No you weren't. No matter what the circumstances of your conception, you weren't meant to be aborted. When people have talked about rape and abuse as reasons abortion should stay legal, they're not saying that women in those situations should have abortions, only that they should have the choice to have an abortion. Your mum had that choice (whether it was legal or not where and when you were born), and she choose to keep you, and also to raise you herself rather than giving you up for adoption. No matter how it feels sometimes, your mum did to choose to carry you to term and to keep raise you herself -- she really did (and still does) want you. And it's important that she had that choice, because whether or not she wanted to get pregnant, she choose to keep you -- it wasn't an accident, and it wasn't against her will.
Emily
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This Is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
No you weren't. No matter what the circumstances of your conception, you weren't meant to be aborted. When people have talked about rape and abuse as reasons abortion should stay legal, they're not saying that women in those situations should have abortions, only that they should have the choice to have an abortion. Your mum had that choice (whether it was legal or not where and when you were born), and she choose to keep you, and also to raise you herself rather than giving you up for adoption. No matter how it feels sometimes, your mum did to choose to carry you to term and to keep raise you herself -- she really did (and still does) want you. And it's important that she had that choice, because whether or not she wanted to get pregnant, she choose to keep you -- it wasn't an accident, and it wasn't against her will.
Thank you. I don't think you realise how much that means to me.
If it were me that got pregnant, well... I'm only 15. My heart (as in, personally, feelings over abortion, how I love children, etc.) would say keep it. My head (calculating the cost, the energy, the circumstances, the fact I'm still in school, influence on the relationship, etc.) then no, I wouldn't be able to keep it.
I'm neither pro-life or pro-choice. There's no hard and fast rule where you should or shouldn't have an abortion. There's so many factors to take into account.
I'm probably going to get a lot of stick for this but...
I'm not pro-life OR pro-choice because I don't know if I would be in either category.
Quote:
But I agree with it in certain circumstances, for example if a woman was raped and fell pregnant, or if the pregnancy would put the woman's life in danger, or if the woman was in no condition to look after a baby (ie drug addict or severely mentally ill).
I completely agree with this basically. I believe that if you cannot give the child a good quality of life, you shouldn't have the child. BUT saying that, you could give it up for adoption. However, if you are a drug addict and you inject whilst pregnant, you are therefore making your child a drug addict. No questions asked. Then you should abort (in my view). Also those teenage girls who have an abortion as a form of contraception (trust me, it happens. I know girls who've done it) should have a limit of abortions. It is not a form of contraception and it screws up your insides, rendering yourself infertile in the future for when you may want children. Also to bring up the point about if the man wants the child. It's not his choice. If the woman wants to abort the child, that's her choice. You could say I'm pro-life because I believe that as soon as the egg and the sperm meet, it is a baby as it is growing and the cells are dividing, just like a fully grown human being. I wouldn't say it is "murder" but it is killing a live thing. But then again, i'm not a vegetarian so you could tell me that is going against my own beliefs.
But yeah. That's just what I believe. I'm sort of in the middle
"From seeing the worst to loving the strongest; People grow over time."
No you weren't. No matter what the circumstances of your conception, you weren't meant to be aborted. When people have talked about rape and abuse as reasons abortion should stay legal, they're not saying that women in those situations should have abortions, only that they should have the choice to have an abortion. Your mum had that choice (whether it was legal or not where and when you were born), and she choose to keep you, and also to raise you herself rather than giving you up for adoption. No matter how it feels sometimes, your mum did to choose to carry you to term and to keep raise you herself -- she really did (and still does) want you. And it's important that she had that choice, because whether or not she wanted to get pregnant, she choose to keep you -- it wasn't an accident, and it wasn't against her will.
That's what I wanted to say but couldn't get out.
Isn’t it funny how day by day nothing changes but when you look back, everything is different…
you once called your brain a hard drive, well say hello to the virus.
Pro-choice. I think that if there abortions that they should be safe abortions. I do not really like the thought of abortions, but I do support having it be an option and for all women. Not just rape or abuse victims because really it's a woman's decision and what the woman does with her body and what she's carrying should be her choice. If that makes sense?
Let's put a smile on that face
We are not alone
Find out when your cover's blown
There'll be somebody there to break your fall
We are not alone
'Cause when you cut down to the bone
We're really not so different after all
Pro-choice.
However, I would like to see the cut-off point go down to less than 18 weeks ideally.
I think 24 is just too far, in all honesty I do feel like that IS killing because a baby can survive.
Abortion limits do need to be evaluated with medical advances.
However, one day we might be able to have entire pregnancies outside the womb, then what will we do?
Basically, I just think people need to be able to decide for themselves.
Given the right care now I don't doubt that you could have entire pregnancies out side of the mother. It would be different processes to how the medics dow it however as different things can only be done after birth but with the right care and the right resourse it probably is possible now. That however is not through medical care and does not mean a fetus can survive on it's own outside of the uterus. I, myself have seen embryo's surviving outside the natural host when only a few days old living/ growing and that was when they started off by the 'normal' processes, not by IVF.
I think the solution to matching the age of a foetus that can legally be aborted with the medical advances is to not match it with to any medical advances. If you consider birth to be a baby being born into the world and being able to survive on its own without any need for further incubation then you can consider a baby that has been born prematurely and kept in an incubator to be "born" properly when it is old enough and sufficiently developed to survive without an incubator. This age will be roughly the same whether the foetus stays inside the womb for the whole pregnancy or is born prematurely and kept in an artificial womb or incubator.
Either define that age as when a baby is classified as a human and so should not be aborted or if you are against abortion up to full term, simply take that age and work backwards to whatever arbitrary age where it suddenly becomes unacceptable.
I think the solution to matching the age of a foetus that can legally be aborted with the medical advances is to not match it with to any medical advances. If you consider birth to be a baby being born into the world and being able to survive on its own without any need for further incubation then you can consider a baby that has been born prematurely and kept in an incubator to be "born" properly when it is old enough and sufficiently developed to survive without an incubator. This age will be roughly the same whether the foetus stays inside the womb for the whole pregnancy or is born prematurely and kept in an artificial womb or incubator.
Either define that age as when a baby is classified as a human and so should not be aborted or if you are against abortion up to full term, simply take that age and work backwards to whatever arbitrary age where it suddenly becomes unacceptable.
Basing this more in medical help, than being in an incubator, there are plenty of full term babies who end up in neo natal units requiring "intervention". Some babies, as they grow, will always require medical help from birth to adulthood; would they not be properly "born" until they could survive without medical help keeping them alive, as an incubator helps a premature baby (or term baby)? Babies can be out of incubators and in cribs as early as 36 weeks, but that is still premature.
18.11 28.4 6.5 22.31
My heart just needs his smile, that i can't forget, like so melancholy a kiss.
In the US at least when a baby is delivered prematurely they consider the date of birth day 1 of the person's chronological age, but there is also the corrected age, which is calculated by using their estimated due date if the pregnancy was 40 weeks. The corrected age is what is used to document developmental milestones and to judge if the baby is developing normally.
Basically, if a baby is born at 30 weeks, instead of 40 when they have their 1 month well child check they will have it 30 days after when they were supposed to be born. Those first 10 weeks don't count towards normal childhood development because the baby is still developing things that should have been done in the womb.
Well it breaks my heart to see you this way,
The beauty in life, where's it gone?
And somebody told me you were doing okay,
Somehow I guess they were wrong.
That's hit a bit of a nerve for me. Nineteen years ago, I was born at 28 weeks. Nineteen years ago. Medicine has come a long, long way in that time. It would be the equivalent of me being born at 24 weeks now, probably. And you're saying they shouldn't be kept alive? People shouldn't bother because they might be disabled?
My parents had no idea how I would develop, if I would be brain damaged or disabled, but they loved me all the same, wanted me to survive. They would have loved me even if I were disabled. People should always do everything in their power to keep prem babies alive.
I'm not saying that NO preemie born at 22, 24, etc weeks should be kept alive, but the facts are that preemies born before 24 weeks have miserable long term survival rates, even with modern medical intervention. In some cases, the interventions can keep the baby alive, but cause their own problems, like lung scaring, or kidney failure.
I know there have been cases where a baby who was born before 24 weeks has survived, but I don't think these extremely rare cases should be used as justification for lowering the abortion deadline, which was my original point.
I see this exactaly the same as people who are in comas. Occasionally someone will wake up after 10 years, but does one or two random occurrences justify keeping every single person who is in a coma alive on life support with disregard to what doctors think?
Yes doctors are wrong sometimes, that is why it is called practicing medicine.
In a system like the UKs especially, people need to think about the big picture and what is best for the most people. If the NHS spends 2 million pounds keeping one preemie alive who then is severely disabled, how is that beneficial to anyone?
Well it breaks my heart to see you this way,
The beauty in life, where's it gone?
And somebody told me you were doing okay,
Somehow I guess they were wrong.
Also, keeping a 28wk alive 19years ago isn't the same as a 24 now. A lot of changes go on within the fetus in the uterus between those stages that mean it is more able and always will be more able to survive in the outside world at 28weeks than 24 as the organs are more developed. Yes they are able to do things earlier and the chances of survival of ones at 28weeks is better but that doesn't mean one which was born at 28weeks and survived back then would be able to be born at 24now and be fine; there are a huge amount of differences.
It's not a case of shouldn't be with me it is whether I'd do it myself. Being born at 28weeks 21years ago I know what problems it has caused me more than what anyone else does. Yes some of the details when I was a baby I don't know but I know the end result and knowing a lot of the things could not be resolved by better medical care is what's making me think that seen as I was a lucky case maybe people shouldn't try quite so hard with some very prem babies.
I'm not saying that NO preemie born at 22, 24, etc weeks should be kept alive, but the facts are that preemies born before 24 weeks have miserable long term survival rates, even with modern medical intervention. In some cases, the interventions can keep the baby alive, but cause their own problems, like lung scaring, or kidney failure.
I know there have been cases where a baby who was born before 24 weeks has survived, but I don't think these extremely rare cases should be used as justification for lowering the abortion deadline, which was my original point.
I see this exactaly the same as people who are in comas. Occasionally someone will wake up after 10 years, but does one or two random occurrences justify keeping every single person who is in a coma alive on life support with disregard to what doctors think?
Yes doctors are wrong sometimes, that is why it is called practicing medicine. In a system like the UKs especially, people need to think about the big picture and what is best for the most people. If the NHS spends 2 million pounds keeping one preemie alive who then is severely disabled, how is that beneficial to anyone?
It's beneficial to everyone, because it carries on the "ethos" that everyone in the UK is entitled to medical treatment, there's no heirarchy as there is in the US. If the NHS were to stop saving preemies, when would the cutbacks stop? What about full term babies that suffer brain damage during birth? A two month old that has meningitis and goes into a coma? Someone who's severely disabled can still contribute to society, help improve understanding and brighten lives.
18.11 28.4 6.5 22.31
My heart just needs his smile, that i can't forget, like so melancholy a kiss.
It's beneficial to everyone, because it carries on the "ethos" that everyone in the UK is entitled to medical treatment, there's no heirarchy as there is in the US. If the NHS were to stop saving preemies, when would the cutbacks stop? What about full term babies that suffer brain damage during birth? A two month old that has meningitis and goes into a coma? Someone who's severely disabled can still contribute to society, help improve understanding and brighten lives.
Tell that to the people waiting months and months for fairly routine operations, those stuck in queues to see psychiatrists, those stuck in over crowded hospitals. Unfortunately the NHS has a finite pool of resources and whilst in an ideal world they would try and save everyone, sometimes it's just not realistic. And as for the two year old in a coma, well if I were that two year old I'd rather be dead, I seriously cannot imagine anything worse than having my own body as a prison.
Tell that to the people waiting months and months for fairly routine operations, those stuck in queues to see psychiatrists, those stuck in over crowded hospitals. Unfortunately the NHS has a finite pool of resources and whilst in an ideal world they would try and save everyone, sometimes it's just not realistic. And as for the two year old in a coma, well if I were that two year old I'd rather be dead, I seriously cannot imagine anything worse than having my own body as a prison.
I'm stunned.
God forbid a child could come out of a coma and go onto live a good life. Queues of people waiting for a psychiatrist? What do you suggest we do, put all the chronic mentally ill into asylums free up resources? Put a limit on how often someone's saved from suicide attempts, so as to relieve the pressure on finite resources? For routine operations, i don't see the trouble in waiting; at least we know there's help there should things go awry, should there be severe illness, disease and that people wont be left to rot.
Much of the strain on the NHS could be relieved by people doing things themselves, getting a grip on the obesity epidemic and putting a halt to the drunkards that take up many, many resources, for example.
18.11 28.4 6.5 22.31
My heart just needs his smile, that i can't forget, like so melancholy a kiss.
But the chances of people coming out of coma's are often incredibly slim. Sure you get the odd person who wakes up 10 years after going into a coma, but then many of them die a few days later. Also were someone to come out of a coma only to be stuck in a persistant vegetative state, well yes they are alive, but I think you need to consider the quality of life. And that would be my argument on not spending millions and millions on the slim chance a premature baby might survive, survive but at what cost to the child? And at what cost to the other patients in the NHS? It's not as simple as trying to save everyone all the time
And of course I'm not saying put all the mentally ill into asylums, though more psychiatric beds certainly wouldn't go amiss. The fact is that a lot of people don't get routine care, deteriorate and then require urgent care.
And yes the strain on the NHS could be relieved by those things, which is why I'm in favour of the proposals that the obese and smokers should contribute more to the cost of their NHS care.
Let's face it, the NHS is a bit of a political football. It is always one of the key issues in elections and always will be. Mental health doesn't get what it needs because it's not as "sexy" (for want of a better term) than cancer, or organ transplants or whatever else they always mention. The NHS isn't going to be completely changed because it is ingrained into our society. Making people pay for more of their treatment won't happen.
One thing I find hard about this is the way midwives and doctors etc will use the terms 'baby' and 'foetus' interchangeably depending on the circumstances. If a Mother is considering abortion they will religiously use the term 'foetus' but if the Mother is planning on keeping the baby or has had a miscarriage they'll use the term 'baby' right from the start. So which one is it? My Mum lost her BABY boy at 21 weeks, still born. Another lady will have had an abortion of her FOETUS at the same time....
I understand that's to do with sensitivity etc but it is interesting...
'Won’t you run, fly, open up your lungs tonight, breathe freedom for the first time in your life..'
One thing I find hard about this is the way midwives and doctors etc will use the terms 'baby' and 'foetus' interchangeably depending on the circumstances. If a Mother is considering abortion they will religiously use the term 'foetus' but if the Mother is planning on keeping the baby or has had a miscarriage they'll use the term 'baby' right from the start. So which one is it? My Mum lost her BABY boy at 21 weeks, still born. Another lady will have had an abortion of her FOETUS at the same time....
I understand that's to do with sensitivity etc but it is interesting...
I think it's only recently that this terminology has come into usage. It's like I know there was recently something in the news about how a memorial had been built to stillborns that had been buried in un-marked graves. Back in the day Doctors weren't as sensitive as they are now to women who had miscarriages and the foetuses/babies weren't given proper burials or anything. However I think it's good that womens emotions in what is a difficult time are taken into account.
However, for any woman having an abortion, of course it should be referred to as a foetus, having an abortion is never going to be an easy decision and I would argue is usually the act of a desperate woman. The last thing a woman needs in an already difficult situation is guilt tripping from the medical profession, there are enough people out there already willing to do that.
