not sure I'd want to live in a society that allowed that.

 

[sammy neuman]

fzzz_pt said: "Two cells united inside a woman's body. A foetus independent from a womb can not develop into a human being either.
After conception, those cells are useless without a third person's body."

In my posts I have used the phrase "normal mammalian method of producing offspring". As both of your statements are included within that phrase, I do not understand why these statements are presented as if they are some important distinction I have failed to grasp.

@Danoff said: "Neither can a fetus. What a pig may or may not be able to do in the future is irrelevant. I asked about rights right now. You have made your own argument against the rights of the unborn."

From my point of view the fetus has rights beginning at conception. "Neither can a fetus" is a correct statement, but the question was originally asked in reference to a statement made from my point of view. As the trap requires the unannounced substitution of a different point of view (in which the fetus has no rights) to be successful, it is meaningless.

The pig is indeed irrelevant, and there is nothing I need change.

.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not sure I'd want to live in a society that allowed that.

In the US that's allowed right now. Not sure about the UK, but in the US if you have a handful of female embryos and a handful of male embryos in a petri dish, you're allowed to toss one gender and transfer any of the remaining ones into a uterus.

From my point of view the fetus has rights beginning at conception. "Neither can a fetus" is a correct statement, but the question was originally asked in reference to a statement made from my point of view. As the trap requires the unannounced substitution of a different point of view (in which the fetus has no rights) to be successful, it is meaningless.

The pig is indeed irrelevant, and there is nothing I need change.

In otherwords... "because a pig is not human and a human is". Ok, why do humans get rights at all? How about nobody has rights? You're hanging the important concept of human rights on something totally arbitrary - what species you are. You've now made an argument that all killing should be allowed (not just dead fetuses).

 

[Famine]

I'm not sure I'd want to live in a society that allowed that.

You already do.

 

[KSaiyu]

You already do.

I dunno

 

[Famine]

I dunno

Abortion clinics don't allow gender-based abortions. What does that have to do with stopping people from doing it?

What about gender-specific IVF for avoiding sex-linked inheritable disorders, where embryos of the wrong gender are indeed terminated, fulfilling both:

on the grounds of having undesirable traits, such as inheritable illnesses and disorders, or gender?

Personally I don't get why "It's the wrong gender" is a worse justification than "I don't want it", but hey.

 

[Imari]

Only stupid people get pregnant that don't use precautions, if they didn't want children simple us a Condom and pill or injection , but no they go bare back and put them self in that situation never mind sti's .. So go bang ya head against the wall and think of another one.

Entirely apart from the valid point that @zzz_pt makes, have you heard of rape?

 

[fortbo]

I would just like to give my input on this topic of abortion. In my opinion abortion is wrong. You are killing a human. No matter what way you put it you are killing someone. I get that giving birth is extremely painful but in most cases the mother lives. I'm ready to get flamed now.

 

[Danoff]

In my opinion abortion is wrong. You are killing a human.

Terri Schiavo

John Wayne Gracy

Both "killed" humans. Next.

 

[fortbo]

Terri Schiavo

Next.

👍

 

[Danoff]

👍

Here's another human that was killed:

Seriously, you can't just say "you're killing a human" and expect that to mean something in this discussion.

 

[fortbo]

Here's another human that was killed:

Seriously, you can't just say "you're killing a human" and expect that to mean something in this discussion.

Ok my bad, but you obviously could get what I meant. And that human you showed has committed a crime. The human I'm talking about is innocent so why should it be killed?

 

[Danoff]

The human I'm talking about is innocent so why should it be killed?

3 posts back.

 

[fortbo]

3 posts back.

👍

 

[Imari]

The human I'm talking about is innocent so why should it be killed?

The thing you're talking about may become human. You're granting it current human status based on what it may become in the future.

Which is fine, as far as that reasoning goes. But you're granting it human status while it's merely a collection of cells based on the fact that it may become human. If you're going to make decisions based on what may happen in the future, you don't get to cherry pick only the nice stuff. That human could just as easily be the next Ghandi or the next Pol Pot.

You don't get to say "well, they haven't done anything yet". They're not human yet either, but that's not stopping you from granting them human rights.

Humans tend to object to prejudgement of crimes, on the basis that it's not really a crime until you actually do it. I don't see why being a human is different. You don't get human rights until you're actually behaving as a human. Wiggling around like a little parasitic slug in some poor woman's stomach doesn't quite cut it for human behaviour to me.