Abortion.

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

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?

The Gaffer,

I mentioned the so-called hard cases because while I knw what my particular viewpoint is and how I think I would react in those situations, I am not saying that is the only possible response. In point of fact, the baby conceived as a result of rape is an innocent and women historically have been forced to carry those infants (for the most part of time to term). Perhaps, they should still. Perhaps not. That decision is not one I would necessarily make for them. There are moral points of view which elevate this continuance to a mandatory condition when expressed in full rigour (as in the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church) and this is consistent within that belief system.

As regards genetic abnormalities and incompatible life syndromes, as I noted earlier in this thread, invdividual couples make choices out of their belief systems and I have seen the entire gamut of reactions and choices made. When faced with that decision in my own case, preliminary testing suggested such a condition, but the decision to continue the pregnancy even if the condition was established was made on a priori grounds consistent with our beliefs.

Qualitatively for me the person begins at fertilization - at the union of the sperm and the egg. The journey to implantation takes 4 to 7 days and is fraught with the failure of implantation. Supersensitive PGcy tests have been used in studying the loss of Pgcy prior to implantation and suggest that perhaps 40-50% of fertilizations may fil of implantation. Once implanted the failure of the Pgcy (now established clinically by usual PGcy tests) ranges from 16 - 25% (the natural miscarriage rate). I am ignoring the rate of ectopic gestation. After 12 to 14 weeks from the last menstrual period, if there has been no bleeding or threat of miscarriage rate, the spontaneous miscarriage rate falls to ~3%. It is the number of these clinically established PGcies that results in the denominator for birth rates which are further defined usually as #events/live births. Then there are all the potential problems of PGcy like preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, etc.
Assuming a normal PGcy course, some babies will still have the various genetic problems or enzyme defects or congential problems. (But you must remember this is what I do for a living and have done for over 2 decades.)

For me personally then the whole person is present from fertilization but that by no means every fertilization will result in the birth of a baby. Technically, the pregnancy is medically defined as initiating at implantation (which definition was changed from fertilization to allow for reproductive technologies and experimentation within my lifetime).

So, I personally only perform abortions if the life of the mother is at stake. And I have had patients who chose to continue risky PGcies - knowing the risks - who did die after giving birth to their child. Those who chose otherwise have been referred to appropriate service providers.

By the by, hormonal contraceptives prevent ovulation as their primary means of contraception. I do not regard the prevention of ovulation as in the same moral category as abortion, but some do. Also, I do not place IUDs as their function is prevention of implantation as opposed to prevention of ovulation.

So the subject is complex, but I strive for consistency. It will be immediately obvious that I have made certain concessions outside of my personal beliefs to society. I think no one gets through life without compromise. I maintain my beliefs and practice in a certain tension which I think is weighted towards the baby with due consideration of the mother. I am privileged to be in the only are of medicine that puts one patient into the bed and takes two or more out.

[inked]

TIME January 23, 2006 page 18 "Numbers"

10 million Estimated number of female fetuses aborted in India over the past 20 years by parents hoping for sons.

933 Number of females per 1000 males in India.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When I took ethics courses in Med School back in the 1980's, a disproportion in the sex ration of males to females because of preference for males was pooh-poohed as a "slippery slope argument" against abortion for sex selection.
Now the slope is slid!

Just thought a little data and reminiscence seemed in order when I saw that today.

No slippery slope argument's gonna fool me.

Yeah.

[Insidious Rex]

Is the desire for male offspring in some cultures (and specifically among impoverished people) rooted largely in economics? Its well known a male is a better tool in an agrarian culture then a female. Not to mention issues with potential pregnancies, dowries, etc that all fall back on the parents.

Now if thats true then should the question not be why do they abort so many babies but what kind of world do we live in where millions of poor people are in a position to feel they must have a boy to survive? Assuming this hasnt become simply a cultural phenomenon separate from its economic roots, wouldnt dealing with issues of poverty solve a lot of this kind of thing in countries like India rather then simply bemoaning that they are aborting?

And by the way, last time I checked India was a seperate country where Roe v. Wade didnt apply. I wonder if there is a large sex difference in abortion in the US and other rich countries?

[inked]

Hey, IR, India is a separate country like you think.

Why should an economic incentive to selectively abort females be the deciding issue in whether abortion is correct or not? Seems like the care of the unborn should be societies' goal.

[Count Comfect]

Inked - for centuries, that sort of thing you cite in India has been going on, but with infanticide instead of abortion. I don't think criminalizing abortion would do anything to stop it.

[Spock]

OOMPA LOOMPA DOOMPADEE DOO
I'VE GOT A PERFECT PUZZLE FOR YOU
OOMPA LOOMPA, DOOMPADAH DEE
IF YOU ARE WISE YOU'LL LISTEN ME
WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU GUZZLE DOWN SWEETS
EATING AS MUCH AS AN ELEPHANT EATS
WHAT ARE YOU AT GETTING TERRIBLY FAT
WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL COME OF THAT
I DON'T LIKE THE LOOK OF IT
OOMPA LOOMPA DOOMPADEE DAH
IF YOU'RE NOT GREEDY YOU WILL GO FAR
YOU WILL LIVE IN HAPPINESS TOO
LIKE THE OOMPA LOOMPA DOOMPADEE DO
DOOMPADEE DOO



Don't take this thread too serious or you could wind up paying more for therapy.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Why should an economic incentive to selectively abort females be the deciding issue in whether abortion is correct or not?

Who said anything about it being correct or not? Was just trying to turn the focus to how to deal with the issue. Wouldnt you support a program that in the end would decrease the number of abortions because of sex selection reasons? Seems to me if people have less of a reason to require a male child over a female child then that would be the result. Its short sighted to only preach get rid of abortion. What we need to do is help provide solutions to the problems that result in abortion. And if one of the problems is economic well then lets get cracking eh...

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Inked - for centuries, that sort of thing you cite in India has been going on, but with infanticide instead of abortion. I don't think criminalizing abortion would do anything to stop it.

Yup. Getting rid of abortion would mean more infanticide. Though I can see that people who think that abortion IS infanticide might prefer that, as it would be much harder to go through with.

Still, we're born to suffer, and that's the main thing, eh?

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Yup. Getting rid of abortion would mean more infanticide. Though I can see that people who think that abortion IS infanticide might prefer that, as it would be much harder to go through with.

Still, we're born to suffer, and that's the main thing, eh?

IR, I quite agree that the root problems should be addressed. But since the old argument that education would resolve the issue is patently false in the USA (the largest consumer of abortion is the college educated caucasian female), I am unconvinced by analogy that solving the root problem alleviates abortion. I think abortion needs be addressed as its own issue.

Gaffer, by your logic (and I do appreciate the humour!), we are sparing the fetus the tragedy of suffering. Therefore, we should abort all infants to spare them suffering, eh?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

IR, I quite agree that the root problems should be addressed. But since the old argument that education would resolve the issue is patently false in the USA (the largest consumer of abortion is the college educated caucasian female), I am unconvinced by analogy that solving the root problem alleviates abortion. I think abortion needs be addressed as its own issue.

Well Im guessing that a lot fewer college educated caucasian females abort strictly for sex selection then impovrished Indian females. Not much of a stretch to assume that is it? And as to the effectivness of helping the poor to decrease sex selection abortion well theres only one way to find out right?

[inked]

Apparently going to college interferes with your ability to do birth control which your social standing and education make available to you and which is eminently affordable to you at college clinics. But education is demosnstrated not to arrest abortion. Why should economics? On the American experience neither seem to arrest it.

My argument was that the issue of abortion is independent of education and economics and all the other justifiers used to address it. The simple question is "is abortion right?"

[rohirrim TR]

you're not asking for an absolute answer are you inked? good luck getting one of those.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

The simple question is "is abortion right?"

and the simple answer is "yes"

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and the simple answer is "yes"

I take it back inked you did get an absolute answer, from BJ nonetheless.

[Insidious Rex]

Better yet, its a necessary evil

[The Gaffer]

That looked like a shade of grey to me, I'll go for that one.

That said, I do agree with Inked that of course abortion has moral aspects independently from the context in which it is done. What I don't agree with is the idea that it has these moral aspects wholly independently from the context.

[inked]

For consideration....

http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1346

Embryonic Human Beings
by Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence
Princeton University

A human embryo is not something different in kind from a human being, like a rock, or a potato, or a rhinoceros. A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of his or her natural development. Unless severely damaged or denied or deprived of a suitable environment, an embryonic human being will, by directing its own integral organic functioning, develop himself or herself to the next more mature developmental stage, i.e., the fetal stage. The embryonic, fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages are stages in the development of a determinate and enduring entity—a human being—who comes into existence as a single cell organism (zygote) and develops, if all goes well, into adulthood many years later.

A human embryo (like a human being in the fetal, infant, child, or adolescent stage) is not properly classified as a “pre-human” organism with the mere potential to become a human being. No human embryologist or textbook in human embryology known to me presents, accepts, or remotely contemplates such a view. The testimony of all leading embryology textbooks is that a human embryo is—already and not merely potentially—a human being. His or her potential, assuming a sufficient measure of good health and a suitable environment, is to develop by an internally directed process of growth through the further stages of maturity on the continuum that is his or her life.

...


for the complete text, see site above.

edit: for the author's online bibliography, see...http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/George/

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by inked

A human embryo is not something different in kind from a human being, like a rock, or a potato, or a rhinoceros.

No argument there, but I don't think it is the same thing either.

Originally Posted by inked

A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of his or her natural development.

Therein lies the debate, if I'm not mistaken.

Originally Posted by inked

Unless severely damaged or denied or deprived of a suitable environment, an embryonic human being will, by directing its own integral organic functioning, develop himself or herself to the next more mature developmental stage, i.e., the fetal stage.

The same could be said of the sperm or egg.

The thing is, that these sorts of definitions relegate the role of women into that of "suitable environment", which I don't think is the case, really.

Originally Posted by Monty Python

Where's the foetus going to gestate? In a box??

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

...or denied or deprived of a suitable environment, an embryonic human being will, by directing its own integral organic functioning, develop himself or herself to the next more mature developmental stage,

Suitable environment? So we can plant it in a pot and give it a little water and light? Oh wait. Oh yeah a 'suitable environment' consists of a female's womb. Is the author suggesting that fertilize eggs be saved so they can be replanted in a willing parties womb or is he suggesting an unwilling party be forced to give it its 'suitable environment'?

And sure a single cell has the potential to be an adult human. But then so does an egg and a sperm. Which is clear since many highly religious folk draw the line at even that level.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by inked

For consideration....

http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1346

Just wanted to point that this is a catholic site. In Catholicism it is believed that life begins at fertilisation whereas in other world religions, like Islam and Judaism, life begins later.

The exact moment when life begins isn't something one can determine. Embryologists can't and aren't even meant to determine it. It's all up to what you believe in or which religion you submit to. If you're a devout catholic, well then you're likely to consider life begins when the sperm and the egg merge.

Having that said, many pro-choice people out there must certainly think that an embryo is indeed human life and not just any life form, so that leads to the question about what is your opinion on the sanctity of life.