Abortion.

[Rían]

I meant to provide input for inked and IRex's subject of abortion/poverty, but it is a bit off-topic, sorry

[Spock]

suggestion: delete the cartoon #390, it has nothing to do with the subject topic. You can do this on your own without the knives of mods. or we fly in with our sicc and nip tools and vanish it quickly in the night.

[inked]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

inked, what's the news/attitudes in your profession in regards to the fetal pain awareness bill?

Hot off the presses:

JAMA. 2005 Aug 24;294(8):947-54

Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence.

Lee SJ, Ralston HJ, Drey EA, Partridge JC, Rosen MA.

School of Medicine, Department of Anatomy, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-0648, USA.

CONTEXT: Proposed federal legislation would require physicians to inform women seeking abortions at 20 or more weeks after fertilization that the fetus feels pain and to offer anesthesia administered directly to the fetus. This article examines whether a fetus feels pain and if so, whether safe and effective techniques exist for providing direct fetal anesthesia or analgesia in the context of therapeutic procedures or abortion. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Systematic search of PubMed for English-language articles focusing on human studies related to fetal pain, anesthesia, and analgesia. Included articles studied fetuses of less than 30 weeks' gestational age or specifically addressed fetal pain perception or nociception. Articles were reviewed for additional references. The search was performed without date limitations and was current as of June 6, 2005. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks' gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. For fetal surgery, women may receive general anesthesia and/or analgesics intended for placental transfer, and parenteral opioids may be administered to the fetus under direct or sonographic visualization. In these circumstances, administration of anesthesia and analgesia serves purposes unrelated to reduction of fetal pain, including inhibition of fetal movement, prevention of fetal hormonal stress responses, and induction of uterine atony. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.

This is the latest review I could find on Pubmed.

[brownjenkins]

they should pass a law about dentists too... i've had my fill of the "oh, this won't hurt at all" business

[Spock]

yeah, and MD's "this won't hurt"

[Rían]

Thanks, inked - I'm glad that it is at least starting to be looked at by doctors.

[Spock]

And they know this because.......oh, a fetus e-mailed them. Re dic u lous.

[Rían]

I think it's something that any reasonable, feeling person would want to look into - unless, of course, they're driven by a personal agenda. Anyone who has had an infant knows they feel pain, and it's reasonable to think it develops in utero (as opposed to the instand they're born), and I would think a compassionate person (like most people on the Moot) would think this is worth looking into.

What amazes me, and IMO shows that a lot about this issue is personal agenda/bias, is the whole partial birth abortion issue. That as long as a full-term, fully viable baby still has its head inside the mother, it's open game for having its skull punctured, brains suctioned out, and then "gee, surprise!" it's dead when it's delivered! But if it accidentally slips out before they can do the procedure, then BY LAW the hospital staff has to strive to keep it alive - it somehow has obtained personhood. YES - we have to define the personhood issue somewhere - but let's err on the side of caution when we're talking about providing cheap pain relief!

It just seems like abortion-rights activists are being dishonest with this issue because they don't want to lose their right to have an abortion. I can understand that, but I can't understand someone being willing to be a party to an un-anesthetized, possibly VERY painful death of the infant who didn't even ask to be involved in the issue

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It just seems like abortion-rights activists are being dishonest with this issue because they don't want to lose their right to have an abortion. I can understand that, but I can't understand someone being willing to be a party to an un-anesthetized, possibly VERY painful death of the infant who didn't even ask to be involved in the issue

i don't think anyone feels that way... but it's a matter of priorities... congress can only deal with so many issues a year, and i personally think they spend way to much time dancing around the details of hot-topic issues and way too little on the big issues that face our country (both sides)

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Is that at all what I said? Nice try at a set up. All I said was you cant use the argument that every aborted fetus will grow up to be Bach as justification against abortion and then completely discount the argument that every aborted fetus could be Hitler. Nevermind the hollow bold faced grandstanding nature of EITHER argument.



Please show me where you illustrated that every child ever born in the US is “extremely well provided for�.



Specifics of what? That every US citizen ever born has not been “extremely well provided for�? That’s because it’s a patently ridiculous statement. You want me to provide you with specifics of people who haven’t been well provided for? Are you kidding?



My language on this is dead on, slick. You are the one that chooses to grandstand and overstate and use hyperbole and meaningless examples that divert from the real issue. Check the mirror before you start accusing others of being a blowhard and inflammatory (oh and check the gay lesbian thread too ). Don’t get all bent out of shape just because I call you on the obvious ones. My suggestion is move on to more legitimate ground where you can make more impact and the fight is more promising for you. Not scramble to defend a mostly bogus point despite all odds.



The only idea you should be picking up is that its stupid to use Bach OR Hitler as logic behind any argument for OR against abortion. Because 1. they counter each other out. And 2. statistically they are virtually meaningless. Get it now? If you wish to make a straw man of that simple comment then do it on your own time. Don’t ask me about it.



Well then the state better start making breeding farms and forcing its citizenry to produce for the genetically optimal impact for the culture at large. Careful with that argument now, you lead yourself right into the old communist/totalitarian knee jerk charge ive seen you use against many others here without any reason for it.



Are you using this as an argument against Roe V Wade? How come the supreme court felt the opposite then?



How can you make this argument when you are the one who posted with great indignation the articles about china's abortion policy? If the state is the proper place to legislate abortion then you should have absolutely no argument against what they do. You should agree with it. So why do you instead speak out of both sides of your mouth then?

By the way if you are mistaking me for someone who believes people should be able to abort at any time for any whim then you haven’t read my posts very carefully. Im certainly all about “regulation�. Its just apparently my level of regulation seems to you as nothing at all. Perhaps you should analyze it a little closer. You see in my idea of “regulation� individual choice plays a significant role in the equation where as apparently in yours the individual has no say over what happens to their body post pregnancy. Now what was that china policy again?

OF all the folderol, I choose to respond to china's abortion policy concerns. The fact that the state is the place to regulate abortions because of its concern to protect life does not validate china's forced abortion policy. In fact, it is the premier argument that the state can indeed err in that regard. It is the opposite error of protecting the unborn citizen. Of course, this is a moral judgment on the state. That shouldn't be too surprising, IR, since you frequently make such judgments on the state and the indignation you express over the failure of the US to provide for children is pure moral indignation.

And I do insist that the person has control over their body - just prior to pregnancy is when they need assert it. You seem to recognize no such need for assertion unitl pregnancy results. Have I understood you properly?

[Spock]

ONCE AGAIN PEOPLE

STOP ATTACKING THE POSTER

DEBATE THE ISSUE IN A CIVIL MANNER

OR

FACE CLOSING OF THE TOPIC.

[Butterbeer]

yeah... the postal service is bad enough without attacks on innocent people trying to post their mail ...

regarding the civil manner ... does civil war count?


seriously though you guys .... spock is right! though i have said previously i do not wish to engage on the issues here, i do welcome reading the debate ... so please all try and debate not debase each other's opinion.

sure this is a controversial issue with genuinely opposing and firmly held beliefs on both sides ... but i, for one, am interested in reading about it - so keep it debatable (at the least - if you read that the other way as i just noticied ... )

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Spock

ONCE AGAIN PEOPLE

STOP ATTACKING THE POSTER

DEBATE THE ISSUE IN A CIVIL MANNER

OR

FACE CLOSING OF THE TOPIC.

where was inked attacking me in his last post exactly? I certainly didnt have any problem with it.

Originally Posted by inked

the fact that the state is the place to regulate abortions because of its concern to protect life does not validate china's forced abortion policy.

abortion regulation is abortion regulation. That was my only point. Personally I see the case of pregnancy vastly different from beating a 6 year old or letting a 1 year old die of malnutrition. I see legitimate reasons for abortion in the world as unfortunate as they may be. I see no legitimate reasons for raping and killing 6 year olds frankly so I don’t see any problem with regulating that action.

And I do insist that the person has control over their body - just prior to pregnancy is when they need assert it. You seem to recognize no such need for assertion unitl pregnancy results. Have I understood you properly?

No you havent. And have I understood you properly that no one ever gets pregnant despite taking any and/or all precautions? Or by rape or force? Or encounters a serious health concern after pregnancy? In which case how do you regulate who gets an abortion? No one? Or only those who say well I took precautions? Or shall the state spend billions of dollars to slowly investigate each and every abortion request perhaps using the intelligence agencies to find out the truth behind the matter since they don’t already have their hands full with other things.

[brownjenkins]

i have a question for inked... earlier in this thread you mentioned that you weren't quite in favor of outlawing abortion after i mentioned the obvious consequences of teen aborters being put on death row in some states

how do you think it should be in the US?

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i have a question for inked... earlier in this thread you mentioned that you weren't quite in favor of outlawing abortion after i mentioned the obvious consequences of teen aborters being put on death row in some states

how do you think it should be in the US?

I think abortion should be limited by the states as they see fit to regulate it. When it is available, it should be under the same standards as Outpatient Surgical Facilities. Here's why:

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/opinion/18george.html&OQ=eiQ3D5070Q26enQ3Da09fa9d8d85db09f Q26exQ3D1129003200Q26pagewantedQ3Dprint&OP=4ffcfc1 2Q2F7Y_q7eyUp(yyV171Q5BQ5BQ237Q5B47Q2BT7y)HQ2FHyQ2 F7Q2BTd_y(d_9Q20VQ2AQ5D

Robbie George wrote that

The Supreme Court's "privacy jurisprudence" began in 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut. By a vote of 7 to 2, the justices invalidated a state law forbidding the use of contraceptives by married couples. (Laws of this sort had been on the books for decades, though they were rarely if ever enforced and most had been repealed by legislatures.) Lacking a textual or historical warrant for invalidating the law, Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the majority, claimed to find a "right of marital privacy" in "penumbras, formed by emanations" from a range of constitutional guarantees, none of which had anything to do with sexual conduct.

Douglas's quasi-metaphysical language elicited derision, and to this day remains an embarrassment to liberal constitutional jurisprudence. The justices would have done better to take the dissenting advice of Hugo Black, the court's leading civil libertarian. Black said that although he didn't like the law, the court was usurping the constitutional authority of legislatures by simply inventing a right that the nation's founders had not seen fit to enshrine.

Griswold was controversial in legal academic circles, where some worried about where the court would go once it liberated itself from text and history. (Earlier forays of this sort - as when the court in 1905 struck down state worker-protection statutes - had not produced happy results.) But with anti-contraception laws unpopular, the ruling produced no public outcry, and the court relished its expanded role. In 1972 it extended what began as a right of marital privacy to unmarried people. And in 1973 the justices handed down Roe v. Wade, striking down state abortion laws nationwide.

The Roe decision met not only with academic criticism - some of the sharpest coming from liberal scholars like Archibald Cox and John Hart Ely - but also with resistance from people who opposed abortion as a form of prenatal homicide. Although Justice Harry Blackmun, in the majority opinion, dispensed with the metaphysics of penumbras and emanations, he could not identify a compelling constitutional grounding for the right to abortion. He simply declared that the words "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," in the Fourteenth Amendment, were "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

What Blackmun never told us, and couldn't tell us, is why the due process clause— which on its face is concerned with procedural matters—should be interpreted in this sweeping way. On what constitutional basis can we say that abortion is protected by "due process" but a right to assisted suicide - unanimously rejected by the court in 1997 - is not? Why is sodomy protected and prostitution unprotected? Why does the right to privacy not extend to polygamy or the use of recreational drugs?

Clearly, it is not the Constitution that accounts for the outcomes in the court's "privacy" cases; it is simply the moral and political opinions of the justices. The nation will be fortunate if Judge Roberts understands that the result of the court's invention of a generalized right to privacy has been 40 years of unprincipled—and unpredictable—constitutional law.

+++++++++

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i have a question for inked... earlier in this thread you mentioned that you weren't quite in favor of outlawing abortion after i mentioned the obvious consequences of teen aborters being put on death row in some states

how do you think it should be in the US?

The former was my best response to the issue on a non-personal level. Clearly, I do not think that the state's power in this regard is absolute so as to approve China's policy. Also, I do admit of the relatively rare use of abortion as a medical procedure for the woman's health. What I oppose personally is the alleged right to abortion as an elective means of birth control.

In the medically indicated reasons for the sake of the mother's health, I see this as a matter of triage and the dominant concern is given to the most likely to survive. So, when a patient is discovered to have a cervical cancer in pregnancy that requires radiation therapy to arrest it there are three possible choices: 1) to continue the pregnancy to viability, deliver, and treat (mother assumes risks, fetus spared); or, 2) to treat the cancer appropriately and let the effects of the treatment do as it will to the fetus/pregnancy (fetus and mother share risks); or, to terminate the pregnancy and treat the cancer (fetus sacrificed to minimize maternal risk and maximize treatment). Some patients will choose one of all of these. Most persons would argue that the patient's choice is paramount in this case.

In consideration for rape victims, I think the patient's choice is paramount.

Consideration for pregnancies involving a demonstrated genetic defect or incompatible with life syndrome, is, I think, again the patient's choice paramount.

The problem for me personally becomes the use of elective terminations as a means of birth control. I understand that all birth control techniques have failure rates when used and used properly. But frankly, failure to use birth control at all is the chief reason for pregnancy. So abortion becomes de facto birth control.

Data:

UptoDate review "Surgical termination of pregnancy: First trimester" by Shulman, MD and Ling MD notes that the rate of pregnancy termination in the US has a prevalence of 16 per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 years in 2001 (per CDC) and that most terminations were performed in women under the age of 25 years (52%), Caucasian (55%), and unmarried (82%). The majority were in the first trimester with 59% less than or equal to 8 weeks and 88% less than or equal to 13 weeks. The review also notes that repeat pregnancy terminations account for ~36% of all induced abortions in Canada and ~48% of all induced abortions in the USA.

What these data clearly indicate are a massive use of abortion as a contraceptive technique.

I think there are better ways to prevent pregnancy than to utilize abortion as a contraceptive.

Another option available is placement of the child for adoption.

So, my personal bias is to legislate on behalf of life with the recognition of exceptional cases having abortion available under safe conditions, especially since reliable, safe techniques of contraception are available.

Is that enough, BJ?

[Lotesse]

I'm not BJ, but I just had to say - Inked - Enough? Is that enough? WAY too much, and not nearly enough. Using millions of words to say the same thing. Redundantly redundant. I wave my paw and say "bah."

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by inked

What these data clearly indicate are a massive use of abortion as a contraceptive technique.

Agreed.

I agree with all of what you said, Inked


You said that there are circumstances in which the mother's choice should be paramount, and rape would be one of those cases.

Does this indicate that you regard the unborn child as qualitatively different from the born child? Clearly, one wouldn't kill the baby of a rape victim. In what way/s is the foetus different, in terms of rights, to a baby?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Is that enough, BJ?

yes, and i think that's a very reasonable pov given your beliefs, thanks

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I'm not BJ, but I just had to say - Inked - Enough? Is that enough? WAY too much, and not nearly enough. Using millions of words to say the same thing. Redundantly redundant. I wave my paw and say "bah."

....what she said