I am a strong atheist, I refute all religions on all levels. I even believe many aspects of religion to be immoral (likewise many aspects of atheism can be immoral). My upbringing was atheist although not actively atheist. I was always allowed to make my own decisions.

Ultimately I believe it is better to have a life than to not have a life (the exception being what I stated above)

Yes I believe all pregnancies should go to term, even against the will of the mother. In the case of a child conceived due to rape or failed contraception it is my belief that giving the child up for adoption is the lesser evil. Like I said an unhappy life is better than no life (I concede that this in my opinion)

I can not accept that a person can place what happens to their body above the life of another individual (even if that life is dependent on their body for survival). An analogy would be the patient on an Intensive Care Unit dependent on dialysis or mechanical ventilation. To terminate their life would be inconceivable. What we do is aim to re-establish their independence. Yes a foetus is dependent on the mother for life but I don't see how that gives anybody the right to terminate their life, just like it will never be my right to terminate the life of the patient in the ICU.

The disabilities that I believe would make ToP acceptable are many. I couldn't possibly name them all. But examples include; Inborn errors of metabolism that are incompatible with life & result in death during infancy, congenital disease resulting in profound mental incapacity & the loss of recognition of self, a disease process that can result in severe disabling pain that can not be reversed, anatomical disease that is incompatible with life.

Some pathologies for which ToP is routinely offered that I disagree with are as follows; Down Syndrome, Turners Syndrome, Karyotype Errors etc

Diseases I am unsure about; Cystic FIbrosis, Phenylketonuria (Can be managed but inflict substantial suffering)

Wow, sorry if I am wrong, but this sounds like .... someone who has no clue of what atheism is.

BTW, what do YOU mean by atheism?

"Aspects" of atheism CAN NOT BE IMMORAL by definition of what atheism is.

And I would never say that I refute all religions on all levels, this does not seem to be possible or wise.

Regarding abortion issue, it would be great if you can clarify your position on a few more issues:

1)  If triple test comes out really bad, and the follow up screening confirms it, would you recommend to terminate pregnancy?

2) What do you specifically mean by saying that you "refute" rape as a pre-condition for abortion?

Thanks.

100%

Hey,

Don't you realize that you are playing god here?

Spina bifida can very well be either "incompatible with life" or a quite minor birth defect.  How are you going to draw a line?

By stating that embryos are "individuals", you sound like you are not really going to be a doctor... or not an atheist at all. 

Nobody likes to have an abortion.  It is not healthy for a woman after all.  But you know, a child with a Down syndrome ... he is NOT a "little angel"; he or she will need intense special care for his/her entire life, and may often not even realize he/she is alive.   The psychological and financial trauma may very likely prevent the mother from having more (healthy) children in the future.  So, by your aesthetic b.s. you are ready to ruin several lives, none of which is yours.

100%

 OK, one more question.

If a woman does not want to keep a child after unwanted pregnancy, what would be your position on that church will take care of the child?

Thanks.

100%

I would have to accept the Church raising the child. Although I would not like it.

I can't really keep up with what appears to be ire for my opinions so I will quickly try to respond to some of the above comments.

I have never been raped, likewise I have never had cancer, been in an accident or experienced any real significant life trauma. However on a daily basis I help people that have. I don't impose my opinions on them I do everything I can to help them. Just because I have not or can not experience something does not mean that I am unqualified to comment on it. I do however realise that my view can be limited because I have not experienced such events. I strive to find a balance.

I realise that not all life is precious or that every embryo will grow up into a "little angel". I am not naive. However that still is not a reason for ToP.

To latincanuck I agree with you, emergency contraception appeals to my sense of morality. As for qualifying my logic? I am putting a life before someone's grief. A bold choice admittedly but one which I think is acceptable. Yes this may exarcabate the victims grief but in my eyes that still isn't a good enough reason to terminate a life.

So I'll start with a brief history of me.  I am female, 59 years old, menopausal, and had my tubes tied at age 27.

Reproductive history:

1. First child at age 17, put up for adoption.  At the time, I swore I would never, ever put another child up for adoption ever again, it didn't matter what the circumstances would be.  I can not explain to you or anyone else my exact reasons for this decision.  Most of them were purely emotional and therefore far from rational or even reasonable.  All I remember is signing the papers was one of the worse days of my life.

2. Second child at age 19, kept and raised the child.  I was unwed at the time.

3. Third pregnancy at age 20, terminated.  Had an abortion.  Abortion was only legal at the time in New York and California.  I drove 6 hours to a clinic in LA then drove myself home.  I have no regrets or lingering depression and would have another abortion if the circumstances were identical.

4. Fourth pregnancy.  Married, child had some physical problems.

5. Fifth pregnancy.  Married, child had some developmental problems.

My only conclusion from this history is that I was a stupid screw around when I was young.  My only excuse is that when I was young, at least prior to 1972, it was ILLEGAL in the state of Arizona for a doctor to discuss let alone prescribe birth control to an unmarried woman.  Didn't matter if you were 14 or 50.  So I didn't even have the facts for how to calculate the rhythm method which was the only birth control available to me.

What I think of your position:

Adoption is not easy or simple.  If your baby is not white, perfect in form and intellect, and both parents college educated, the chance of being adopted at birth is next to nil.  Yes, there are self-sacrificing people willing to adopt a child with special needs - birth defects, non-white, drug addiction at birth and so on.  They are not easy to find.  So the child will probably go directly into a foster home, a burden for the tax payers and prone to various emotional disorders.  This does not address the emotional distress of the mother which is non-trivial in my view.

Rape.  In your picture, you look awful young.  I excuse you for being young and inexperienced.  Though I can't help but tell you, that is the coldest most uncaring position on rape I have ever heard.  Do I care about the potential infant?  There are millions more out there who are not getting the care they need, why add to the misery?  Maybe after you have seen or treated a few women who were half beaten to death by the rapist, you will come to realize the problem involves more than one potential person.

If you are a ob-gyn, abortions are in your job description.  Other specialties may also have abortion as a part of the practice.  If you did specialize in one of these, why did you specialize in that if you don't want to do the job?  If you are in a specialty where you may - perhaps - refer someone to a clinic that does abortions, is this a big deal for you?

It is similar to pharmacists who don't want to put up a prescription for the morning after pill or even for general birth control.  Or an engineer who goes to work for a defense contractor and then refuses to make weapons.  You took the job, now do it.  Otherwise, go do something else.  The engineer would be fired.  The physician or pharmacist should be as well.

@ Bob

Concerning Implantation, I totally agree. At what point we define the existence of life is hugely complicated. Whether to take, consciousness, autonomy or some biological landmark is a very difficult decision to make. As I said that is my definition and is not a rigid one. It is based mostly on the likelihood of the pregnancy coming to term. You're right it should always be debated. I have held a 28 week old baby in my arms and was astonished at how well developed it was. From then on I made it my business to understand better embryology & development.

I never impose my opinions on anyone. Although I have largely upset people with my "contrarian" opinions I never intend to become an obstetrician or gynaecologist & therefore will never perform Surgical or Medical Terminations. It is likely that I may have to refer someone for one though. This poses a huge dilemma for me.

@ Cj

Sorry for appearing cold. Sometimes my logical approach gives this impression. Like I said I do not consider rape, abortion or any such topic to be trivial. I understand the consequences. Before moving into medicine I worked for 2yrs in Forensic Psychiatry dealing largely with women who had been sexually abused as children. What impressed upon me the most about these women as much as they self harmed and/or attempted suicide when directly questioned they admitted they did not wish to take their lives but rather wished to be free of the emotional turmoil. This has always stuck with me. I believe that if you were take say an orphan, who was unloved, had what we consider to be a negative life experience, if you asked him whether he wished to live or die, I believe he would choose to live. This is somewhat of the basis of my opinion. If you believe that giving a child up for adoption is condemning them to a "poor" life, perhaps it is. Can we say that someone would rather have no life than a poor life? Should we put the mother's convalescence above this? I am not dismissing mum, she will never be free of such an experience, she may in time accept it.

I suppose I am fighting for the baby. Perhaps you believe I am ignoring mum. I am not. I don't take this lightly.

Concerning specialties. In the UK you have to have a "taster" of each. I have done 8 weeks in OBGYN. By no means comprehensive. I will have to refer, I will never actually have to perform such procedures. I will always put professionalism first.

I still maintain "poor life" vs "no life" is a false dichotomy. Even if everyone asked if they would rather keep living than not to have lived at all answered yes, that is meaningless, IMHO. They already have experience, which probably includes at least some positive aspects.

They are comparing their experience of life with a total absence of any experience at all.

Most people, if not all, will likely say yes, because it is hard not to identify non-existence with death, in some way, and that has strong negative associations, for obvious reasons.

I myself would say yes, I would prefer to have existed, since I have had more than enough positive experiences, and expect to continue to have enough to want to continue, altho there have periods of stress where I have wondered. 

But when I think further about it, I am really reacting to the concept of ceasing to exist from this point on, which is not really what we are talking about. Such responses from a living person are inevitably answered in the context of an actual life experience.

An early stage fetus has not really begun to live, as a conscious being.

I hope you appreciate these are my honest thoughts on this somewhat tricky matter.

My only answer to this is the infant will not have a reasoned opinion on living a poor life or death until they are adults or near adult.  They have to experience the life, then realize that the life is less than optimal and not normal.  My own childhood was dysfunctional though far from horrible.  But I was in my 30s before I realized how dysfunctional and in what ways and what effect that had on me.

I know of no reason why someone should be subjected to disease, abuse, poverty, neglect or even mild disinterest throughout their formative years from the people who are supposed to provide them a supportive family.  Is this better than dying?  Of course the person who is now old enough to answer that question is going to often say yes, they want to live.  Otherwise, they would have succeeded in committing suicide.  According to my psychologist friend who works with troubled teens, suicide attempts can be viewed as requests for attention until the attempts get truly deadly.  The ones that succeed - or nearly succeed - are usually people who truly don't want to live.  Excepting the too successful accident - as in, they truly didn't want to die, set a up scenario they thought they could live through, and by some miscalculation they wound up dead.  Rare.

You can not ask a zygote/fetus if they want to live.  The question has no meaning at that age - ignoring the total lack of answer.  "Potentially" every zygote/fetus may wish to live if they had ever lived - even the ones that self-abort or miscarry, or are too messed up to survive because of bad genetics or injury prior to birth.  And that "potential" is not yours to be responsible for.  It is ultimately the mother's even if she has a spouse.  She is the only one who can say if she wishes to be responsible for that zygote (potential infant).  She is the one responsible for the consequences of her decision.

Just as well.  I think they do something similar in the US, but I am not current and I don't watch TV.  Which means I miss all the "doctor" shows.  In the US, the Bush administration ruled it was okay for pharmacists and doctors to refuse to do the work they were hired to do based solely on one's morality.  Any other profession or employment, you don't get that option.  Irrational.

I see the argument for "Life" beggining at conception, but I disagree with it... I am of the mnd that what makes us human beings is the ability to think and reason... to Live laugh and love, and while that potential exists in an unborn fetus, it will n ot be realized until after birth...  that same potential has been eliminated when using contraception, The morning after Pill, or batching to midget porn... From my perspective, abortion amounts to nothing more than delayed birth control... and while i don't think its wise to *practice* terminating pregnancies, ehtically, to me its the same...

Not to mention, as a man, *I* will never be pregnant... so I think it's morally wrong for men to inject themselves into this argument anyway...

The "Every Sperm is Sacred" argument  really starts to loose steam when you realize how few anti abortion activists have adopted unwanted babies... My experience is that more often than not, the "pro Life" stance stems from a burning desire to impose one's "faith" on others...and that such a stance often stems from a lack of sex, and an excess of carbohydrates...

Not to mention, how many "Pro-Lifer's" there are who have no problem taking lives once they are born... War, Death penalty, Against health care, Etc...

So my real opinion is, if you are anti abortion, adopt one of these sniveling little life wreckers, or shut the fuck up...

(no offense Kierantitheridge... you seem like a smart, nice guy)

This is a group of atheists against abortion(but I don't know what that means in terms of what they want the Men with the guns to do):

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage

Do you have any idea about a possible technical realization of this?  It would be "F$#@ng golden", but I don't know how can it be done.

This is weird.

I've never thought that "At what point we define the existence of life" has ever been hugely complicated. Life started about 4B years ago on this planet. It's continued uninterrupted ever since.

Life doesn't start fresh with every asexual division, or sexual recombination. Life is old, man, old. Those cells that implant in the womb are no more and no less "new life" than cells created by mitosis. Sure, they are genetically distinct from anything that's ever come before. But by that reckoning, so are all the sperm I dump out every time I masturbate.

So. Now that you know me for the callous ass-canal I am, I'm curious why you think genetic recombination makes a special case. After all, cancer cells are genetically unique, yet I have yet to hear anyone complain about chemotherapy.

(Note: as someone with a highly-valued daughter, I don't necessarily think abortion is a good thing. I'm just curious about your reasoning.)

But plan B is terminating a life, what it is doing is not allowing the fertilized egg to implant in the womb (a matter of definition of what you define as alive technically speaking) in the end it is no different. This is the issue at hand, I highly doubt you do comprehend the reasons why a woman would not want to go through the pregnancy, and really it's not up to you in any sense of the word unless you can somehow understand that point of view. Some women can deal with it, but those are so far and few in-between. The issue as well comes into play in cases of rape in which the victim is a minor or a child, which may not inform the appropriate authorities until a much longer period than the 5-7 days, such as the case for example the 10 year old in Brazil raped by her step father, the child was neither consenting nor capable of delivering the child yet the church and various pro-life groups were against abortion, it defies logic in all the senses. Your argument still does not in anyway give a logical reason as to why abortion should not be the case for a rape victim. The fetus is not a child at all, and as such is really just a tit for tat argument.

In the end life isn't as precious as you make it out to be, in order to survive we take lives, we eat animals to survive we kill life when we farm (all the insects and worms that get killed during the tilling and plantion) however your just putting human life a value that states we shouldn't terminate it at all for any reason short of medical reasons. But rape and unwanted pregnancies should also be allowed, for the mere fact that in the end, your not the one in that position, you don't have to deal with it, you don't have to deal with the emotional or psychological problems nor do you have to raise that child, you simply wash your hands from it, like so many pro-lifer's that in the end, they are not going to pay to raise that child, they are not going to take the responsibility in raising that child, and adoption is no guarantee that the child will have a good life or that it was be adopted either. Even worse are other countries in the world were orphans get sold into slave labor, child sex rings, or simply live a life of theft and drugs on the streets.

But baby is what comes out at birth.  Everything prior to the act of birth including sperm is only a potential baby.

If producing babies is the goal and the social well being of mothers and society is secondary to this goal then why don't we spend more effort in learning how to clone humans to infest this little planet with billions more of little angels.

Otherwise I yet have to see a reasonable argument supporting the idea why embryos are so precious that humans and specifically female humans can be denied their voice in it.

I think that many people here are trying to find out about your reasoning when you say "Mother's Emotional Health is greater than Baby's Right to Life. My argument is the reverse."

I understand that your argument is the reverse.  BUT WHY???

Please explain.

100%

Also, as Dr. you probably realize that Mother's Emotional Health problem may very likely to lead to a severe mental problem and potentially to death.  So, here you are weighing a potential death of a mature human versus a potential life of an unborn human.  

That explains some of our differences.  I have no maternal instincts.  My thought when I see other people's infants is "thank goodness I don't have to deal with it."  My thought when my own were born, is "why am I doing this to myself again?"  To me, a baby is not a real person.  When they grow up to be two or three - "I want to dress myself!"  That is a real person.  Before that, they just sick up at one end and are even messier and smellier at the other and they sleep in very short bursts.  So why did I have children?  Maybe it was just for that moment when baby wanted to dress himself and becomes a real boy.

I don't believe in neglect or infanticide.  A decision to withhold nutrition from a newborn rather than prolong a life dependent on life support is one decision I am glad I never had to make.  Infanticide may have made sense when humans were dirt farmers and medicine consisted of 57 herbs and spices.  It doesn't make sense now with the advances humans have made in medicine and agriculture.  But then, I don't drown kittens or smother puppies, either.  A living being is due respect and care.  A not-quite-living being - it depends.

It is good that people like you are doctors, rather than people like me, I guess.

See?  You are a nice man.  Are you sure you want to hang around here? 

Abortion is a personal, moral, spiritual, religious (if you have one) decision.  That means nobody should be making that decision for another.  In other words, the pregnant lady makes the call.  Nobody else.

Nobody should compel a doctor who's opposed to abortion to perform one, of course.

I think the lady may wish to consider the father's input, but only in the same way that I as an author consider my editor's input.  My opinion on the father tends to drift.  I had a vasectomy over 20 years ago, so I have no base of experience to draw on there.

This is just one of many tough questions. And yes it may not be my question to answer, that falls on mum's shoulders, however it's always good to explore you're opinions (perhaps I should write them down a little more tactfully though?)

I have been asked in exams what should I do if a Jehovahs Witness requires a blood transfusion but is unconscious? Who should I triage first a little girl with no hope or a prisoner who is being transferred? An 11 year old girl wants a termination but her mother is against this who's consent do I seek?

Damn all I want to do is help people! When did that become tough?

In the UK we don't quite have the dichotomy of Pro-Life Conservatism vs Liberal Pro-Choice and everyone largely agrees that it's the mothers decision. I suppose that is the majority feeling on this thread.

hmmm with your statement it makes it seem that your are stating that life is precious. It's not really a baby yet.  Not just emotional but psychological health as well.  A mother's emotional and psychological health should be the main concern, not every country in the world is the US or Canada, especially in regards to adoption and orphanages. If the mother is mentally or emotionally unfit to take care of the child, that becomes a problem as well. Where abortion should be given as an option in the cases of rape (see I said option). Personally I believe that a woman that has been raped should be given full knowledge of all the options available, and their consequences. Including counseling after making any decision be it abort, keep, adoption. But abortion should be an option, in the end the emotional/psychological damage, may mean the woman may never have children again, where aborting it, would mentally allow her to get past the event and eventually have more children.

This has been known for years, right?  The governing body reviewed existing literature, correct?  I don't know where to look for numbers in the UK, but in the US, the CDC keeps track.

The most recent numbers are for 2006.

So 98.7% of all abortions performed in the US in 2006 were at less than 21 weeks gestation.  Before the fetus was able to feel pain.  I looked it up once for this forum in another thread we had on abortion.  The 1.3% appeared to be (I was not entirely certain of the source but it seemed mostly credible) exclusively due to fetal abnormalities that could not be diagnosed at an earlier stage of development.  And they were going to be fatal - the infant was not going to survive.

I am confused here. Too much woo-woo, not enough science. Please enlighten me. How can you pass on genes without having offspring? I thought that was the only way. At first when I read what you wrote I thought a mule cannot pass on genes and you can pass on genes til puberty. At what point can an organism pass on its' genes non-sexually and how and where?

The exchange of genetic materia between single-cell organisms is a well-documented phenomenon

http://www.microbiologyprocedure.com/biotechnology-in-agriculture/gene-exchange-in-bacteria.html

Such exchange greatly enhances the spread of new genetic patterns through a population, allowing evolutionary adaptation to proceed far more effectively, which is why it would persist - and be selected for.

Since it manifestly will speed evolution, organisms doing it would have evolved faster and so come to dominate.

I think it is highly likely that this is how/why sexual reproduction emerged, as an effective way to continue this mixing of genetic material thru the population.

Well, I am not joking. My understanding of science is light, but I believe it could be passed on. Ducks and Geese exhibit this behavior. The one who breeds get his genes passed on. This is why the human male drive is very strong. The guys with the biggest drive succeed and breed.

I just read in Wiki my opinion is controversial. But if alcoholism can be passed on why not this? 

Men who rape professionals say they are angry and it is not about sex but dominance. High levels of testoserone? 

I would be interested in anyone's  opinion on this.