I don’t really have much to say on this issue, just thought I’d post the article for reference as the topic of abortion in the US gets a lot of interest from time to time, it might be of interest to some how the issue is looked at in other countries.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7409696.stm
MPs are to vote on the emotive issue of cutting the abortion time limit on the second day of debates on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
On Monday night a cross-party attempt to ban hybrid human animal embryos was defeated on a free vote, by 336 to 176.
MPs will now debate the abortion laws and decide on changes in a free vote.
An amendment to the government’s bill has been put forward to reduce the upper time limit on abortions from 24 weeks to 20 weeks or less.
Health Minister Dawn Primarolo insists there is no evidence requiring the abortion laws to be changed.
She told BBC News: “There is no science that shows us that the survival rates have changed since we took the decision to have the time limit at 24 weeks.”
She also said the government wanted to protect the right of women to choose.
However, David Jones, a professor of bio-ethics, said research on the survival rates for extremely premature babies was “disputed”.
Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, who put forward the amendment to change the abortion laws, said she believed the right of a woman to choose had its limits.
She said: “If a baby feels pain as part of a barbaric abortion process - which is what happens post-20 weeks - and if we know that baby could live if it was allowed to be born, then there comes the point when that baby has rights which are of equal parity to the mother’s.”
Conservative leader David Cameron told GMTV earlier he would vote to lower the limit to 22 weeks but added, as an issue of conscience, he expected Conservatives to vote “in all sorts of different directions”.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the BBC he would vote to maintain the current limit. He said it was a “very difficult matter” but that the medical evidence had not changed.
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg is also expected to vote against any reduction.
ENGLAND AND WALES ABORTIONS
Under 9 weeks: 54.9%
9-12 weeks: 34.3%
13-19 weeks: 9.2%
20-24 weeks: 1.5%
ONS figures from 2006
The article also discusses some other issues including “saviour siblings” and the fathers role in IVF treatments.
For my 2 cents worth. I like the abortion laws in the UK right now. I believe in a woman’s right to choose, to a point. I don’t think there is any reason for a healthy pregnancy to get past 24 weeks and require a later term abortion. If it does get beyond 24 weeks and mother and unborn are healthy then every effort should be made to have it go full course.
As for lowering it, I don’t mind so much if they do either, from the chart above only 1.5% happen in the 20-24 week stage. If evidence can show that the unborns are sentient and could survive at 20 weeks it should probably be reduced though I’ve not given this a lot of attention.
I don’t know too much about those ONS figures. They add up to 99.9 but that is likely to do with rounding. I guess it doesn’t take into account abortions for the health of the mother, or maybe that is the 0.1%. I do know that they are a lot less common in the UK, they basically can’t get away with making some shit up to have a late term abortion. The “health” requirement is taken seriously as I think it should be.
As for saviour siblings, I’ve not given it much thought but I’m not a big fan of the idea.
Your country has completely disgusted me with abortion based on what I had read this weekend. It dealt with the number of women who have had 4 abortions, as well as those who had even more. I’d hate to see the numbers for the US in regards to that too but I’m already disgusted by Roe vs. Wade.
In todays world the necessity of abortions should be next to zero.
Your country has completely disgusted me with abortion based on what I had read this weekend. It dealt with the number of women who have had 4 abortions, as well as those who had even more. I’d hate to see the numbers for the US in regards to that too but I’m already disgusted by Roe vs. Wade.
In todays world the necessity of abortions should be next to zero.
As an aside to the abortion debate, what troubles me is that giving away condoms, and teaching prevention, seems to not work. If abortions are up, then protection is down.
Your country has completely disgusted me with abortion based on what I had read this weekend. It dealt with the number of women who have had 4 abortions, as well as those who had even more. I’d hate to see the numbers for the US in regards to that too but I’m already disgusted by Roe vs. Wade.
In todays world the necessity of abortions should be next to zero.
As an aside to the abortion debate, what troubles me is that giving away condoms, and teaching prevention, seems to not work. If abortions are up, then protection is down.
I’m not impressed with people getting multiple abortions either. I’d be quite sure that is the very tiny minority though.
It would be a strange situation however to say that a woman can’t have her 4th at week 10, while another woman can have her 1st at week 20. I guess I would tag some mandatory counseling on each abortion and it would be in more depth if you’re back for more.
It’s not so simple to say that giving away condoms and teaching prevention don’t work, who knows what the abortion rate would be in the UK if these things didn’t happen. I also don’t think abortion rates are the best yardstick to use when measuring these things since it certainly doesn’t take into account all unplanned pregnancies.
I was taught about prevention and it has ensured that not only have I not been responsible for any abortion, my wife and I do not have a child yet and hopefully won’t until we are ready for one. (at which point, hopefully we will)
You could probably get more meaningful information by looking at the situation in the US where in some areas prevention is taught and contraception is distributed, and in other areas abstinence only is taught and contraception is not dispensed as a matter of course. It’s been a while since I’ve looked at any of that stuff, not sure what it would show.
24 weeks seems a little long… so, I’d like to see it cut. If your going to have an abortion, the sooner the better IMO.
As to using human genes in animals… I guess it depends. If your growing spare ears on mice or something that’s one thing. Hybrids / no restrictions, bad.
24 weeks seems a little long… so, I’d like to see it cut. If your going to have an abortion, the sooner the better IMO.
Totally agree on the last part. I could certainly be convinced on the first part and certainly wouldn’t be against it if it passes.
While I am pro choice, part of what pisses me off about the US pro choice movement is the “all or nothing” attitude and the defence of partial birth abortion etc. as if it’s the same thing as an abortion at week 10.
I can understand the all or nothing approach on the pro life side, if you’re morally oposed then the time frame probably doesn’t matter, and while 10 weeks might be slightly better than 9 months, neither is acceptable. I just don’t see it the same way.
sl0re - 20 May 2008 12:37 PM
As to using human genes in animals… I guess it depends. If your growing spare ears on mice or something that’s one thing. Hybrids / no restrictions, bad.
24 weeks seems a little long… so, I’d like to see it cut. If your going to have an abortion, the sooner the better IMO.
Totally agree on the last part. I could certainly be convinced on the first part and certainly wouldn’t be against it if it passes.
While I am pro choice, part of what pisses me off about the US pro choice movement is the “all or nothing” attitude and the defence of partial birth abortion etc. as if it’s the same thing as an abortion at week 10.
I can understand the all or nothing approach on the pro life side, if you’re morally oposed then the time frame probably doesn’t matter, and while 10 weeks might be slightly better than 9 months, neither is acceptable. I just don’t see it the same way.
Yeah, I don’t like the all or nothing attitude of either side… On the religious, I’d like to know where they got this idea that life starts at conception. I don’t think the bible says it (re: it actually suggests a time… and it is not conception). I don’t think protestants believed that 100 + years ago (catholics get a pass since the Pope has said it is wrong, they’re obligated to follow that teaching). But for everyone else, whats the deal?
But the naral / planned parenthood types bug me more because they cover for late late term abortions whenever it comes up… I can’t say ‘its even worse’ because nothing can really be worse than that… but then they also lie about it / won’t own up to what they’re doing…
Unsurprisingly, I’m against all of it :)
Yeah, it’s probably only in America that you have people that are anti GMO but pro weird human / animal gene research… since Bush is a against it, they have to be for it. The Euro lefties are generally against both.
Yeah, I don’t like the all or nothing attitude of either side… On the religious, I’d like to know where they got this idea that life starts at conception. I don’t think the bible says it (re: it actually suggests a time… and it is not conception). I don’t think protestants believed that 100 + years ago (catholics get a pass since the Pope has said it is wrong, they’re obligated to follow that teaching). But for everyone else, whats the deal?
The bible isn’t specific on some issues, mostly because it wouldn’t have made much sense to people at the time. Is writing computer viruses a sin? How about driving after drinking?
There are some references to “You knew me before I was born” and such. I’m tired and can’t think of specific bible passages at this moment. However, the most obvious response is “Where else would you suggest it starts?” Are you going to claim some magic moment where you go from being non-human to human? It seems to be the moment you have a full set of chromosomes (Or at least contributing chromosomes from mom and dad, let’s not get into trisomy cases and such at present) is the easiest predefined point. Also, the other obvious response is, “Why not err on the side of caution?” It always amazes me that some people will fight hammer, tooth, and nail to prevent murderers from getting the death penalty after being found guilty by 4 separate juries because “they *might* be innocent!” yet they seem to have absolutely no problem equivocally stating “life doesn’t begin till 4 months.” I mean, seriously? You are willing to err on the side of caution for a convicted murderer but not a child? I’m sorry, but that logic is so lacking I cannot even understand it.
Barring complications, that fertilized egg is going to be born a baby. It’s inevitable. Why not view that as a sign s/he’s a human and a life? Again, I have issue with the idea of “you cannot prove life begins at conception.” Well, what the hell? That’s like going to court and saying “You can’t *prove* this man is innocent.” Our court system doesn’t work that way, why does our idea on life? Think about it. If you are right, you’ve simply stopped life from happening, if you are *wrong* you’ve condemned 50 million children in the U.S. to death in the past 30 years. Which side would you like to err on?
It always amazes me that some people will fight hammer, tooth, and nail to prevent murderers from getting the death penalty after being found guilty by 4 separate juries because “they *might* be innocent!” yet they seem to have absolutely no problem equivocally stating “life doesn’t begin till 4 months.”
“Its a bad time to have a child. These are such uncertain times. From a financial perspective. And what with global warming. And oil wars. The school system sucks. There are bus drivers out there convicted of child molestation. And babies starving in Biafra we need to feed.”
None of which hundreds of thousands of parents living on barren sand worry much about. You do that for them, conveniently far away from your bistros, coffee shops and Club Med hotels. Everyone loves a wqickie.
“Mr. Bush - why not spend those trillions of dollars on nourishing, feeding, and educating millions of people around the world - than to spend on senseless, worthless and utterly disgraceful occupations and invasions.”
The simplest fix would be to keep your weenus in your pants, but no, you’re real Men....
Yeah, I don’t like the all or nothing attitude of either side… On the religious, I’d like to know where they got this idea that life starts at conception. I don’t think the bible says it (re: it actually suggests a time… and it is not conception). I don’t think protestants believed that 100 + years ago (catholics get a pass since the Pope has said it is wrong, they’re obligated to follow that teaching). But for everyone else, whats the deal?
The bible isn’t specific on some issues, mostly because it wouldn’t have made much sense to people at the time. Is writing computer viruses a sin? How about driving after drinking?
There are some references to “You knew me before I was born” and such. I’m tired and can’t think of specific bible passages at this moment. However, the most obvious response is “Where else would you suggest it starts?” Are you going to claim some magic moment where you go from being non-human to human? It seems to be the moment you have a full set of chromosomes (Or at least contributing chromosomes from mom and dad, let’s not get into trisomy cases and such at present) is the easiest predefined point. Also, the other obvious response is, “Why not err on the side of caution?” It always amazes me that some people will fight hammer, tooth, and nail to prevent murderers from getting the death penalty after being found guilty by 4 separate juries because “they *might* be innocent!” yet they seem to have absolutely no problem equivocally stating “life doesn’t begin till 4 months.” I mean, seriously? You are willing to err on the side of caution for a convicted murderer but not a child? I’m sorry, but that logic is so lacking I cannot even understand it.
Barring complications, that fertilized egg is going to be born a baby. It’s inevitable. Why not view that as a sign s/he’s a human and a life? Again, I have issue with the idea of “you cannot prove life begins at conception.” Well, what the hell? That’s like going to court and saying “You can’t *prove* this man is innocent.” Our court system doesn’t work that way, why does our idea on life? Think about it. If you are right, you’ve simply stopped life from happening, if you are *wrong* you’ve condemned 50 million children in the U.S. to death in the past 30 years. Which side would you like to err on?
No, I’m going to claim the bible has a pretty specific claim as to when life begins for a fetus and it aint conception. I just can’t remember the quote, but I remember reading it…
The best metaphor for conception is a seed. A seed is a fertilized egg in a ovary (re: a fruit). It’s not a tree until it sprouts IMO. This life starts at conception notion is actually new IMO. I don’t believe most Christians would have bought it 100 years ago.
No, I’m going to claim the bible has a pretty specific claim as to when life begins for a fetus and it aint conception. I just can’t remember the quote, but I remember reading it…
Try giving us just few words of what you think you remember. I’ve got an exhaustive concordance, I’ll try to find it. I know Scripture pretty well, and I can’t imagine what you’re thinking of.
Google gives these quotes. (But there are also quotes suggesting that God knew people before they were born, so… it’s a toss-up?)
After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.
and…
After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.
and…
In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”
and…
Again, to quote Ezekiel 37:5&6;, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.”.
and…
In Exodus 21:22 it states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine; it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense.
In Exodus 21:22 it states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine; it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense.
What version of the Bible is this? The KJV states:
[22] If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
[23] And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life
If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life
Here’s 50 different versions. I’ve looked over the most widely used, and can’t find that version of the scripture.
Other quotes from the bible concerning the womb (NIV translation):
“Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb? (Job 31:15)
Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother’s breasts. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother’s womb. (Psalms 22:9-10)
For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psalms 139:13-16)
Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb, who will help you, `Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; And you Jeshurun whom I have chosen. (Isaiah 44:2)
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone, (Isaiah 44:24)
I recently read an article about birth rates, abortions, etc. and it said that there are something like 1.2 million abortions performed a year. Adoption is always offered up as an alternative to abortion but seeing the number of abortions performed made me wonder if its possible to take of the increase in children should abortion be outlawed.
This is what I found:
In 1992(it is the last year reliable numbers are available), about 130,000 adoptions occured in the U.S. That includes international adoption, private adoption, adoption from foster care and also step-parent adoption, which accounts for 42% of the adoptions.
In 2006, 129,000 kids were awaiting adoption through public agencies. Of those, 51,000 were adopted.
I also did some looking around yesterday about preterm babies and their survival rates. There seemed to be a lot of different numbers out there but even statistics on the conservative end of the spectrum surprised me. A 24 weeker has a better shot at survival than I realized, anywhere from 10% to 50%. Much younger than that, though, and survival rates drop to almost nothing.
I’ll have to admit that I found the quotes on one single web page. Never checked the bible references.
Anyway, KJV says:
[22] If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
[23] And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life
Could it be that some interpret the scripture as that the mischief must regard the woman?
I admit that I don’t know the scripture, though. So please don’t hang me if I’m just being silly now.
I recently read an article about birth rates, abortions, etc. and it said that there are something like 1.2 million abortions performed a year. Adoption is always offered up as an alternative to abortion but seeing the number of abortions performed made me wonder if its possible to take of the increase in children should abortion be outlawed.
This is what I found:
In 1992(it is the last year reliable numbers are available), about 130,000 adoptions occured in the U.S. That includes international adoption, private adoption, adoption from foster care and also step-parent adoption, which accounts for 42% of the adoptions.
In 2006, 129,000 kids were awaiting adoption through public agencies. Of those, 51,000 were adopted.
I also did some looking around yesterday about preterm babies and their survival rates. There seemed to be a lot of different numbers out there but even statistics on the conservative end of the spectrum surprised me. A 24 weeker has a better shot at survival than I realized, anywhere from 10% to 50%. Much younger than that, though, and survival rates drop to almost nothing.
If abortions weren’t available as a form of birth control, there would be a helluva lot fewer pregnancies to begin with. There are multitudes who don’t use birth control and who have sex that first time unprotected simply because they know that in the event of an unwanted pregnancy that they can simply kill the baby.
I recently read an article about birth rates, abortions, etc. and it said that there are something like 1.2 million abortions performed a year. Adoption is always offered up as an alternative to abortion but seeing the number of abortions performed made me wonder if its possible to take of the increase in children should abortion be outlawed.
This is what I found:
In 1992(it is the last year reliable numbers are available), about 130,000 adoptions occured in the U.S. That includes international adoption, private adoption, adoption from foster care and also step-parent adoption, which accounts for 42% of the adoptions.
In 2006, 129,000 kids were awaiting adoption through public agencies. Of those, 51,000 were adopted.
I also did some looking around yesterday about preterm babies and their survival rates. There seemed to be a lot of different numbers out there but even statistics on the conservative end of the spectrum surprised me. A 24 weeker has a better shot at survival than I realized, anywhere from 10% to 50%. Much younger than that, though, and survival rates drop to almost nothing.
If abortions weren’t available as a form of birth control, there would be a helluva lot fewer pregnancies to begin with. There are multitudes who don’t use birth control and who have sex that first time unprotected simply because they know that in the event of an unwanted pregnancy that they can simply kill the baby.
As it is, there are too many kids and not enough homes. So unless people using abortion as their primary form of birth control represents a huge majority of the abortions performed (which I doubt), the problem of what to do with the jump in the number of unwanted kids should abortion be outlawed still exists. To me, the numbers show that the ol’ “there are plenty of people who want to adopt kids” solution to abortion is false. Even with abortion, there are kids sitting around in foster care waiting for parents.
Abortion has decreased the violent crime rate. So we got that going for us.
That piece of Freakonomics “fact” has been called out before. There’s a rather lengthy analysis here and it begins by stating that the conclusion relies upon two mistakes.
