Abortion

[Taylor]

But a conversation on 'viability' would be a good one to have within the context of this whole debate.

It would be interesting.

One side camps it's argument in that life although not viable now, it potentially will be.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

It would be interesting.

One side camps it's argument in that life although not viable now, it potentially will be.

Yeah, that's it. 'Potentially'. And yeah, through untrasound scans we can see every little movement. Until new breakthroughs occur there will always be unknowables to life at certain stages though. When does a life form become self-aware? React to outside stimuli?

Maybe these questions will be answered when fully functioning 'artificial wombs' become commonplace in the medical field and human life becomes clearly observable at all stages of growth.

 

[Taylor]

Yeah, that's it. 'Potentially'. And yeah, through untrasound scans we can see every little movement. Until new breakthroughs occur there will always be unknowables to life at certain stages though. When does a life form become self-aware? React to outside stimuli?

Maybe these questions will be answered when fully functioning 'artificial wombs' become commonplace in the medical field and human life becomes clearly observable at all stages of growth.

Personally I think we can play the scientific numbers fairly soundly, there will be stats that show the percentage of babies born to how long they were cooking. For example, the percentage of successful pregnancy once reaching certain weeks along.

Then you decide what level you're comfortable with. If you're choosing abortion by a certain point you are kidding yourself thinking it might not have made it anyway.

For me I don't like the idea of any potential person brewing up being terminated without even a chance at life, especially if you're paying for your escape with that child's life.

 

[IKnowtheDog]

 

[Sainteric]

No, even babies in mortal danger had to be carried to term in Ireland.



and

that's an interpretation issue and in these cases they got it wrong.

 

[HairyO]

I'm going to put in my 2 cents, I might only be 14 but I have a strong opinion on abortions. I am pro-choice. I'm also religious. Taking away a womans right to kill a fetus is a disgusting act and should be punishable. It should also be the woman's choice not the mans (or the child bearer in same sex couples) as a man who has never had sex people tell me that I don't understand. This is complete and utter bullshit you don't have to be a woman to understand that abortion is ok. Woman should have control of their own bodies.

As a 14 year old youve probably never considered the concept of being forced to pay for something you dont want for 18 years.

 

[Sterge]

Thanks for your story mate. I wish more men could be like you.

I'm sorry to hear about your situation but I would say the vast majority of fathers want to be involved in their kids lives. Only a small minority would just walk away knowing they had a kid.

Personally I think we can play the scientific numbers fairly soundly, there will be stats that show the percentage of babies born to how long they were cooking. For example, the percentage of successful pregnancy once reaching certain weeks along.

Then you decide what level you're comfortable with. If you're choosing abortion by a certain point you are kidding yourself thinking it might not have made it anyway.

For me I don't like the idea of any potential person brewing up being terminated without even a chance at life, especially if you're paying for your escape with that child's life.

26 weeks and > 500grams are the magic numbers

and the doctors would have let us abort our daughter up to 26 weeks given the medical circumstances

 

[Taylor]

I'm sorry to hear about your situation but I would say the vast majority of fathers want to be involved in their kids lives. Only a small minority would just walk away knowing they had a kid.



26 weeks and > 500grams are the magic numbers

and the doctors would have let us abort our daughter up to 26 weeks given the medical circumstances

I wasn't talking about survival from ending the pregnancy at that point, it was the chance of the pregnancy resulting in a miscarriage at each week. That is to say which abortions would have occurred naturally at that point, to discern which abortions are resulting in the death of a child (how likely that life ended would have resulted in a child).

Like this (miscarriage rate):
Week 0-2 - 75%
Week 3-6 - 10%
Weeks 6-12 - 5%
Weeks 12-20 - 3%

 

[Sterge]

I wasn't talking about survival from ending the pregnancy at that point, it was the chance of the pregnancy resulting in a miscarriage at each week. That is to say which abortions would have occurred naturally at that point, to discern which abortions are resulting in the death of a child (how likely that life ended would have resulted in a child).

Like this (miscarriage rate):
Week 0-2 - 75%
Week 3-6 - 10%
Weeks 6-12 - 5%
Weeks 12-20 - 3%

My bad, misunderstood.

This article has some good numbers there are so many factors in it though such as mothers age and other risk factors that don't get reported.

https://expectingscience.com/2015/08/26/lies-damned-lies-and-miscarriage-statistics/

Miscarriage risk drops as pregnancy progresses. The risk is highest early in the first trimester. Fortunately, for most women by 14 weeks their chance of a miscarriage is less than 1%.

Miscarriages rates declined between 6 to 10 weeks, according to a study of 697 pregnancies with a confirmed fetal heartbeat:

• 9.4% at 6 weeks
• 4.6% at 7 weeks
• 1.5% at 8 weeks
• 0.5% at 9 weeks
• 0.7% at 10 weeks

A similar study of 668 pregnancies with a confirmed fetal heartbeat between 6 and 10 weeks, found a similar decline in miscarriage risk by week:

• 10.3% at 6 weeks
• 7.9% at 7 weeks
• 7.4% at 8 weeks
• 3.1% at 9 weeks

6 Weeks and 2 days

6 weeks 3 days - 7 weeks

 

[Taylor]

That's where I pulled my simple numbers from, it made it quite clear to me that the presence of a heartbeat usually resulted in a baby.

So if there is to be an abortion discussion you'd want to have it prior to the heartbeat being detected, after that you're most likely killing a child.

That's my part way to the middle position. My standing ground position is to choose to not have the baby prior to him ejaculating.

 

[Sterge]

That's where I pulled my simple numbers from, it made it quite clear to me that the presence of a heartbeat usually resulted in a baby.

So if there is to be an abortion discussion you'd want to have it prior to the heartbeat being detected, after that you're most likely killing a child.

That's my part way to the middle position. My standing ground position is to choose to not have the baby prior to him ejaculating.

The problem is how many people go for an ultrasound that early or even at all prior to an abortion decision?

 

[Taylor]

The problem is how many people go for an ultrasound that early or even at all prior to an abortion decision?

If you are pro-abortion it would be very counter productive to facilitate that, just as if you're anti-abortion it would be very manipulative to similarly facilitate it.

That's why I think it's best to make the choice prior to the grand finale.

 

[craigos]

This is why I wore three condoms on both of the occasions I had sex.

 

[Brad Goodman]

This is why I wore three condoms on both of the occasions I had sex.

Better to be safe than sorry, it's really the only way to keep your hand clean.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

...For me I don't like the idea of any potential person brewing up being terminated without even a chance at life, especially if you're paying for your escape with that child's life.

I'm pro-choice, but there is undeniable truth to your point. Personal responsibility accounts for everything in terms of unwanted pregnancy - there are already countless steps men and women can take regarding contraception.

Prevention is better than the alternative.

What's your take on 'morning after' pills like RU-486? Medical/medicinal abortion rather than the surgical?

that's an interpretation issue and in these cases they got it wrong.

At the very least it won't be happening again, so there's that.

 

[perthblue]

I'm pro-choice, but there is undeniable truth to your point. Personal responsibility accounts for everything in terms of unwanted pregnancy - there are already countless steps men and women can take regarding contraception.

Prevention is better than the alternative.

What's your take on 'morning after' pills like RU-486? Medical/medicinal abortion rather than the surgical?



At the very least it won't be happening again, so there's that.

RU486 is not a morning after pill. MAPs prevent eggs from being fertilized and are not abortions. RU486 is an abortion pill, and I'd suggest the same views would apply whether the pregnancy is being terminated surgically or with a pill.

 

[Taylor]

The morning after pill works by delaying or preventing the release of an egg, it doesn't do anything if you've ovulated already.

The egg once ejected can live for six to twelve hours so if that has happened prior to sex you're probably going to shower it with sperm, the morning after pill will hold off ovulation for the five days the sperm live inside her.

The morning after pill doesn't stop a pregnancy already underway.

RU486 is an abortion, no different to a surgical termination.

 

[Run n Spread]

Here’s one for you. A bloke I see through work occasionally has just had his partner tell him that she is pregnant, about 4-5 weeks into the pregnancy.

They have pre-agreed that if she fell pregnant they would have an abortion however she has completely changed her mind and is set on keeping it.

He wants nothing to do with the situation, isn’t ready for a child or to be a father due to financial reasons and general life reasons at this stage of his life. He told her during the start that she will be doing it on her own due to their prior agreement and if she wants to that’s fine, but he’s essentially going to sell up and go on the dole so that she can’t smash him for child support.

He’s come around from those initial thoughts now however and understands it’s a hard thing for her to go through and isn’t going to do any of the above, he’s scared to all shit about the situation though, but doesn’t think it’s fair on the child to grow up without him over the situation, however he also doesn’t feel like he’s ready to be a dad. He ultimately said last Friday that it’s her decision now and he’s going to try his best to deal with whatever she comes up with and play his part, but he’s not real happy considering they had a prior agreement.

Thoughts on that situation?

He has to make one of 2 choices:

Option a) Sign nothing. Admit nothing and force it through the courts. Simply state that he does not want children as per the agreement and wants nothing to do with the child's life. Simply sees himself as a donor. She went against his wishes so it is up to her.

Option b) Just try and be the best father he can be. Fact is if we where all planned and born under ideal circumstances we wouldn't have 7 billion on the planet. Stay involved (maybe have a go at co-habitation with mum) but at the very least try and co-parent civilly and be involved in his child's life. (All this contingent on a positive DNA test).

Forget the law etc agreements whatever she said before means nothing. She has simply changed her mind. Like anything in life people can rarely be taken at face value. She wants the kid and is having it so the 2 choices above are his only ones i can think of.

 

[Taylor]

Nobody can force you to be a father to a child but the law will force you to contribute to the upkeep, because the alternative is the state contributes to the upkeep.

You can't contract out statutory law, no matter what agreements are made the law finds you responsible for your children.

 

[Run n Spread]

The morning after pill works by delaying or preventing the release of an egg, it doesn't do anything if you've ovulated already.

The egg once ejected can live for six to twelve hours so if that has happened prior to sex you're probably going to shower it with sperm, the morning after pill will hold off ovulation for the five days the sperm live inside her.

The morning after pill doesn't stop a pregnancy already underway.

RU486 is an abortion, no different to a surgical termination.

True. That's why its 80% effective. As in if ovulation has started say a 7% chance on any given day + the potential for error if the delay/timing is stuffed and you have still a 1 in 5 shot. There is a reason it is for emergencies only.

My understanding of RU486 is it effects the lining so the cells can't take. More similar to natural miscarriages early where the fertilised egg can't hang on for a better term. It would have to be used very early days. (Personally think it should be available at chemists like the MAP).

 

[Run n Spread]

Nobody can force you to be a father to a child but the law will force you to contribute to the upkeep, because the alternative is the state contributes to the upkeep.

You can't contract out statutory law, no matter what agreements are made the law finds you responsible for your children.

Still have to prove it's his. In common law under marriage or de facto any child is just assumed the partners unless proven otherwise but what can the state do if a bloke (casual or ONS) says "Not Mine. I'm off to Argentina."

 

[RU_]

He has to make one of 2 choices:

Option a) Sign nothing. Admit nothing and force it through the courts. Simply state that he does not want children as per the agreement and wants nothing to do with the child's life. Simply sees himself as a donor. She went against his wishes so it is up to her.

Option b) Just try and be the best father he can be. Fact is if we where all planned and born under ideal circumstances we wouldn't have 7 billion on the planet. Stay involved (maybe have a go at co-habitation with mum) but at the very least try and co-parent civilly and be involved in his child's life. (All this contingent on a positive DNA test).

Forget the law etc agreements whatever she said before means nothing. She has simply changed her mind. Like anything in life people can rarely be taken at face value. She wants the kid and is having it so the 2 choices above are his only ones i can think of.

Yeah spoke to him yesterday and he’s decided he’s going to have a crack at being a dad. She’s going to have the child regardless and he’s not willing to let the kid grow up with one parent as it’s not fair, just going to try the best he can.

His whole reasoning was that they aren’t or moreso he wasn’t ready to be a dad financially and at this stage in his life. They live together and earn comfortable money but he’s worried about the extra costs that come with a child and he doesn’t want to be one of those broke families trying to help a child through life happily while keeping food on the table and a roof over their heads. Mainly worried about losing her income to the family as it’s going to make things a lot tighter financially.

 

[Run n Spread]

Why do people have sex if they're not potentially ready to be a parent? Everyone knows pregnancy is a possibility. People shit me.

Love, hormones, as part of an ongoing relationship, to bond with a partner, for fun, cure for loneliness, because it is one of humanity's most basic drives, etc.

People are unlikely to stop any time soon.

I do however concede your point in that:

We are at our most fertile in late teenage/early adult years (16-25) for women probably (19-30) for men. As in the human body has finished growing, we have adapted to our adult bodies and our endocrine system is at it's strongest. Now obviously I know of no teenager or even early 20 in any way shape or form emotionally, mentally, financially ready to be a parent. In that way Human Biology is not at pace with our current social structure. Just a fact of life and why contraception is one of the finest most well used inventions.

 

[Run n Spread]

I swear some of the pro-lifer nutbags don't see any difference between terminating a pregnancy at 6 weeks and killing a newborn.

Here's the thing if you want to argue Life begins at Conception you have to specify a point. If it is sperm meets egg then do these people realise up to 25% of these cases don't result in a long term pregnancy. In a lot of cases the cells attach and begin multiplying/forming a DNA structure but for whatever reason don't take. A lot of times a woman may be late by a few days and not realise she was pregnant.

I really don't see the difference in say above a lot of conceptions/pregnancies just not taking or taking RU486 so they don't take. We use contraception/even other methods in life to alter nature/biology so i don't see how at an early stage it is any different to contraception.

Weird thing in this debate (not saying anyone here specifically) is there is a shocking ignorance of how a pregnancy forms and understanding of the biology at play. Instead as in anything it gets taken to extremes...............

Killing a Baby (Life begins at fertilisation) vs Abortion up to the due date.

 

[Taylor]

I swear some of the pro-lifer nutbags don't see any difference between terminating a pregnancy at 6 weeks and killing a newborn.

That's because at the six week mark most of the time the only difference between the newborn and the growing life is time.