posted
Rakeesh, I was in fact primarily referring to the use of the term "child" as opposed to the term fetus. I have always been under the impression that fetus is the medically correct term until birth.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems we have very different definitions of fun.
Very, but debating issues like this is (IMO) a large part of what gives this forum life. If you don't like reading threads debating controversy, even if it's controversy that's been beaten into the ground, why are you here? There are hundreds of other threads.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, chemotherapy would likely produce the equivalent of an early-term chemical abortion, thus eliminating the "ripping a child out of the womb." (nice emotionally charged language, btw.) Even late term, it would cause the death of the fetus.
Yes, chemo might lead to the child's death. Some chemo regimes will almost certainly lead to the child's death. It's still different than taking steps with the intent to kill the child.
Edit: Moved "They mourned their baby" from here.
quote:I have always been under the impression that fetus is the medically correct term until birth.
"Fetus" is a stage of development. Unless you never call an infant a child, it is perfectly consistent to call an unborn child an undborn child. I've known many women who have suffered miscarriages. Not one of them mourned their fetus, or their "potential" child.
Nor are we restricted to medical terms. People speak of a heart attack, not a myocardial infarction.
Edit: Move "They mourned their baby" to here.
They mourned their baby.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, good point about the miscarriages. 34% sounds enormous, but I guess back in the day when women had 6 or 8 kids, one or two miscarriages wasn't as large a proportion.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KQ, I think Dag meant, "Not one of them mourned their fetus", they mourned their child. Even though at that point the correct medical term may be "fetus", the mothers who miscarry don't mourn the fetus. They mourn their baby.
Could be mistaken, but that's the impression I got.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose there has to be someone that can take pleasure in beating dead horses.
And I don't recall saying that I didn't like the debate.
As to why I am here? I was offering my point of view, just like everyone else.
And that point was that this subject it a study in futility. Watching the merry-go-round spin and spin...
I meant no offence, and perhaps a Graemlin or two would have helped express my intent. Mayhap you will forgive me this time... After all I did manage to get you off subject Posts: 80 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose you're right about not being restricted to medical term, but you must admit that "killing of unborn children" is highly charged languange in a highly charged debate. For those of us who don't consider the tiny cluster of cells that is a fetus in the first trimester a child, that sort of language represents an end to productive debate.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And that point was that this subject it a study in futility. Watching the merry-go-round spin and spin...
I've changed two different minds on this subject, and made at least a dozen begin to see the issue differently, even if they haven't changed their mind. And I've helped convince a young mother to keep her child. I'm not going to stop.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suppose you're right about not being restricted to medical term, but you must admit that "killing of unborn children" is highly charged languange in a highly charged debate. For those of us who don't consider the tiny cluster of cells that is a fetus in the first trimester a child, that sort of language represents an end to productive debate.
"Tiny cluster of cells" isn't any less charged, and it's far more misleading a term.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: She could proceed with chemotherapy without getting an abortion.
Dags, as someone who had a good friend who was in PRECISELY the situation Rabbit described, no she could not.
To begin with, doctors will not give chemo to a woman who is known to be pregnant -- for reasons both medical and legal.
While it is likely that the chemo will kill the child, the fact that her body is under the stresses of pregnancy makes the chemo far less likely to be effective. Chemo on a pregnant mom is all too likely to result in a woman who still dies of cancer, and a baby who is tortured for weeks and then dies. A worse scenario than either of the real options.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I definitely don't think discussion should stop. It does tend to be productive, to a point.
I'm also impressed with how civil and reasonable this discussion has been for the most part, mostly lacking in extreme rhetoric from either side.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Obviously, not all treatments can have such results. But I do know that even when a horrible outcome is expected, there are doctors who will do it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you mind explaining how, on both points?
A mole is a tiny cluster of cells. So is a tumor. "Tiny cluster of cells" leaves out everything that distinguishes a fetus from things everyone agrees can be cut out without moral thought.
If "unborn child" - a term used all the time in non-abortion contexts to refer to a fetus, although not as often as simply the word "baby" - is highly charged, then the introduction of a term that almost no one would use to refer to a fetus outside of abortion contexts is more charged, more biased, and less accurate.
Which word would be understood with no additional context as refering to a fetus?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
American doctors will not do so. And I believe they are correct not to.
That's not true, at least not as a generalization. I'm sure there are American doctors who won't. I've talked to three cancer survivors who received chemo during pregnancy, one of whose child survived and is now fine.
posted
All good points...all the more reason to use medical terminology, thereby keeping the debate civil.
Note that I did say "For those of us that believe." I intended to describe my own position, no more. To me, describing a pro-choice viewpoint as "for the killing of unborn children" is akin to describing the pro-life viewpoint as "for forcing women to carry unwanted collections of cells to the point where they become children." Either one of those descriptions is biased and heavily charged.
That is why I'd rather medical terms be used in the debate of such an emotionally charged subject. That's all.
As a side note, I am actually one of those who has revised her position somewhat on abortion due to debates on Hatrack. This has been due to calm, reasonable, civil presentations of viewpoints from both sides. This is why I value civil debate on the subject so much.
Also...I'm going to bed. So, if I don't respond, no offense meant.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One could with equal accuracy say that an adult is merely a "large cluster of cells", but that hardly seems relevant to establishing the adult's rights.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me, describing a pro-choice viewpoint as "for the killing of unborn children" is akin to describing the pro-life viewpoint as "for forcing women to carry unwanted collections of cells to the point where they become children."
And I have not described the pro-choice viewpoint thusly.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:One could with equal accuracy say that an adult is merely a "large cluster of cells", but that hardly seems relevant to establishing the adult's rights.
Since going on the Alien ride at Disney, my boyfriend likes to refer to me as his "smaller carbon based lifeform" so I say different strokes for different folks. Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason I mentioned the "cluster of cells" thing is because I personally have a very difficult time seeing the few cells that make up a fetus in the first trimester as a child. It has the potential to become an infant, giving development and eventual birth, but at that point it isn't one, to me. I agree that choosing an arbitrary point is troubling, but no more troubling to me than the idea that something 8 or 16 cells big takes precedence over a full-grown woman. That's my personal stance, though.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what the *sigh* is for. Could you explain?
It's just sad to think about the miscarriage.
But, I did not mourn a child. I mourned the potential for a child-- it was a very early miscarriage, but I don't feel that that particular pregnancy was ever more than the potential of a baby. Not a baby.
Conversely, I felt that Emma was a baby as soon as I knew she was pregnant-- and freaked out when I could have lost her, to the point where I, the non-compliant-because-I-forget, stayed on bedrest for a month.
Like I said, I think it may be different with every pregnancy.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How would you describe the pro-choice viewpoint, then?
The view that abortion should be (edit to add the word "legally" here) available at some point during the pregnancy at the mother's election, with no other justification required.
quote: 8 or 16 cells big takes precedence over a full-grown woman
Except when discussing the morning after pill, there are never this few cells during an elective abortion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I've actually reached the end of my (limited) knowledge of how quickly pregnancy progresses. I should correct that.
I do agree with your description of the pro-choice viewpoint in your last post. I don't think your earlier terminology was as lacking in emotionally charged language, but that's beside the point.
Anyway, now I really am going to bed. Really.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Abortion is murder,no matter what stage the baby is at. It kills a little helpless baby iside the womb of its mother, and it also increases the mother's chance of getting breast cancer to 800%. It harms the mother, by hurting her physically and emotionally, and it KILLS the baby. Life should be preserved from the moment of conception to natural death.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right, I suppose I should post something non-snarky...
The argument over when life begins won't ever be resolved, I think. We don't even have a good definition of what this "life" is that we want to protect. It's not just the fact that the embryo is alive--so are bacteria, and we consider it good to kill the harmful ones. It's not that it contains human DNA--so did my wisdom teeth before I had them removed. It's not quite the potential to become a fully-grown human, since sperm and eggs have some of that potential (to a lesser degree). So, what is it that we want to protect?
Uniqueness? Certainly an embryo contains a unique collection of genes. That in itself is somewhat worth preserving, though this argument doesn't cover cloned embryos. Nor is this really sufficient, I think, to justify the banning of all abortions.
Perhaps it's a certain degree of potentiality that's worth protecting? I'd agree with this as well, that a human embryo is a precious thing which has the power to blossom into a conscious being. But this has the weakness of arbitrariness. At what point is there enough potential for life that it is immoral to destroy something?
Here's my problem. I don't really believe that a newly fertilized egg is morally equivalent to a newborn. I'm not bothered by the fact that I'll most likely lose several fertilized eggs because they didn't implant. I think it's because I associate personhood with self-awareness. I think it's a vital part of what makes us human and valuable, and before the brain forms there's no chance of self-awareness. Even long after the neurons are in place, the fetus may well not have anything resembling sentience. So, at what point does its right to existence trump certain rights of the sentient being carrying it?
And yet...I can't deny that some of who that embryo will be if it is simply given a place to grow is already right there in that ball of cells. I can't see destroying it casually. And because the issue of when personhood begins is so nebulous, I would prefer to err on the side of protecting that life. Except--going back to the whole sentience thing--when the life/health of the mother is at stake. I consider the mother more valuable than the baby. The baby doesn't comprehend its own mortality. It can't fear its impending death. Whether or not there's even an "I" in there is iffy.
But here's the thing...I'm not really wild about limiting the mother's rights, even though I think it's the right thing to do in this case. And pregnancy isn't just an inconvenience. There are several potentially fatal complications associated with pregancy, not to mention the pain and dangers of childbirth itself. Additionally, the truth is that Roe v. Wade probably won't overturned anytime soon, and even if it is many states will continue to keep abortion legal.
I guess all of this is why I think the solution isn't to have fights between pro-choice and pro-life people over the legality issue. Sure, I'd vote for most forms of abortion bans if it came up on the ballot, but I'm not going to expend energy lobbying for it. I think we all really ought to be exploring ways to make abortions unnecessary in the first place. I strongly doubt that most pro-choice groups are against adoption; why don't they work to make the public more aware of the option and the whole process easier? And if pro-life groups are willing to focus on preventing pregnancies in whatever way they can, even if that means sex-ed and promotion of birth control, it may well be more effective than focusing on legislation. Plus, if we all stop concentrating on legislation, we get to dodge both the issue of when life begins, AND the women's rights issues.
We as a society can do better to help prevent pregnancies and support the women who do end up with unwanted pregnancies. I think that's something just about everyone can agree on, so why not work toward common goals instead of annihilating each other in a fruitless burst of energy?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read most of the thread, and thought that this article at Reason this morning was pertinent. It travels a lot of the ground we've covered in the last six pages, has some interesting national (U.S.) statistics and is only slightly biased. Keep in mind Reason is a libertarian webzine, so caveat emptor (except it's free, so...nevermind).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:She could proceed with chemotherapy without getting an abortion.
This would probably not be allowed medically because it would cause unacceptable risks for both the mother and the the fetus. Chemotherapy agents are typically designed to target fast growing cells. Since a fetus grows faster than nearly all forms of cancer, chemotherapy is virtually certain to kill the fetus. Since no studies have or should be performed on the influence of chemotherapy on a human fetus, the risks to the mother from such are choice are totally unknown and are likely to be very high. For example, chemotherapy often reduces the clotting ability of the blood making the potential of hemoraging high. Having chemotherapy while pregnant would pose a severe risk to the mother and the effects on the fetus would be identical to having an abortion. I would consider it a breach of medical ethics for any physician to give chemotherapy to a pregnant woman.
Beyond that, you did not answer my question. My question wasn't should the hypothetical woman get an abortion, it was should this hypothetical woman be allowed the choice of an abortion. These are very different questions.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, okay, I've been sitting quietly for days, and just thinking about everything everyone has been bringing up.
There are a lot of great points to consider, and the reason this topic is such a great one to debate is that both sides have a lot of valid points as to why their way should be the way. Some people disagree with abortion for religious reasons, some agree with it for social reasons. But here are the things we can all agree on, as I see it:
Killing babies is bad. No one disputes the fact that once the kid has the umbilical cord cut, and is screaming and crying, it's too late for abortion.
Killing sperm and eggs before they join is not bad. Or else every woman who's had more than one period and every guy who's had a wet dream is a mass murderer.
There's no way to definitively determine when, exactly, life starts in the womb. Does it start at conception? If so there are a lot of miscarriages that nobody knows about. Instances where a fertilized egg doesn't attach to the uterine wall. Everyone's pretty sure that awareness comes about sometime in the third trimester (although maybe before), but that occurence hasn't been pinpointed to any one day, or even week to my knowledge.
Since we're unable to say with any certainty that anything beyond *this* point is killing a child, the only moral thing to do is to either allow abortion, no matter the situation, or to disallow it entirely, no matter the situation.
This is where it gets cloudy. There's a lot of people who want exceptions. And there are a lot of good cases for exceptions, to be sure. When the mother's life is in danger from being pregnant, when the pregnancy is due to rape or incest, or when the mother is an intravaneous drug user are the first three that come to mind.
But when you start making exceptions it's hard to draw the line. It's easy to say, well, if x is alright, why not x+1? It's just one more, what's the harm? That's a slippery slope that leads to rampant abortions, most of which could be easily avoided with some common sense.
But why use birth control when you know you can always get an abortion? It's like rock climbing; you're a little more likely to take a risk as long as you have a safety rope. Maybe you wouldn't normally, but hey, the rope has your back, right? If you limit or ban abortions except in the extreme case where the mother's life is in immediate danger from taking the pregnancy to term then people know they have to exercise more caution or face the consequences. Rape or incest is a terrible situation, and I firmly believe that it would be awful for a woman to have to raise such a child. But that's where adoption comes in.
So, you can probably guess where I come down on the whole thing. Morning after pill, fine. 1st trimester abortions for the scenario where the mother's in serious danger, and no other abortions for anyone, for any reason. I know that's harsh, but as I said it's hard to stop making exceptions once you start.
And let me say this, too: I don't have any problem with anyone who is having, or has had an abortion. I have several friends who's girlfriends have had them. And if I'd been in their situation I may have done the same thing. So while it's legal I don't judge anyone who does it. I'm not a moralist. I just don't think our current system is healthy. But I respect anyone for making a choice that hard, and I hope I'm never in their shoes.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Since no studies have or should be performed on the influence of chemotherapy on a human fetus, the risks to the mother from such are choice are totally unknown and are likely to be very high.
I realize later in the post you address why you think they're likely to be very high (blood clots and whatnot), but these two statements are contradictory. Either the risks are totally unknown and therefore equally likely to be very high or very low, or they are not totally unknown. Anyway, just being a logic Nazi, not adding anything productive. I'll shut up now.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since we're unable to say with any certainty that anything beyond *this* point is killing a child, the only moral thing to do is to either allow abortion, no matter the situation, or to disallow it entirely, no matter the situation.
That doesn't follow at all. You might think some situations are bad enough to justify the "risk" that you might be killing, while other situations aren't serious enough to justify it. Even if you don't know whether abortion is killing or not.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shigosei, I like just about everything you wrote. As Sterling said, it was very thoughtful.
In the end, however, it ends up being a request that we all just get along. The problem with discontinuing the route of legislation is that both sides would have to agree to it. And when it comes right down to it, while grassroots movements are my personal preference, law is too powerful to abandon. When you view abortion as murder, logically it is therefore criminal to put aside one of the more powerful, ethical means of combatting it. It would be like saying people who think murder is wrong should just try to combat it by working to eliminate the reasons people commit murder. Certainly some people think that, but I think most of us can agree that it's negligent idealism. And thankfully, the law agrees.
Should we then abandon the grassroots method as well? I don't think so, nor do I think we have.
I heard a story a long time ago about a woman who personally disagreed with abortion. She was driving by a pro-life rally and said, "Why don't those people use their energy to help people instead of standing around with signs? I would never do what they're doing." Her friend in the car with her replied, "Because that's what's important to them. It's not important to you, so you don't." For me, that story points out that we all have different passions and talents, and for some, standing by a roadside with a sign is their method of expressing something they disagree with. If nothing else, they serve as a reminder that abortion isn't something we should take lightly. People who picket immenent executions serve the same purpose. It's not something I'm into, but I try to remember to appreciate that what they're doing isn't a complete waste of time or energy. They remind us that life is precious, even when it's wasted on rape and murder.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) The more you post, the more I like you. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
