|
Grex > Agora47 > #52: House passes ban on "partial birth" abortions | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 142 responses total. |
albaugh
|
|
response 81 of 142:
| 
Oct 7 17:42 UTC 2003 |
I only weigh in on abortion once in a great while, but here goes.
> I believe that any fetus who's viable after that cut off is "really" a baby.
It is my view that the current "up to the 2nd trimester" limit is a matter of
technology. I believe that some day technology will have advanced to the
state where virtually any conceived fetus (zygote etc.) will be viable outside
the womb, growable in an incubator, if you will. The law will change so that
any conceived "pre-human", "human under construction" will be required to be
given that chance, and that abortion as convenience will be outlawed.
I believe that some time in the future after that people will look back on
these times as an age of butchery, viewed with the same disdain and outrage
as we look back on ignorant "medical" practices of the past. The notion of
"rights of the woman" will be dismissed out of hand. Sometimes it is a
necessity that the law reflect the limitations of current technology, but that
doesn't mean that morality and behavior must similarly be limited.
There, that's my once in a great while opining, I've had my say.
|
other
|
|
response 82 of 142:
|
Oct 7 18:02 UTC 2003 |
I think that the trend will go the other way. Eventually, we'll all have
the same rights, unless we have lots and lots of money (and of course
power), in which case we'll have all the rights everybody else doesn't
have (i.e. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).
For those who didn't follow, that means that when we all have the same
rights, the sum total of those rights will be the right to choose between
doing what you're supposed to do (as determined by those in power) and
facing unpleasant consequences.
|
lynne
|
|
response 83 of 142:
|
Oct 7 19:17 UTC 2003 |
re 82: Hmmm. That's in direct contrast to a recent case in Britain where
the egg and sperm sources of some frozen embryos were suing each other over
what to do with them. The woman had been sterilized as a side effect of
cancer treatment after having the embryos created with her then-husband's
sperm; she desperately wanted children and these embryos were her only
chance for biological children. Her ex-husband fought to keep them embryos
from being carried to term, and won. The judge ordered that the embryos
be destroyed.
While not an abortion case, it bears some very interesting parallels. How
much control should we have over allowing our genetic material to be carried
on?
|
anderyn
|
|
response 84 of 142:
|
Oct 7 19:20 UTC 2003 |
I recall reading a very cool book a while back in which albaugh's ideas were
"realized" -- the zygote/fetus/whatever stage could be taken from a woman and
put into storage for people who WANTED to carry them -- it was rather like
pre-birth adoption. If that could be so, it would be very good.
Oh, Rane, btw, after re-reading your comments to me above, I also meant to
say that I DID say that I supported abortions after the second trimester if
it was medically necessary -- as in the case of the woman whose child would
be born with only a brain stem and no other parts of its brain. But luckily
for everyone, those kinds of cases where a child would have to be aborted in
the third trimester are very rare.
|
mdw
|
|
response 85 of 142:
|
Oct 7 19:46 UTC 2003 |
The problem with all those "somebody else wants the baby" is that in
real life, this simply isn't true. The demographics of our society are
such that a lot of those "babies" come out of poor backgrounds [having a
baby *is* a luxury: it's a considerable expense not to mention the time
involved], most of the people who want babies come out of considerably
more affluent backgrounds. Therefore, blacks and other minorities are
disproportionately represented, and there aren't that many rich people
willing to settle for children with different color skins.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 86 of 142:
|
Oct 7 19:53 UTC 2003 |
albaugh (#81) is looking forward to a "fascist" future, when individual
rights are subjugated to an oppressive government. other seems to foresee
that also, although with less pleasure.
I look forward to a more liberal future, when individual rights are
strongly supported and governmental oversight is the minimum necessary
for a safe and civil society.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 87 of 142:
|
Oct 7 19:54 UTC 2003 |
Oh, well, I did say this was a novel, and it was a lovely concept. It was also
a multi-species sf novel, and one of the "fetal adoptions" was between
species, which I know ain't gonna happen. It is simply one of those things
which in a more perfect world would happen.
|
polygon
|
|
response 88 of 142:
|
Oct 7 20:09 UTC 2003 |
A former girlfriend of mine came from a large family which took in
hydrocephalic and anacephalic babies, one at a time, and cared for them
until they died. (The woman of the house was an obstetrics nurse.) In
most cases, the parents had no interest in them, and it was cheaper to pay
my friend to care of them than to leave them in the hospital.
I remember one anecephalic baby they had, who was a real mess. I didn't
like to look at him. He had really no recognizable face above the chin.
He was fed through a tube, not specifically through nose or mouth since
there wasn't any distinction between the two. He had noisy seizures
pretty frequently. The family, which had a sense of humor about this
parade of dying infants, called him "Jonathan It".
My girlfriend's mom, a defiantly unusual person, would coo over poor
Jonathan, telling in the sweetest voice how disgusting he was, and would
hold him in her arms and rock him to sleep at night.
Had she left him alone in his crib, he would have kept us all awake with
his cries and seizures. (Big family, crowded house.) On the other hand,
without any physical affection, he would have died much more quickly.
She also loved the expression on the bank teller's face when she took
welfare department checks to the bank and deposited them in savings.
I think Jonathan set some kind of record for months of life for an
anacephalic.
Supposedly they bought a new truck with the money they made.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 89 of 142:
|
Oct 7 21:40 UTC 2003 |
> albaugh (#81) is looking forward to a "fascist" future, when individual
> rights are subjugated to an oppressive government.
What utter bullshit. Whether or not I'm looking forward to it is irrelevant.
But if you want to talk about rights, let's talk about a future where every
human's rights - whether a born human or a pre-born human under construction
- are treated equally. I maintain that the only reason that those born humans
who want their "rights" to supersede the rights of the not-yet-born to *be*
born are because they can currently say "hey fetus, you have no rights, let's
see you survive outside the womb", like a fish flopping on the dock. When
that is no longer the reality because of technology, where is the arbitrary
"2nd trimester" limit going to stand? It will have no legs to stand on, and
any born human's claim that the fetus doesn't have the right to be born will
simply be a denial of the right to live, which wouldn't be tolerated for born
humans.
The Chinese tradition holds that the person's development in the womb is his
"pre air life", and that at birth the person is considered "one year old".
That viewpoint acknowledges that the fetus is a human in the making, where
every living person came from. To deny it life requires that it be
de-humanized, ironic as that expression is, and that is what such arbitrary
limits as "2nd trimester" accomplish.
Once it becomes possible for any fetus to obtain life, no matter how young,
what can any claim of "infringement of rights" be other than "I don't want
'it' to live"?
|
lynne
|
|
response 90 of 142:
|
Oct 7 22:56 UTC 2003 |
I think there was a Mary Higgins Clark novel about an abortion doctor that
was removing fetuses from women who had signed up for an abortion and
implanting them in women who had fertility problems. It was a scary thought
when I read the book, not only because the fictional doctor was doing this
without the knowledge or consent of his patients and with a large dose of
coercion. I think there's a deeper issue beyond the "inconvenience" of
being pregnant, which concerns control over one's genetic material. We
place a great deal of emphasis on this as is--witness paternity suits,
court cases where the natural parents almost always win custody over adoptive
parents, etc. I would not willingly sign over any product of my genetic
material, and I find the concept of being coerced into this absolutely
nauseating. *This* is your ideal world?
|
russ
|
|
response 91 of 142:
|
Oct 8 02:18 UTC 2003 |
Re #62: Given your atrocious spelling and utter lack of social
graces, you're the poster child for the view you oppose.
Re #67:
>I cannot argue that position.
As I thought. You're not even going to try to dissect my stand.
I'd be thrilled if you'd show that you understand it, though.
>It will become murder after the law is changed.
Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
Calling an embryo a person doesn't make it one either, but
that's the goal of most of the groups trying to ban abortion.
Equating abortion with murder will also be completely without
precedent in the history of the USA. It's ludicrous.
>It is murder in my mind because I consider abortion in general as
>murder once you have passed a certain point in the development of
>the fetus.
Guess what, Bruce: I AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT. In general. In
specific, I agree that any fetus which is capable of surviving by
breathing air and feeding on milk is morally no different from a
neonate at the same level of development. That's what babies do.
>For certain in the last trimester, abortions should be banned.
Here I very much DISagree with you. Here's why:
1.) The boundary for consciousness is about 30 weeks. This
is well into the third trimester, and without consciousness
there is nobody there. Babies are definitely conscious at
least part of the time, so I have to class something that
does not yet have the capability as not-quite-a-baby.
2.) There are a lot of fetal abnormalities which aren't discovered
until late. Lots of these are either deadly or mean serious
problems.
The longer the pregnancy continues, the more physical effects
there are. Infertility is a relatively common consequence of
birth. No woman or couple should ever have to sacrifice their
hope for a healthy child by being forced to have an unhealthy
one. Abortion is often the best way out.
If third-trimester abortions are the only thing which bothers you,
rest easy. They are vanishingly rare. According to the CDC, some
55% of all abortions are performed in the first 8 weeks, and 88%
within 12 weeks. Only 1.4% are performed after 20 weeks, and if
you think there aren't 15,000 cases of severe fetal defects per
year in the USA you should check out some special-ed classrooms.
|
russ
|
|
response 92 of 142:
|
Oct 8 04:22 UTC 2003 |
Back in #81, Kevin Albaugh wrote:
>It is my view that the current "up to the 2nd trimester" limit is a
>matter of technology.... The law will change so that any conceived
>"pre-human", "human under construction" will be required to be
>given that chance, and that abortion as convenience will be outlawed.
It is my view that an enlightened future will look at the true nature
of the thing "under construction" and say "If it doesn't have enough
of a brain to have thoughts or feelings, it is only worth something
if someone wants it. Mere cells do not a person make."
By the time we have real uterine replicators, I'll bet that we'll
flush the incurable deformities with as little moralizing as we
now associate with warranty returns. Nature screws up, Man makes
the judgement calls.... and everyone wants their kids to have the
best. Or would you induce spina bifida or cerebral palsy just so
that we have people to be compassionate for? In your own kids?
>I believe that some time in the future after that people will look
>back on these times as an age of butchery, viewed with the same
>disdain and outrage as we look back on ignorant "medical" practices
>of the past. The notion of "rights of the woman" will be dismissed
>out of hand.
Watch out, because one powerful force of history is pushing the other
way. The whole concept of "life regardless of the consequences" is
rejected wholesale by the hospice movement, the Right-to-Die movement,
and millions of others who (gasp) take *quality* of life into account.
These people are not going to let you elevate the rights of an
unthinking, unfeeling *potential* above that of the people making
the decisions and bearing the burdens. And the harder you push,
the harder they push back. They do NOT want to be forced to live
in YOUR world, and the best way to prevent your ideal world is to keep
trying to force it on them; they'll eliminate it in self-defense.
|
gull
|
|
response 93 of 142:
|
Oct 8 14:36 UTC 2003 |
Re #81:
> It is my view that the current "up to the 2nd trimester" limit is a
> matter of technology. I believe that some day technology will have
> advanced to the state where virtually any conceived fetus (zygote
> etc.) will be viable outside the womb, growable in an incubator,
> if you will. The law will change so that any conceived "pre-human",
> "human under construction" will be required to be given that chance,
> and that abortion as convenience will be outlawed.
This would also outlaw test-tube fertalization as it's currently done.
It also brings up a lot of odd moral questions...for example, it's
common for pregnancies to fail at very early stages, sometimes before
the woman even realizes she's pregnant. Should a woman be sued for
negligence if this happens, in your world?
Re #85: People also have a way of insisting that they only want a baby
with their genes.
|
polygon
|
|
response 94 of 142:
|
Oct 9 04:59 UTC 2003 |
Um, no, what I wrote in #88 is fact, not fiction. Sorry if it confused
you.
|
tsty
|
|
response 95 of 142:
|
Oct 9 08:09 UTC 2003 |
waaaayyyb back there ... 6 month without a pregnancy clue is not belivable.
smarmy denial, perhaps. that we have yo here and now is a benefit.
ignorance can reap benefits, but rarely. your case is teh exception.
|
polygon
|
|
response 96 of 142:
|
Oct 9 15:07 UTC 2003 |
No. It's not uncommon for a woman who was unaware she was pregnant show
up in an emergency room with labor pains -- ask anyone who works in
obstetrics. Perhaps they are not well educated, and not very petite to
begin with, but there is plenty of ignorance to go around.
|
lynne
|
|
response 97 of 142:
|
Oct 9 16:38 UTC 2003 |
96 is true. Every day you come aross more evidence of the power of the
human mind to flat-out ignore what's in front of the corresponding face;
why should this be any different?
FWIW, irregular periods are not uncommon at all. Last time I was at the
doctor's office, they had a supply of brochures on them. Some forms of
birth control suppress periods. One of my friends had normal periods one
half of the year and none at all the other half. I went a year between
my first period and my second, and am still irregular enough that I could
easily get up to 5 months without noticing anything--and then it would be
more likely weight gain that would tip me off.
I find it interesting that there are no laws in place on what a woman can
do while pregnant. F'rinstance, smoking and drinking are not legally
proscribed; neither are horseback riding, playing hockey, boxing, or
working in a lab with toxic, teratogenic or carcinogenic chemicals.
Any of these things can lead to miscarriages, birth defects, or other
problems. Not that I'm advocating such laws, but their absence suggests
a deeper conviction that the freedom of the woman is more important than
the life or health of the fetus.
|
klg
|
|
response 98 of 142:
|
Oct 9 16:45 UTC 2003 |
(Are you aware of the relatively famous labor law case in which women
sued to be able to work, I believe, in a battery manufacturing area?
The employer had refused to place women there due to the likelihood of
causing fetal abnormalities. Naturally, the women won in our upside
down courts. Now, the employer is probably liable for any fetal
damages that result from that insanity.)
|
tod
|
|
response 99 of 142:
|
Oct 9 16:46 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 100 of 142:
|
Oct 9 16:55 UTC 2003 |
what's THAT suppose to mean?
/takes a gigantic swaller of pete's wild irish rose
|
tod
|
|
response 101 of 142:
|
Oct 9 17:03 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mdw
|
|
response 102 of 142:
|
Oct 9 18:32 UTC 2003 |
#99 is just not true. There are things you, as an adult, can do that will
only be mildly harmful that would cause major and permanent harm to an
infant or fetus. Alcohol is a simple and obvious example, or, do you
remember thalamide babies in the 50's?
|
tod
|
|
response 103 of 142:
|
Oct 9 18:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mdw
|
|
response 104 of 142:
|
Oct 9 19:07 UTC 2003 |
Actually, I was just noticing that #99 was a blanket assertion with no
qualifiers, and #98 is not necessarily specific (one never knows with
the klg's); #97 is specifically non-specific. Obviously you meant #99
much more specifically than you indicated, but I suspect even there it's
still wrong -- you did say "just as", indicating it's equally harmful to
both. However, perhaps #103 is true with #99 being false, if lead
poisoning were harmful to both, but more harmful to children. I believe
this is in fact the case, though I couldn't quite you any legal casework
or medical research to prove that (although given the scopes trial, I
cannot consider legal casework to be the final word on human biology.)
|
lynne
|
|
response 105 of 142:
|
Oct 9 19:23 UTC 2003 |
What's harmful for the 50+ adult's brain is generally more harmful to a
fetus, often by orders of magnitude. Besides which, if you're over 50
and female, you're likely past the inclination and/or ability to be
carrying a fetus.
When I started at Uni-Tuebingen I had to sign a form absolving the university
of any responsibility for potential prenatal damage--SOP for women of
childbearing age. Can't quite recall, but I'm sure I signed one at MIT
as well and that such agreements are standard where applicable. I
therefore reject klg's whiny final sentence in 98. In general, chemical
companies will give you a desk job for the duration of your pregnancy
anyway because they don't need the adverse publicity that might occur.
|