Abortive Measures (20 posts)
7. JimP
Thu, Jan 21, 1999 - 10:20 AM/EST
Gayle
"Your analogy -metaphor? is faulty…"
I'm sure you understood it though. The castration/abortion comparison was to get you men thinking about people dictating and legislating what another individual must or must not do with their own body. No one has ever insisted a man MUST cause reproduction against his will, then be responsible for the end result. (But if we did, maybe there wouldn't be so many deadbeat dads running around the country.)
"But, to answer the question posed. "Would they accept women telling them what they can and can't do with their bodies?" "No, of course not."
Exactly.
"I cannot so easily disregard science as you seem to do."
I think you're referring to my statement about doctors playing God, so I'll ask you: How many very premature babies have you personally met? We've had four in our family (not me personally) plus those of three friends. Each of those children, who lived, have major problems...blindness, retardation, deafness, internal organ problems, respiratory troubles, heart conditions, to name a few. And then there are the immune system problems that cause them to catch and keep every germ that comes down the pike. Some of those families are no longer covered by insurance because they have gone through their lifetime limit on coverage and new companies won't accept them because of "pre-existing conditions". Two couples had to declare bankruptcy because of the devastating medical bills, and in spite of all the loving care and excellent medical care received, one of those children died, at age 8. All but one couple had other children when the preemies came along, and two of those couples are now divorced because of the stress. Granted, medical science has come a long way in this field, but not far enough. So, to answer you, no, I don't disregard science, but I am very critical of it. Especially when they tell parents their child isn't expected to live long, then won't allow the baby to die peacefully because they feel they are obligated to put the poor little thing on life support for month after month after month. I could stay on my soapbox for a very long time on this one.
"If science can cause a life to be viable at, let's say for the sake of the discussion, 20 weeks, your argument would seem to disallow abortions beyond that point."
My stance is that abortion should be a woman's choice. I do believe there should be a cutoff point if the abortion is for the sole purpose of not having a baby at a particular point in life, that preferably being in the early part of the first trimester, if at all possible (there are some exceptions). I believe in abortion to save a mother's life; abortion in the case of extremely severe physical problems or disease discovered in the fetus; abortion in the case of rape or incest. But I do not believe abortion should be used as a method of birth control.
"It is no longer only her body."
It is a part of her body -- connected in every way, not separate -- and, until a certain point, cannot be removed from her body and be guaranteed viable life. Or quality of life.
"…you seem to say that the mother, beyond the point of viability, is not merely a host to a parasite.
This is the emotions part I was talking about. Most of us love our children, born and unborn. Yes, I'm saying the little parasite and its host are more to each other than the scientific words imply. But just imagine the turmoil of conflict a woman has to endure when forced to have a child she doesn't want because of laws or emotional blackmail. This can end up being worth a thousand posts, so I'm going to stop for now.
8. A cop out?
Thu, Jan 21, 1999 - 12:18 PM/EST
McRostie
The abortion debarte is one in which I won't take part. Since I've been so vocal on other topics however, you probably have a right to expect an expression of opinion.
I believe that the question is one which, until abortion becomes threating to the human race, can only and must be answered on an individual basis. There are times when the only indivicual directly involved is the woman. In those cases, no problem, the right of decision is hers. Where there is a husband alive, well and contibuting to the family, he should have some rights. In mist marriages, I'm sure he does. In some not. In any case, the ultimate decision must be the woman's as she pays the ultimate "price". Grandparents, grand though we may be, should stay out of it.
The nasty question with which we have to deal as a society is to what extent is it proper for legislative action to control what nearly everyone will agree is a matter of morality on which there is no agreement, only highly emotionally charged debate and rhetoric. Until such time as it can be demonstrated that we have some level of agreement, I'm inclined to think the somewhat Solomin-like solution of dividing the life of the fetus in to three trii-mesters is about as well as we can do.
End of statement.
Regards, McRostie
9. EEG=life?
Thu, Jan 21, 1999 - 1:35 PM/EST
Tad
Gayle and Jim have provided some discussion of Atropos' proposal from a moral and social perspective. I'd like to weigh in with some scientific considerations.
First of all, EEG is a VERY crude way to measure what's going on in the brain. It's a little bit like trying to deduce the contents of a computer file solely by listening to the sounds that the disk drive makes while it is reading the file.
Nonetheless, it has been possible to identify EEG signatures that are characteristic of certain states of consciousness. For example, EEG can identify epileptic seizures, provide a crude measure of novelty or "surprise," and discriminate various stages of sleep (but, it should be noted that the EEG signature of REM sleep, when dreams occur, is identical to that of wakefulness--so EEG can't reliably tell you if a person is sleeping or awake, much less alive or dead).
These well-known types of EEG patterns do not start to appear until around week 20 of gestation. Not at 8 weeks. Before week 20, the EEG activity of the fetus does not correspond well to that of a post-natal human being.
Conversely, when someone is declared "brain dead," it does not necessarily mean that they have no brain activity whatsoever (the criteria differ from nation to nation, and in the U.S., I think from state to state). Brain dead patients often exhibit unusual patterns of brain activity. These patterns are not more and not less similar to normal brainwaves than those of an early fetus. Yet, such patients can still be classified "brain dead" and taken off of life support.
Rodents exhibit EEG patterns that are very similar to those of humans--much more similar than those of an early human fetus. If we adopt an EEG criterion for defining human life, will we have to classify rodents as people, too?
The use of EEG to define the beginning of life is as arbitrary as any other criteria one might choose (fertilization, viability, day 136 of gestation). Don't look to EEGs for scientific answers to what is, essentially, a moral and ethical debate.
10. You said it, and I fully agree.
Thu, Jan 21, 1999 - 4:56 PM/EST
JimP
I could not have said it better. You've captured what I think about abortion. "My stance is that abortion should be a woman's choice. I do believe there should be a cutoff point if the abortion is for the sole purpose of not having a baby at a particular point in life, that preferably being in the early part of the first trimester, if at all possible (there are some exceptions). I believe in abortion to save a mother's life; abortion in the case of extremely severe physical problems or disease discovered in
the fetus; abortion in the case of rape or incest. But I do not believe abortion should be used as a method of birth control."
This is, IMO, a reasoned solution. It is what I also believe.
I want to write more, but cannot seem to make the words come out saying what I feel. This subject is an emotional, legal, and philosophical (maybe moral, but I'm trying to avoid that word) nightmare. I think McRostie said it nicely, that what we have is a situatuion in which "nearly everyone will agree is a matter of morality on which there is no agreement, only highly emotionally charged debate and rhetoric."
I appreciate your discussing with us what is obviously a very emotional, heartfelt conviction on your part.
11. Roe vs Wade - 26 years ago today
Fri, Jan 22, 1999 - 10:55 AM/EST
JimP
NPR's Morning Edition had a very interesting article this morning about this. It illustrated for me, once again, how the subject is such an amalgamation of law, ethics, emotion, power and control.
It reinforces the wisdom of Gayle's stance.
12. Say What?
Fri, Jan 22, 1999 - 11:22 AM/EST
Graham
Atropos started this discussion with the following:
"I don't support the abortion of any embryo or fetus except for rape, incestuous abuse, or medical emergencies (I have viable reasons for this that go beyond the scope of this post). Although I may detest the practice of unnecessary arrested development, it will, in a weed-like fashion, persist. I propose a deadline on the abortive practice using an already established legal definition of death."
He has stated in no uncertain terms. He believes that abortion is justified. But only on conditions he agrees with. Conditions that others agree with are not acceptable. Only his. This line of reasoning is often offered -- without question. Why?
13.
Fri, Jan 22, 1999 - 3:47 PM/EST
Atropos
Graham's last post asked an important question about my post at the beginning of this thread. Let me answer it. When I originally posted I wrote: " I don't support the abortion of any embryo or fetus except for rape, incestuous abuse, or medical emergencies (I have viable reasons for this that go beyond the scope of this post)." I suppose I'll write the reasoning for the heretofore mentioned exceptions in this post. I mentioned of the exceptions. I said there are some. Here is why.
Much of what I am about to say is harmonious with what has been said in regards to abortion not being used as a method of birth control. Before a woman (were to heaven that this was not a one sex, or so it seems, issue) becomes pregnant, she may do whatsoever she wants with her body. When she becomes pregnant, she has made a choice. Sometimes in life, making a choice means a consequence that does not leave another choice. Like song lyrics I am fond of, ‘so when I choose, if I refuse, don't be confused. Just understand that I can't cross the line. Can't slip and fall, gotta stay free to choose." (Please don't take this to mean that I think conception is slipping and falling.) If I choose to drive 100 mph in my white 1994 Chev. Corsica I have made a choice. That choice, at that point, leaves me with many other options. If it's raining and I hydroplane into oncoming traffic--- and I run head on into a tanker truck--- I no longer have a choice. Some decisions in life are irreversible.
Most have said that it is a woman's choice what she does with her body. I agree. When a woman participates in the sexual act, and she has willingly (willingly is important) consented to do so, she has made a choice that might make her responsible for another's life. At that point, supposing she conceives, there are things she may, and may not do, with her body. (If this were not so, why then raise the penalty for killing a pregnant woman? Why the jail time for bringing a child into this world addicted to crack?) This is why I wrote of incest, and rape. These things, these sexual acts, took place without the woman making the choice to participate. She did not have say in the matter. She is not responsible for that growing in her womb. An abortion in this instance is not a form of birth control. It is when a person knows they might get pregnant (the man is every bit as responsible), and they view the abortion as a way to fix the problem. Medical abortion does not need explanation.
Much has been said on the subject of consistency. I hope what I have posted is such. I am not close minded, rather I believe what I believe based on what I term as objective evidence. That simply means I try to use unbiased verification on a subject and then adjust my prejudiced (read: pre - judged) opinion on it. I hope , I really hope, what I am writing will be appreciated. I am trying to keep opinion out of it as much as I can. Thus all the scientific stuff. Opinion is opinion however.
Ps. Tad wrote well on the EEG issue! I am well aware of the procedure, although I've never performed it myself. It is possible however.
14. here is why
Fri, Jan 22, 1999 - 3:47 PM/EST
Atropos
Graham's last post asked an important question about my post at the beginning of this thread. Let me answer it. When I originally posted I wrote: " I don't support the abortion of any embryo or fetus except for rape, incestuous abuse, or medical emergencies (I have viable reasons for this that go beyond the scope of this post)." I suppose I'll write the reasoning for the heretofore mentioned exceptions in this post. I mentioned of the exceptions. I said there are some. Here is why.
Much of what I am about to say is harmonious with what has been said in regards to abortion not being used as a method of birth control. Before a woman (were to heaven that this was not a one sex, or so it seems, issue) becomes pregnant, she may do whatsoever she wants with her body. When she becomes pregnant, she has made a choice. Sometimes in life, making a choice means a consequence that does not leave another choice. Like song lyrics I am fond of, ‘so when I choose, if I refuse, don't be confused. Just understand that I can't cross the line. Can't slip and fall, gotta stay free to choose." (Please don't take this to mean that I think conception is slipping and falling.) If I choose to drive 100 mph in my white 1994 Chev. Corsica I have made a choice. That choice, at that point, leaves me with many other options. If it's raining and I hydroplane into oncoming traffic--- and I run head on into a tanker truck--- I no longer have a choice. Some decisions in life are irreversible.
Most have said that it is a woman's choice what she does with her body. I agree. When a woman participates in the sexual act, and she has willingly (willingly is important) consented to do so, she has made a choice that might make her responsible for another's life. At that point, supposing she conceives, there are things she may, and may not do, with her body. (If this were not so, why then raise the penalty for killing a pregnant woman? Why the jail time for bringing a child into this world addicted to crack?) This is why I wrote of incest, and rape. These things, these sexual acts, took place without the woman making the choice to participate. She did not have say in the matter. She is not responsible for that growing in her womb. An abortion in this instance is not a form of birth control. It is when a person knows they might get pregnant (the man is every bit as responsible), and they view the abortion as a way to fix the problem. Medical abortion does not need explanation.
Much has been said on the subject of consistency. I hope what I have posted is such. I am not close minded, rather I believe what I believe based on what I term as objective evidence. That simply means I try to use unbiased verification on a subject and then adjust my prejudiced (read: pre - judged) opinion on it. I hope , I really hope, what I am writing will be appreciated. I am trying to keep opinion out of it as much as I can. Thus all the scientific stuff. Opinion is opinion however.
Ps. Tad wrote well on the EEG issue! I am well aware of the procedure, although I've never performed it myself. It is possible however.
15. sorry
Fri, Jan 22, 1999 - 3:49 PM/EST
Atropos
sorry about the LONG double post! i'll go to my room now without dinner.
16. To Atropos
Fri, Jan 22, 1999 - 4:29 PM/EST
JimP
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I only differ in one, I think significant, part of what you say.
I do believe that we should each be accountable for our actions. We had a thread about that.
"When a woman participates in the sexual act, and she has willingly (willingly is important) consented to do so,..." Accepting that, we then need to ask about what the consequences of that act will be. We also need to ask about grace for acknowledging that there was a mistake made.
If the woman and man conceive, without meaning to do so, but having willingly participated in the sex act, are we, willing to force them to suffer the consequences? Can we hold ourselves to the same standard? Which mistake is the more grievious, having conceived without adequate concern for the consequences, or having a child enter the world in a place unprepared to take care of it? Can we accept that a mistake was made, and have the grace to forgive the persons, accept that they cannot adequately care for the child, and move on?
To extend your analogy, if I hydroplane and cross into headcoming traffic, and accept the consequences, I must go on and hit the truck. If I recognize that I've made a mistake and am heading toward a truck, there are corrections that I might make to forestall the accident. These corrections may have me in a ditch, or against a side rail, but they are less dire than hitting the truck.
17. More to Atropos
Fri, Jan 22, 1999 - 4:43 PM/EST
JimP
I just re-read your intro (under subject choice, it was worth tracking down), and then I looked up Atropos in my dictionary. You chose well. "One of the three Fates, the cutter of the thread of destiny." You've certainly helped us think in several threads in this group. I hope you don't cut our thread just yet.
I've been reading Group 14 almost daily. There are a couple of folk in there that were also in Group 5. Interesting.
18. here is why To Atropos
Fri, Jan 22, 1999 - 4:52 PM/EST
Graham
I believe you ignored my question.
Why your standards?
19. Something is missing
Fri, Jan 22, 1999 - 4:53 PM/EST
Gayle
"When she becomes pregnant, she has made a choice."
You forget that birth control is not always effective. So a woman may make a choice to have sexual relations, taking every precaution to prevent pregnancy, and become pregnant by accident...against her will, not by choice. (Accidents really do happen, I'm holding one in my left arm as I type with my right.)
20. Accidents Happen
Sat, Jan 23, 1999 - 2:41 PM/EST
Tad
Gayle is right. My left and right arms are ATTACHED to an accident. ;)
