Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member leestatic
    Hristos voskrese
    19 Jun '09 01:07
    Ive taken this from a facebook campaign

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=44595174482&ref=mf

    "Hi everyone, as some of you already know I had a little baby boy called Jayden on 3rd of October 2008. Sadly I had gone into labour too soon and he was born just halfway through my pregnancy. When I went into labour I was told he would be born dead, disabled and his skin would most likely be peeling off, in actual fact he was perfect. As you can see from his pic he was born alive, he was responsive and lived without help for nearly 2 hours. Regardless of this doctors refused to come and see him let alone consider helping him. This is down to government legislation stating that babies born before 22 weeks are not viable and are not to be helped. Now I'm asking for your help in changing legislation so other families don't have to suffer unnecessarily. Please join this group so that I have a chance at getting the government to realise how wrong they are.
    Thank You for taking the time to read this, Sarah x"

    Now to start with i was shocked and angered by the UK legislation, but then i thought is it right to put a baby under stress and pain with invasive treatment for such a low survival rate?
  2. 19 Jun '09 01:27
    Originally posted by leestatic
    Ive taken this from a facebook campaign

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=44595174482&ref=mf

    "Hi everyone, as some of you already know I had a little baby boy called Jayden on 3rd of October 2008. Sadly I had gone into labour too soon and he was born just halfway through my pregnancy. When I went into labour I was told he would be born dead, dis ...[text shortened]... ht to put a baby under stress and pain with invasive treatment for such a low survival rate?
    I am sorry for your loss! Decisions should have been made between you and your doctor. Governments are pretty lame at taking care of their own responsibilities and have no business muddling up healthcare. I commend you for taking action and I hope the best for you.
  3. 19 Jun '09 01:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by leestatic
    Ive taken this from a facebook campaign

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=44595174482&ref=mf

    "Hi everyone, as some of you already know I had a little baby boy called Jayden on 3rd of October 2008. Sadly I had gone into labour too soon and he was born just halfway through my pregnancy. When I went into labour I was told he would be born dead, dis ht to put a baby under stress and pain with invasive treatment for such a low survival rate?
    You have to realize, that this is a very, very touchy issue. ANY legislation that could be deemed prolife is a big no, no in many political correct countries around the world. The risk is, if you give them an inch they will take a mile I suppose. Heck, the the US underage girls don't even have to tell their parents they are going for an abortion but if they so much as go to get their ears pierced they must have the consent of their parents. In fact, I heard of a girl who died from an abortion and the parents knew nothing about it....unitl they discovered her dead. Sadly, the parents had no legal recourse.

    I'm very sorry to hear about your loss.
  4. Standard member leestatic
    Hristos voskrese
    19 Jun '09 01:39 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    I am sorry for your loss! Decisions should have been made between you and your doctor. Governments are pretty lame at taking care of their own responsibilities and have no business muddling up healthcare. I commend you for taking action and I hope the best for you.
    No, thank the sweet love of fck it's not happened to me but this has apparently happened to someone else, but i can't find any other link than Facebook or any proof that this legislation exists. Although i would have expected it making headlines.
  5. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    19 Jun '09 04:50
    Originally posted by leestatic
    Ive taken this from a facebook campaign

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=44595174482&ref=mf

    "Hi everyone, as some of you already know I had a little baby boy called Jayden on 3rd of October 2008. Sadly I had gone into labour too soon and he was born just halfway through my pregnancy. When I went into labour I was told he would be born dead, dis ...[text shortened]... ht to put a baby under stress and pain with invasive treatment for such a low survival rate?
    Babies born at 22 weeks have a 10% survival chance.
    And that's with treatment.

    I presume that resources are better used for cases with better chances.
  6. 19 Jun '09 11:26
    Originally posted by whodey
    You have to realize, that this is a very, very touchy issue. ANY legislation that could be deemed prolife is a big no, no in many political correct countries around the world. The risk is, if you give them an inch they will take a mile I suppose. Heck, the the US underage girls don't even have to tell their parents they are going for an abortion but if the ...[text shortened]... er dead. Sadly, the parents had no legal recourse.

    I'm very sorry to hear about your loss.
    I am being serious here. What you say about parents not being informed about aborion yet have to sign off on lesser procedures shows evidence of an evil eugenics agenda. Most folks on this site don't go along with such conspiracy theorys(as they call it). What else could explain this? I am glad this didn't happen to the writer of the thread as now it can be discussed in more detail an sensitivity is not an issue.What do you think is going on Whodey? Why is there deliberate confusion to when a human being comes into existence?
  7. 19 Jun '09 12:28 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    I am being serious here. What you say about parents not being informed about aborion yet have to sign off on lesser procedures shows evidence of an evil eugenics agenda. Most folks on this site don't go along with such conspiracy theorys(as they call it). What else could explain this? I am glad this didn't happen to the writer of the thread as now it can ...[text shortened]... going on Whodey? Why is there deliberate confusion to when a human being comes into existence?
    What is the root of the problem? It is at the root of pretty much every problem in the world today which is the love of $$$. Abortion is big business. So where is the money going to come into government with all the prolifers in charge? As a matter of fact, why do most have abortions? It is my guess it is the same problem which is a feeling they can't afford them, or lets just say can't continue their same life style if they had them. For example, I once heard about a woman who lived in Manhattan who wanted to have a child but much to her chagrin eneded up with twins. However, this put a wrench in her plans because she knew she could not afford more than one child or she would have to move back to Jersey. She then decided to selectively abort one of the unborn babies.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Jun '09 13:32
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Babies born at 22 weeks have a 10% survival chance.
    And that's with treatment.

    I presume that resources are better used for cases with better chances.
    Wow.

    What a horrible thing to say.
  9. 19 Jun '09 14:13
    Originally posted by whodey
    What is the root of the problem? It is at the root of pretty much every problem in the world today which is the love of $$$. Abortion is big business. So where is the money going to come into government with all the prolifers in charge? As a matter of fact, why do most have abortions? It is my guess it is the same problem which is a feeling they can't a ...[text shortened]... e to move back to Jersey. She then decided to selectively abort one of the unborn babies.
    I agree about the money and lifestyle playing a part in peoples choices. What alarms me most though is the bias in the law allowing children to have an abortion without the parents consent. Women do have troubles after abortions. Some never quite get over feeling guilty. I think as a parent I should be a part of the decision making process. I have two daughters, one is 15 and another is 11. Neither of them should make that kind of decision without advise from a loved one. There are more issues here than whether abortion is good or bad. Instead of having to admit to mom and dad that a girl has been doing things against the family rules, they can just go out and cover it all up. That would be a neat plan for a teenager. What they may not know is how it will affect the rest of their life. I do think there is more too it than just money too. The law is driven by an agenda. I am not totally opposed to population control of sorts. My ideas do not force decisions down peoples throats, or kill the unborn. There are a lot of social problems in the world that can make it difficult to support a family. I say lets deal with those problems.
  10. 19 Jun '09 14:27
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Babies born at 22 weeks have a 10% survival chance.
    And that's with treatment.

    I presume that resources are better used for cases with better chances.
    Well I know for a fact that alzehiemers patients are kept alive to be able to drain family resources. The doctors are a bit reluctant to let folks die of old age without a lot of tests and treatments that will serve no purpose for the patient. If this gal had a lot of money things may have been different for her. We don't know this though.
  11. 19 Jun '09 15:49
    Originally posted by sh76
    Wow.

    What a horrible thing to say.
    No, I think shav is right on that one.

    There's no point in going on if the chances are so small.
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    19 Jun '09 15:52
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    There's no point in going on if the chances are so small.
    What would the chances have to be? 12% 15% 20%? ... before there'd be a point?
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Jun '09 16:04
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    No, I think shav is right on that one.

    There's no point in going on if the chances are so small.
    You don't think giving a person a 10% chance at a full life is worth the resources to try and save that person?

    Well, all I can say is that I could not possibly disagree more strongly.

    As FMF asked, I'd be curious at what percentage you'd draw the line between worth trying to save and not worth trying to save.
  14. 19 Jun '09 16:08
    Originally posted by sh76
    You don't think giving a person a 10% chance at a full life is worth the resources to try and save that person?

    Well, all I can say is that I could not possibly disagree more strongly.

    As FMF asked, I'd be curious at what percentage you'd draw the line between worth trying to save and not worth trying to save.
    It is worthy, but sometimes you just have to accept the facts.
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    19 Jun '09 16:13
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    It is worthy, but sometimes you just have to accept the facts.
    The FACT is that THE POINT is to live. The other FACT is that 10% means there is still a chance of living. To say "...there is no point..." seems very odd.