|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 02/14/2002 : 15:38:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
PhD, how do you determine whether the doctor - who may not agree with abortion - is truthful regarding the measurement of brainwaves. Additionally, there is a required caveat to your argument, amniosentisis. What if the fetus is not normal but carries one of the many genetic birth defects that can not be found until an amniosentisis is performed. Are we then to force a woman to bear a child with birth-defects because it shows human brain waves? Who then is responsible for care of this child, the woman forced to bear it or the society that forced her to bear the child?
Logical and difficult objections all, Trish. Exactly why I cannot make an airtight case for my position. In positing the brainwave standard, I am attempting to do my rational best to determine adequate independence for the fetus. What I can't do is show that the rights of the fetus, which may or may not exist as an independent thinking entity, supercede the rights of the mother, who is unquestionably an independent thinking entity. It seems like the easier case to make that the mother's rights supercede the fetus'. I have no real problem with this standard, but I'm still searching for a better one.
Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. You cannot win.
2. You cannot break even.
3. You cannot stop playing the game. |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2002 : 16:00:14 [Permalink]
|
Understood. To impinge upon the 'right to choose' issue, the argument must be sound otherwise you leave the issue open for removing that right entirely.
I know that I've pointed this out many times before, however, I will do so again so I don't have to explain why I am not a rabid abortion proponent.
The key to reducing the number of abortions performed in this country, we have the highest number of abortions per capita of all the Western Industrialized societies, is education, availibility of birth control, and dissemination of the information and products. We leave our children ignorant of their sexual reproductive cycles and systems. Add to this the concept that sex is a 'no-no' and you have children rebelling against mommy and daddy, seeking sex as an illicit pleasure, and you have a potential problem in that these children have not been educated to use birth control.
Additionally, the number of adults that do not understand their own reproductive cycles and systems, gives credence to the necessity of our government, via our schools, to step in and ensure children are taught an understand of the necessity of birth control before engaging in sex, the fact that these methods are not 100% fool-proof (which leaves open the necessity of abortion) and making easy availability of all forms of birth control a requirement.
In so doing, we will eventually raisse a generation of children to adulthood that do understand these things, will be able to pass this knowledge off to their children. However, the availability and dissemination of information and products should not end in our schools simply because we've taught one group of youngsters.
To my mind, biology is an excellent place to teach this subject. Hey, ya never know, the kid might actually wake up when they hear the word sex and learn something in addition to using birth control.
this may seem a radical option, however, I find it rather strange that it is the 'pro-life' movement that also decries the use of birth control. As a consequence am left with the opinion that once the child is born they don't give much of a damn about it.
Don't mind me, am just not interested in the accusations of being rabid about something that I do care about, however, do not hold as a personal choice that I would make (I hope this continues to be the case).
---
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2002 : 18:38:36 [Permalink]
|
Trish:
quote:
Arguments against viability: An artificial womb is created where a fetus begins to develop, in essense, not requiring a mother for support. Now, is this 'viable' outside a mother's womb and therefore granted all the rights and priviledges of a citizen or is it non-viable?
It is non-viable, as it would not survive without artificial support.
I do not think that somthing that requires artificial support is viable. What is the difference between requiring an artificial uterus to survive and requiring a natural uterus to survive?
I do not see a difference.
Thought constitutes the greatness of man -Pascal |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2002 : 20:28:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is non-viable, as it would not survive without artificial support.
I do not think that somthing that requires artificial support is viable. What is the difference between requiring an artificial uterus to survive and requiring a natural uterus to survive?
I do not see a difference.
What is your definition of an artificial uterus? How much artificial support is needed?
Viable only if it can survive completly without outside assitance? What about premature births that could not survive witout outside help?
It does not appear as clear cut to me.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2002 : 11:03:54 [Permalink]
|
Xev,
Lars_H makes a good point. It is considered dangerous for a birth to take place more than two weeks early. I know, before they stopped my labor, I asked why they were stopping labor and what the risk factors were for my child being born 4 weeks early vs stopping labor.
At four weeks early, the lungs of the fetus are not fully developed and have extreme difficulty sustaining the childs systems if born pre-mature. So, your talking viablility at being approximately 34 weeks of gestation. However, one major flaw that people fail to notice, very few mothers-to-be are exactly sure of the date of conception. By this, it is virtually impossible for the medical community to guess gestational age. So, where is viability? Viability is the ability of the fetus to survive exutero. That is the moment of birth at which time the now infant child is granted all rights and priviledges of a human. Until that child is born it is dependent upon it's mother for all functions and since we can not pinpoint a date for all conceptions we can not legislate and enforce a law stating that abortion beyond the 34 week of gestation is illegal. Why? Because we do not have access to the information that will allow us to figure when a woman is at 34 weeks or beyond of gestation. Why? Because we need to know when the woman conceived. Why don't we know when a woman conceived, because not all women follow the general schedule of ovulation nor do women know they are pregnant for at least 2 weeks sometimes 4-6 weeks. The concept of placing a gestational period date for no more abortions is to nebulous to contemplate.
---
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2002 : 11:06:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Viable only if it can survive completly without outside assitance? What about premature births that could not survive witout outside help?
I see no substantial difference between a preemie that needs an incubator to survive and a adult who needs outside intervention.
As for my definition of artificial uterus, I don't think there is anything like that....yet. My definition will have to wait for such a thing to be invented.
Thought constitutes the greatness of man -Pascal |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2002 : 11:18:50 [Permalink]
|
But once it's a preemie, it's been born. The point is, where do we draw the line on the abortion issue?
Personally, I find the idea of 'partial-birth' abortions abhorrent. I've yet to see a 'medical' reason for this. Perhaps, if Dr Shari sees this, she can enlighten us.
At this time, the only definitive line we have to draw for viable, is exutero at which time the infant is given all rights and priviledges of a member of society. Prior to that, it is not a separate viable entity. Again, the argument goes to judging the gestational age of the fetus.
---
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2002 : 10:46:29 [Permalink]
|
In regards to the new abortion thread, I thought I'd bump this to the top for those who don't have their page set to view topics this old.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
