If you had to decide whether foetuses which would develop into Siamese twins should be aborted, what would you answer?

Before, and then after reading the link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22181528

I'm not going to bite on that but I am fascinated by their legal situation. I think if both are teaching, they are being exploited with only one salary. On the other hand, just because they have two heads, they are not two persons and I don't think they really should be required to have two passports. They aren't really separate human beings, are they? Yes I see the two brains. From a religious point of view, are there two souls? What if one started abusing the other? Could they petition for a restraining order? I assume they get to vote twice. Seems dodgy.

Here's a good one.

Suppose one is gay and the other is straight.

The straight one marries a man.

The gay one marries a woman in a U.S. state with legal marriage.

Then they move to a state without legal gay marriage, that doesn't recognize the gay marriage.

Imagine doing their taxes!

More seriously. I'm happy they weren't aborted. They seem like a great girl coming from a loving family.

Whatever the outcome "may" be the only right choice is the one made at that time. Anything else is irrelevent.

I would have said yes on the grounds that the foetus was badly deformed (note the conditionals!)....

but aren't they great?

Yes, before and after reading the link, but I am glad that their lives turned out well.

they have turned out great with loving parents who treated them like regular kids plus the benefit of alot of expensive medical intervention.

BUT I am am pretty sure if someone told me I was having twins so severly conjoined, I wouldn't have gone through with the pregnancy.

It sort of makes one wonder how many other wonderful children have been destroyed by the abortion clinics and never given the chance to develop.

What difference does it make? They never existed so you might as well say what other wonderful people were never given a chance to exist because daddy had a wank.

If the parents of these girls had aborted, as was their right, then you wouldn't have ever known about them anyway & would never have wondered what their lives would have been like.

Why would you ever consider aborting life, I wonder.

Why would you ever consider aborting life, I wonder.

Not everyone is a devout Catholic, mate.

Why would you ever consider aborting life, I wonder.

Really, you can't see ANY situation that might make it feasible?

Why would you ever consider aborting life, I wonder.

If pregnancy was the result of rape, or if the foetus would result in a seriously defective baby. That's why I posed this question.

I did seriously wonder if the whole story was a spoof, though. It seemed too good to be true.

Actually, I support abortion in cases of rape, incest or danger to the health of the mother or baby. In the situation with the conjoined twins, I would have very likely supported a decision to have them aborted. Luckily that was not a decision that I or anybody else on this forum had to make.

But NOT AFTER the 24th week in any case.

it must be nice to have such solid conviction on something when you are 100% secure in the knowledge that it is something you will never ever have to go through, something that will never affect your body.

This is why I get a bit eye rolley when men discuss how bad abortion is.

it must be nice to have such solid conviction on something when you are 100% secure in the knowledge that it is something you will never ever have to go through, something that will never affect your body.

This is why I get a bit eye rolley when men discuss how bad abortion is.

Much as I get a bit eye rolley when women discuss male circumcision.

Not sure if the link will work outside the Uk; but part 1 of the documentary can be seen at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01s5b2l/Abby_and_Brittany_Joined_for_Life_Episode_1/

it must be nice to have such solid conviction on something when you are 100% secure in the knowledge that it is something you will never ever have to go through, something that will never affect your body.

This is why I get a bit eye rolley when men discuss how bad abortion is.

Much as I get a bit eye rolley when women discuss male circumcision.

Not really the same thing. The argument around child circumsision is one of rights, that is perfomed on those who are too young to say yes or no & who should be given the right to chose at adulthood, the other is the attempted oppression of the rights of women, women who are able to make those descisions for themselves whether to become a mother or not. But if it makes you feel better

I'm all for women's right to choose, but with rights go responsibilities.

My stance, as I posted on another thread recently, is PRO precautions, ANTI abortions. I would like to see easy access to all forms of contraception, condoms, the pill, the morning after pill , vasectomy.... you name it.

BUT the foetus, at some stage, becomes a human being, and killing it is murder. I don't know when it becomes a human being, at conception, at three months, or on birth.

Therefore, when I support women's right to choose, I think she must make that choice before having sex, or at latest, the morning after.

Boo seems to think women are in some way independent of men. They're not; we're dependent on each other. Yes, the woman has to go through the pain of childbirth, but she makes the man pay for it for ever afterwards. I call that quits.

I'm all for women's right to choose, but with rights go responsibilities.

My stance, as I posted on another thread recently, is PRO precautions, ANTI abortions. I would like to see easy access to all forms of contraception, condoms, the pill, the morning after pill , vasectomy.... you name it.

BUT the foetus, at some stage, becomes a human being, and killing it is murder. I don't know when it becomes a human being, at conception, at three months, or on birth.

Therefore, when I support women's right to choose, I think she must make that choice before having sex, or at latest, the morning after.

Boo seems to think women are in some way independent of men. They're not; we're dependent on each other. Yes, the woman has to go through the pain of childbirth, but she makes the man pay for it for ever afterwards. I call that quits.

You presume alot about me isanbirder.

Women are independent of men in the case of pregnancy, a man can never get pregnant, he will never have to make the choice that a women has to in the case of abortion or keeping a child in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

A man is also responsible in his decision to have sex or not. yet he has the option to walk away the morning after & never take responsibility for his choice should a pregnancy occur.

Yet a women even having taken the precautions, can still get pregnant, nothing is 100% preventative . But at the end of the day, she is the only one who is pregnant, she is the only one who will either have to birth a child or go through an invasive treatment to end pregnancy, she is the only one who has to deal with it in any way that matters.

The man, contrary to your very telling last comments, doesn't "pay" for it if he choses to walk away.. A pregnant women doesn't have the luxury of walking away, she has to make the choice & therefore it should only be her choice.

Nothing is 100% preventative so unless you are suggesting 100% celibacy for everyone except those people looking to actively get pregnant, then abortion is a nessecary event.

And what of rape victims, do the men who get them pregnant "pay" for it? I think it would be the victim who would be forced to "pay" for it every day of her pregnancy & her life afterwards, should the victim also be forced to raise the child of rape or is she spared the trauma of at least that?. How is that "calling it quits"?

Or how about in the case of severe disability, should a mother be forced to give birth to a vegetable or a child who will never survive to adulthood & one who needs invasive medical intervention just to survive, why should a child be forced to live in such circumstances, why should a family be forced to live the kind of life that a severely disabled child entails.

If babies could be grown in pods or carried by men then I might change some of my views but all the while it is we, women who are the vessel then I reserve the right to whom I carry & defend other womens rights to the same.

The debate about later term abortion is another discussion all together. My view runs to a 22-24 week limit for the mothers benefit.

If pregnancy was the result of rape, or if the foetus would result in a seriously defective baby.

Please read my posts.

I'm all for women's right to choose, but with rights go responsibilities.

My stance, as I posted on another thread recently, is PRO precautions, ANTI abortions. I would like to see easy access to all forms of contraception, condoms, the pill, the morning after pill , vasectomy.... you name it.

BUT the foetus, at some stage, becomes a human being, and killing it is murder. I don't know when it becomes a human being, at conception, at three months, or on birth.

Therefore, when I support women's right to choose, I think she must make that choice before having sex, or at latest, the morning after.

Boo seems to think women are in some way independent of men. They're not; we're dependent on each other. Yes, the woman has to go through the pain of childbirth, but she makes the man pay for it for ever afterwards. I call that quits.

You presume alot about me isanbirder.

Women are independent of men in the case of pregnancy, a man can never get pregnant, he will never have to make the choice that a women has to in the case of abortion or keeping a child in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

A man is also responsible in his decision to have sex or not. yet he has the option to walk away the morning after & never take responsibility for his choice should a pregnancy occur.

Yet a women even having taken the precautions, can still get pregnant, nothing is 100% preventative . But at the end of the day, she is the only one who is pregnant, she is the only one who will either have to birth a child or go through an invasive treatment to end pregnancy, she is the only one who has to deal with it in any way that matters.

The man, contrary to your very telling last comments, doesn't "pay" for it if he choses to walk away.. A pregnant women doesn't have the luxury of walking away, she has to make the choice & therefore it should only be her choice.

Nothing is 100% preventative so unless you are suggesting 100% celibacy for everyone except those people looking to actively get pregnant, then abortion is a nessecary event.

And what of rape victims, do the men who get them pregnant "pay" for it? I think it would be the victim who would be forced to "pay" for it every day of her pregnancy & her life afterwards, should the victim also be forced to raise the child of rape or is she spared the trauma of at least that?. How is that "calling it quits"?

Or how about in the case of severe disability, should a mother be forced to give birth to a vegetable or a child who will never survive to adulthood & one who needs invasive medical intervention just to survive, why should a child be forced to live in such circumstances, why should a family be forced to live the kind of life that a severely disabled child entails.

If babies could be grown in pods or carried by men then I might change some of my views but all the while it is we, women who are the vessel then I reserve the right to whom I carry & defend other womens rights to the same.

The debate about later term abortion is another discussion all together. My view runs to a 22-24 week limit for the mothers benefit.

I am all for men having to take responsibility for babies they father. But the woman also has responsibility for choosing who she has sex with.

I accept your comments on the prevention methods not being 100% effective.... but how many % are we talking about?

Therefore, when I support women's right to choose, I think she must make that choice before having sex, or at latest, the morning after.

not being 100% effective.... but how many % are we talking about?

To address 2 points here;

It doesn't matter how many percent, it happens & unless all men & womena re to be prevented from having sex unless for procreation then the woman should always have the option of abortion.

To suggest that a women should deal with an unwanted pregnancy the day after sex is ridiculous. Some women are not aware they are pregnant for many weeks, myself was 6 weeks before any signs, i had a period & no other symptoms until 6 weeks & then I had a positive test, other women may not know until later than that. In my situation we were actively trying for a child but had I not, by your suggestion I should have taken the morning after pill every time I had sex, just in case i was pregnant.!

If you were serious in that comment then you seem to have a very limited concept of female biology.

Why would you ever consider aborting life, I wonder.

If pregnancy was the result of rape, or if the foetus would result in a seriously defective baby. That's why I posed this question.

I did seriously wonder if the whole story was a spoof, though. It seemed too good to be true.

The discussion has moved on, and I pick your posting to reply.

What is a "seriously defective baby"? It didn't pass QC, let's abort? Especially in the case of conjoined twins, I don't see a "right" to abort. That's what confused me about the OP.

And no, I don't believe a father has a right to move away either. Both parents need to take responsibility. But that's not the point of this discussion, I believe. The point is (and I paraphrase the OP): "think twice before you abort, as you knew that conjoined twins can be happy people too". Of course they can.

Or how about in the case of severe disability, should a mother be forced to give birth to a vegetable or a child who will never survive to adulthood & one who needs invasive medical intervention just to survive, why should a child be forced to live in such circumstances, why should a family be forced to live the kind of life that a severely disabled child entails.

(Quote from Boo)

I take Boo's comment, which is as good a definition as any. At some stage, this would be a matter for legislation, and good legislation has to define. I'm not a doctor, and can't do the job for them.

Therefore, when I support women's right to choose, I think she must make that choice before having sex, or at latest, the morning after.

>not being 100% effective.... but how many % are we talking about?

To address 2 points here;

It doesn't matter how many percent, it happens & unless all men & womena re to be prevented from having sex unless for procreation then the woman should always have the option of abortion.

To suggest that a women should deal with an unwanted pregnancy the day after sex is ridiculous. Some women are not aware they are pregnant for many weeks, myself was 6 weeks before any signs, i had a period & no other symptoms until 6 weeks & then I had a positive test, other women may not know until later than that. In my situation we were actively trying for a child but had I not, by your suggestion I should have taken the morning after pill every time I had sex, just in case i was pregnant.!

If you were serious in that comment then you seem to have a very limited concept of female biology.

Obviously my stance on abortion was an ideal, not the actual case.

That means that we do need to know what percentage of, say, the pill are defective. For another example, I know an obstetrician who was sued because a woman had a baby after he had ligated her Fallopian tubes. She lost the case, on the grounds that this had happened naturally (not through any mistake of his) and was an extremely rare occurrence. Knowledge of how rare such occurrences are can guide research into improving the contraceptive device or procedure.

Yes, I know that it takes some weeks before a woman knows she is pregnant, and yes, I do think she should take the morning after pill (always supposing she's not on the pill anyway) every time she has sex. Why is that so absurd?

Yes, I know that it takes some weeks before a woman knows she is

pregnant, and yes, I do think she should take the morning after pill

(always supposing she's not on the pill anyway) every time she has sex.

Why is that so absurd?

How about making all men at puberty have their tubes tied until they wish to procreate, why so absurd?

Yes, I know that it takes some weeks before a woman knows she is

pregnant, and yes, I do think she should take the morning after pill

(always supposing she's not on the pill anyway) every time she has sex.

Why is that so absurd?

How about making all men at puberty have their tubes tied until they wish to procreate, why so absurd?

At puberty most boys are not men, indeed many never grow to be men. And at puberty you would probably find that all would elect to be snipped if it meant freedom from responsibility. Very few men that I know have set out to create babies. They may sincerely love their offspring after birth, but deliberately trying to start a family? I don't know.

I went along with all the procedures because my wife wanted children, but I would have been quite happy without.

Yes, I know that it takes some weeks before a woman knows she is

pregnant, and yes, I do think she should take the morning after pill

(always supposing she's not on the pill anyway) every time she has sex.

Why is that so absurd?

How about making all men at puberty have their tubes tied until they wish to procreate, why so absurd?

At puberty most boys are not men, indeed many never grow to be men. And at puberty you would probably find that all would elect to be snipped if it meant freedom from responsibility. Very few men that I know have set out to create babies. They may sincerely love their offspring after birth, but deliberately trying to start a family? I don't know.

I went along with all the procedures because my wife wanted children, but I would have been quite happy without.

That's rather sad, HB (though I know that, as a gay, I shouldn't criticise).

The attitude which I find repellant is that sex is just for fun, and does not carry any responsibility.

Sex has three clear functions, the first being to have children, the second to bond a pair, and the third for pleasure. It would be silly to deny the last, but I suspect most people in late youth (like you and I, HB; we're the same age) have learnt that rights go hand-in-hand with responsibilities. Too many people in our Western society want all the rights they can get.... but without the attached responsibilities..

So by the argument you are making here, only the woman should take on all the responsibility to not get pregnant but if she does is given no chance to end the pregnancy?

What you seem to be saying is that yes, a woman is expected to be the responsible adult & take all the pills, injections etc to stop getting pregnant but if she should get pregnant she suddenly is no longer considered responsible enough to decide whether or not to have an abortion?

I agree, the ultimate responsibly is on a woman when it comes to her own fertility my own objection is when women are told that ending an unwanted pregnancy is wrong. Try being pregnant then tell me how you feel. Oh wait, not possible. As I said, must be nice to have a stance when you know it is something you will never have to experience.

Somewhat of a double standard really. But I really am not all the surprised. I am 100% convinced that if men were the child bearers that not only would abortion be legal everywhere & to a much later term but tampons, contraceptives & all the other gumph we have to buy during our periods would be free or at a massively reduce cost.

And Humphrey, my husband was the one bugging me to get pregnant & would love to have more children, he'd have 4+ if he could. I on the other hand don't, so we have one, so I don't really think you speak for all men in this..

At puberty most boys are not men, indeed many never grow to be men. And at puberty you would probably find that all would elect to be snipped if it meant freedom from responsibility. Very few men that I know have set out to create babies. They may sincerely love their offspring after birth, but deliberately trying to start a family? I don't know.

I went along with all the procedures because my wife wanted children, but I would have been quite happy without.

That's rather sad, HB (though I know that, as a gay, I shouldn't criticise).

The attitude which I find repellant is that sex is just for fun, and does not carry any responsibility.

Sex has three clear functions, the first being to have children, the second to bond a pair, and the third for pleasure. It would be silly to deny the last, but I suspect most people in late youth (like you and I, HB; we're the same age) have learnt that rights go hand-in-hand with responsibilities. Too many people in our Western society want all the rights they can get.... but without the attached responsibilities..

No no no. Unless you are some religious sectarian, the main purpose of sex is not to produce children. Sex is not a chore.

The main purpose of sex to to have fun, and even if you are a Christian (which I know you are), keep in mind the God made it fun, so that we practice it. Multiplying is a desired side-effect, which happens only to straight people.

Otherwise you are saying that child-less couples (straight or gay) are bad people, because they make sex without their duty in mind! I wager that most sex in the world is done without having the purpose of multiplying in mind. Some people are even said use condoms or other contraceptives...

Oh, I agree with sex creating a bond between two people.

Permit me to provide some personal information that might shed some light on my feelings about abortions.

As I have posted earlier on another thread when sbk asked me what I would do about all those children born and left to be raised in orphanages, my response to her was my first wife and I adopted two children from a home for unwed mothers when they were infants. That didn't solve all the problems of orphanages but it did take care of a couple of them.

A few years later my daughter had unprotected sex at 17 years of age and became pregnant. We discussed the situation thoroughly, with abortion and placing the baby for adoption as the only two viable options. We all decided adoption would be the best solution so my daughter carried the baby to term and moved on in her life.

Moving the timeline forward to today, my son is a successful businessman in the south, owning a business and making quite a comfortable living for both himself and his employees.

My daughter is married to a Colonel in the US Military and they have three lovely daughters, all enrolled in college.

Within the past two months, the baby my daughter had out of wedlock contacted my daughter and wants to meet when they are near each other, which will happen during the summer. She was adopted by a loving couple and was raised and educated and is now a nurse.

My point is if these three babies had been aborted rather than adopted my life and my first wife's life would have been diminished by their absence.

The world is a better place for the three babies that were not aborted.

And that, Boo, is precisely why I am against abortions except in the cases I have mentioned.