Fair is fair . . . Georgia Democrats propose an anti-vasectomy bill

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

We could be the Butch and Sundance of Vacuum aspiration.

[The Mad Monk]

No, an excuse is just that, regardless of which side you're on. The law should be a tool of what's right, not a justification.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

But then what is "right"? The prevailing will of the majority, or appeal to a code of conduct independent of public opinion?

[The Mad Monk]

A hard question. One is tempted to reply prevailing will, in that would certainly make things easier and more palatable, but then one remembers things like slavery and infant exposure. Therefore I must choose the code.

[The Mad Monk]

Every generation thinks it knows whats best, and vilifies the morality of those that came before and after.

[Krill]

Embryos' before 22 weeks aren't statistically viable (normally, something like 10% live, and in 90% of those that live, have severe learning disabilities). Embryos after 24 weeks are viable with only 10% of cases having Learning Disabilities. That is generally a good place to start when determining to ban abortion. All IIRC.

However, what this comes down to is Jon thinking his opinions count more than anyone elses.

[MRT144]

Embryos' before 22 weeks aren't statistically viable (normally, something like 10% live, and in 90% of those that live, have severe learning disabilities). Embryos after 24 weeks are viable with only 10% of cases having Learning Disabilities. That is generally a good place to start when determining to ban abortion. All IIRC.

However, what this comes down to is Jon thinking his opinions count more than anyone elses.

Well, when you stand against baby murder everyone else is wrong. Because dogs are babies too.

[Elok]

Embryos' before 22 weeks aren't statistically viable (normally, in 90% of cases, have severe learning disabilities). Embryos after 24 weeks are viable with only 10% of cases having Learning Disabilities. That is generally a good place to start when determining to ban abortion.

Well, it certainly beats any "can it think" criteria, which are just plain daft IMO. If you're going by the presence or absence of thoughts, you could likely get away with wasting pretty much any infant less than six weeks old. Unless he's a bloody genius, he's not thinking anything that couldn't be thought better by a stray dog. But I'm not sure that viability is super-useful either, unless you're arguing for inducing the birth at that stage and giving it up for adoption as an alternative.

However, what this comes down to is Jon thinking his opinions count more than anyone elses.

Doesn't everyone?

[Guynemer]

Embryos' before 22 weeks aren't statistically viable (normally, something like 10% live, and in 90% of those that live, have severe learning disabilities). Embryos after 24 weeks are viable with only 10% of cases having Learning Disabilities. That is generally a good place to start when determining to ban abortion. All IIRC.

However, what this comes down to is Jon thinking his opinions count more than anyone elses.

Your numbers are significantly off.

A large minority of 24 weekers never leave the hospital alive, and the vast majority that do have significant health and cognitive issues for the rest of their lives. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think it isn't until 30 or so weeks when patients are more likely to be "normal" than not.

[Krill]

Well, it certainly beats any "can it think" criteria, which are just plain daft IMO. If you're going by the presence or absence of thoughts, you could likely get away with wasting pretty much any infant less than six weeks old. Unless he's a bloody genius, he's not thinking anything that couldn't be thought better by a stray dog. But I'm not sure that viability is super-useful either, unless you're arguing for inducing the birth at that stage and giving it up for adoption as an alternative.

The thread has already gone over illegal abortions, but frankly what would legally happen to a pregnant women if she tried to overdose to abort a fetus? Or self harmed? Viability is reasonable place to start with the legalities simply because short of locking up women that try to abort a foetuses (because it's obviously not their foetus, right?) there isn't much you can do to women that want an abortion.

That's what this comes down to. If Jon really cares about the embryos, then he needs to safeguard them from potential illegal abortions after he manages to make abortions illegal. If a women tries to abort a foetus, lock her up so she doesn't do it again. Or if she gets pregnant lock her up until she gives birth.

Great idea

Doesn't everyone?

Actually, as a healthcare professional we're expected to be non-judgmental. Whether I believe abortion (or euthanasia, or chemotherapy, or even ****ing blood transfusions) to be unethical because of my beliefs shouldn't affect the care that I give to my patients. Just think of all those catholic doctors and nurses that refuse to perform specific medical treatment (even Jons' hospital and blood transfusion drama)

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

A far more interesting topic is the one about under what what circumstances should parents be able to euthanise kids after they are born.

Before anyone shrieks in horror about that, google "Harlequin Ichthyosis"- but not if the indescribable and utterly hopeless suffering of babies might upset you.

[MRT144]

A far more interesting topic is the one about under what what circumstances should parents be able to euthanise kids after they are born.

Before anyone shrieks in horror about that, google "Harlequin Ichthyosis"- but not if the indescribable and utterly hopeless suffering of babies might upset you.

Harlequin_Ichthyosis.jpg

[Krill]

Your numbers are significantly off.

A large minority of 24 weekers never leave the hospital alive, and the vast majority that do have significant health and cognitive issues for the rest of their lives. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think it isn't until 30 or so weeks when patients are more likely to be "normal" than not.

1) going from memory

2) I'll bow to the peadiatrician, but those aren't the numbers I've seen bandied around, specifically since working in a Learning disability environment. Still, time to go looking through articles.

[Hauldren Collider]

A far more interesting topic is the one about under what what circumstances should parents be able to euthanise kids after they are born.

Before anyone shrieks in horror about that, google "Harlequin Ichthyosis"- but not if the indescribable and utterly hopeless suffering of babies might upset you.

These are, again, corner cases. What we're referring to are elective abortions by parents who simply do not want the burden of raising a child, or the burden of raising a child who might have a non-life-threatening disability. What you are arguing against is a complete strawman.

[Krill]

I was out by about a week:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20.../health.health

It is not a view shared by the scientific community, however. Research shows that 24-week viability limit has not changed in recent years. While 67 per cent of babies born at 25 weeks survive to go home from neo-natal unites, only 26 per cent survive if born at 23 weeks. Scientists have reached a limit below which they cannot keep a baby alive and ensure it has an unimpaired life. Nor is this limit likely to improve.

Also see: Bainbridge, J. (2008) Abortion: sticking with the 24-week limit British Journal of Midwifery vol: 16, no 7.

[Krill]

These are, again, corner cases. What we're referring to are elective abortions by parents who simply do not want the burden of raising a child, or the burden of raising a child who might have a non-life-threatening disability. What you are arguing against is a complete strawman.

Trolled...

[gribbler]

These are, again, corner cases. What we're referring to are elective abortions by parents who simply do not want the burden of raising a child, or the burden of raising a child who might have a non-life-threatening disability. What you are arguing against is a complete strawman.

Sometimes people with harlequin ichthyosis survive to adulthood. Does that mean it's evil and cruel to euthanize a newborn with the condition?

[Elok]

The thread has already gone over illegal abortions, but frankly what would legally happen to a pregnant women if she tried to overdose to abort a fetus? Or self harmed? Viability is reasonable place to start with the legalities simply because short of locking up women that try to abort a foetuses (because it's obviously not their foetus, right?) there isn't much you can do to women that want an abortion.

That's what this comes down to. If Jon really cares about the embryos, then he needs to safeguard them from potential illegal abortions after he manages to make abortions illegal. If a women tries to abort a foetus, lock her up so she doesn't do it again. Or if she gets pregnant lock her up until she gives birth.

Great idea

Of course that's unenforceable, just like you can't prevent all murders (outside a Tom Cruise movie). You can only punish the guilty. And, in this case, find ways to make the crime unnecessary. Increased contraceptive access is obviously a good place to start (and this, I think, is the #1 reason why the pro-life movement in the USA is getting nowhere). The real fix will have to be a cultural shift. Which will take a long time, if it happens at all.

[Aeson]

Well, it certainly beats any "can it think" criteria, which are just plain daft IMO. If you're going by the presence or absence of thoughts, you could likely get away with wasting pretty much any infant less than six weeks old. Unless he's a bloody genius, he's not thinking anything that couldn't be thought better by a stray dog.

Counter to your claims, a 0-6 week old child clearly demonstrates consciousness, desires, and registration of pain. It's difficult to say if they are sentient even at that point, but that "unknown" is actually the point which is "protected" by the argument, counter to your claim.

[Dinner]

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

These are, again, corner cases.

I like this reasoning. "It's rare, so we can pretend the principles involved in them don't exist and hope that if we stay quiet it'll all go away. LALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALALALA!!"

In numbers, what's the tipping point you work to, where you're forced to conclude it's an issue to be discussed?

[MrFun]

Actually, as a healthcare professional we're expected to be non-judgmental. Whether I believe abortion (or euthanasia, or chemotherapy, or even ****ing blood transfusions) to be unethical because of my beliefs shouldn't affect the care that I give to my patients. Just think of all those catholic doctors and nurses that refuse to perform specific medical treatment (even Jons' hospital and blood transfusion drama)

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I've always been slightly puzzled by the Christian position on both contraception and abortion when the Bible is silent on both issues. Abortifacients were certainly used at the time, and were an important trade commodity around the mediterranean. Given the exacting detail of laws in books like Deuteronomy you'd have thought it a bit of a startling omission.

Certainly medieval Islam was fine with abortion, up to 120 days after conception.

[MrFun]

Let's test this.

Take the example of a woman who attempted to prevent pregancy with both conventional and emergency contraception. Both failed. It is now two weeks past conception. She wants a simple abortifacient to end this two-week pregnancy. Her reason for this is that she simply doesn't want to give birth.

How do you handle it?

Hmmm . . .

Well, given that it doesn't even have a brain yet (neural tube develops during fifth week), I'd say she should be free to choose.

[MrFun]

As for Harlequin Ichthyosis, I was not familiar with it until now.
I read more about on wikipedia - frightening and horrible.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

There you go, Fun. You are actually in favour of abortion on demand for the sake of mere convenience. You just have opinions on how far the pregnancy should be allowed to progress for that to still apply, and that's fine.

[Dinner]

MRT, that's called a shock tactic not an argument.

[Jon Miller]

I don't see how the situation with sick children changes if they are before birth or 5 years after birth.

It still can't be used to justify the murder of innocents.

"Oh, my life will change and I will be unable to go out as much if I have a child, better abort!"

JM

[Aeson]

I don't see how the situation with sick children changes if they are before birth or 5 years after birth.

The certainty of the harm changes.

[Elok]

I've always been slightly puzzled by the Christian position on both contraception and abortion when the Bible is silent on both issues. Abortifacients were certainly used at the time, and were an important trade commodity around the mediterranean. Given the exacting detail of laws in books like Deuteronomy you'd have thought it a bit of a startling omission.

Certainly medieval Islam was fine with abortion, up to 120 days after conception.

It's not like we follow the Torah on anything anyway. We haven't had a Jubilee Year for a long time now, and most of us frown on stoning people for doing things like grabbing your husband's junk to break up a fight. Or was that just a hand-removal offense? Don't recall. It's out either way. Anyway, there's a very old Christian tradition of opposing abortion, going back to the first couple of centuries (supposedly Augustine and Aquinas both said things which could at least be construed as pro-abortion; I don't know). I don't know of any history of opposition to contraception. My church is fine with it, so I'm going to guess that there's no significant patristic opposition to it.