quote:

---

The fetus will be considered a "child" from the moment of conception and qualify for federal health-care benefits, the government of U.S. President George W. Bush announced yesterday.

---

quote:

---

Thompson said embryos will be eligible for health-care benefits as persons under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), a $40 billion (U.S.) program jointly operated with state governments to offer services to low-income children.

---

quote:

---

"This is not a serious health-care proposal. If it were, it would include low-income women as recipients for comprehensive health-care coverage."

---

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: earthmother ]

quote:

---

"Prenatal care for women and their babies is a crucial part of the medical care every person should have through the course of their life cycle," Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced.

"Prenatal services can be a vital, likely determinant of health and we should do everything we can to make this care available for all pregnant women."

---

Quite right. So why didn't he?

Can the prolife portion of our society win at all?

They say they want to protect those that cannot speak for themselves, human beings that are in their first stages of developement, and they are ignored and labelled dogma touting morons.

They say they want to also protect women from abortion, as they see it as damaging, anti-woman and they are disbelieved.

I am not a religious nutt, and consider myself pretty darn open minded, I can't STAND Bush and you won't hear me defending him, but that doesn't mean that every person that thinks abortion is violent and unacceptable in a compassionate society IS George Bush in mindset.

I've found more tunnel vision in the pro-choice side of this debate than I do in most circles of the pro-life perspective.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

But, it's my experience. I used to be prochoice when I was in highschool and used to argue with prolifers -who were usually coming at it from a "soul" angle-, however, I was not dismissed by them as an atheist death monger, but offered information... over and over and over again.

There is tunnel vision on both sides, BUT, in my experience from being on both sides of the table, I have found it very difficult to be heard by the pro-choice side now that I'm arguing against it, and I'll admit that I'm very frustrated by this.

And, of course the prochoice side isn't "doing" anything to the prolife side, other than ignoring them, usually. They don't have to "do" anything at this point in time because Abortion is legal. It's the people that are trying to change things that need to do the "doing" so to speak.

Know what I mean?

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

You point out the very crux of the abortion arguement however, and we sure aren't going to settle it here. It would be nice if we could, mind you, but this is why this is a "tough" issue.

See, prochoicers see it as the woman's body and hers alone.

Prolifers point out that there are now TWO bodies involved, not just one.

Example, if a woman wants to pierce her tongue or donate a kidney, or shave her head, or get drunk I have no problem with that... if other prolifers do, I don't really care, I'm only arguing it the way I see it and I don't usually align myself with the stereotypical prolifer.

I don't know if the term "civil libertarian" is proper for me, I'm not sure. I usually say my freedom ends at the other persons nose. From my perspective, there is another person involved, and they do have a nose.

Like I said, it's the very crux of the entire debate, to me, it's clear as day. To others it obviously isn't. And I'm sure I've ranted at all of you enough and made my points in previous posts... so I'll try not to brow-beat.

But, sorry for not getting your point the first time skadl.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

Presto, both sides win!

I guess somebodies got to do it. But, I wonder, do they ever feel pangs of guilt or remorse - or does the $250,000 a year income sufficiently dull their consciences?

I of course don't speak for the prolife movement, as there are many different people involved. But I personally would be totally fine with that if they could develop the technology. That's my whole reason for being against abortion, that a human life ends, here, the human life doesn't end, and if the biological mother truly doesn't want it, then she can avoid pregnancy and labour.

However I doubt that there would be a great success rate for artificial wombs... trying to get the blood circulation and nourishment right, there's no great substitute for nature- as demonstrated with the artificial heart-... and yes, there would be a whole lot of cost, I'd rather compensate the biomother for going through with the pregnancy and birth. But, if there were no other way, by all means, that would be better in my view than the alternative.

My feelings are that more needs to be done to promote awareness of any and all alternatives as I feel abortion is and should be the absolute last resort a woman has in the choices available. And to that end, care and upbringing of those children brought into the world should be placed in a higher standard of living then is present now.

I think it would be an easier choice if the mother knew that the baby should it become a baby, would have all the opportunity and caring and if not love then atleast compasion and understanding that is possible.

But after taking the time to examine all the alternatives, should a woman find that abortion is still the only solution then this should be respected and the procedure carried out with as much campasion and understanding as possible.

I, too, value life. Regardless of my feelings, I acknowledge -- without ifs, ands, or buts -- that there exist certain inalienable rights that each individual, in a free and democratic society, enjoys.

One such right is that of a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy. It's nobody else's business. Period.

I am afraid that what President Bush is doing, by declaring the fetus to be a person, is preparing for legislation to prohibit abortion. While his real motive remains to be seen, it is, to say the least, very suspect.

I cringe whenever Canadians take a similar tack. Legislation against abortion is a cruel intrusion into a woman's womb. And an unnecessary dominance over women (skdadl has already made that quite clear).

Pro-lifers are entitled to their belief ... that too, is an inalienable right

I disagree with you, as I explained before, to me, it's not just the woman's body, it's the OTHER body that is developing at a rapid rate inside of hers that I'm talking about. It is a human life, and therefore has a right to live.

Of course it's none of my business if she gets a hysterectomy, but that's JUST her body then, not another unique human life. That's the big difference.

I'm not in any way a fan of George Bush, let me be perfectly clear on that. He's the type of "prolife" (HHAHHAHAHAHA) person that paints the entire movement a horrid shade. He's a war monger. He's signed death warrants for thousands of people and will keep this war going for as long as he can to line his own pockets. He's ... oh, don't get me started, I printed his State of the Union address just so I could have proof in case aliens ever come visit that someone that dense and scary once led the US... if I live to tell aliens about him.

Can you please point me in the direction of this technology? I have never, ever heard of it and I read about this subject everyday, and I'd love to know more about it.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

quote:

---

relogged wrote -

"Trinitty, the technology exists. It's a question of who pays for it."

---

I'd be very curious as well. I've studied the subject in-depth and the closest thing I'm aware of are some of the induced ectopic experimental work that have come out of the former Soviet Union. Not exactly artificial as it entirely relies on the host's CV systems and endocrine feedback loops (the trick being to do it without killing them). I can't begin to imagine what it would take to reproduce that externally, especially as half of those feedback loops are only kinda-sorta understood - if that. It's an extraordinarily complicated problem. I'd be impressed if they managed an IE, and in fact have offered to be a test subject, but an artificial womb is light years beyond that.

Myria

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Myria ]

*dips paw in water*

Dubya's an idiot.

*dashes off to shake self free of water*

My friend, these people are heroes. They are working under a very real and ongoing threat of physical violence. Here in Vancouver, the same abortion doctor has been both shot and knifed on two seperate occassions. Countless other doctors and clinic workers have to put on flak jackets before they leave their houses--in Rosedale or otherwise--and work behind bullet proof glass. How many Doctors do you know who are willing to risk their **lives** for women's reproductive rights? And now there is this little anthrax scare that's going around. If anything, these people should be paid ten times as much as their colleques--particularly since they are taking on a responsibility that by all rights is that of the entire medical community-- not just a handful of commited, unthinkably brave individuals. Mercedes, Rosedale homes--I don't begrudge them any of this. These people deserve medals.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Relyc ]

quote:

---

I realize that this topic is a real mine-field, especially since we have both pro-and-anti choicers in the room, but Rabid Gerbil, I am having a very hard time with your obtuse, inflammatory comment about "medical doctors who, drive their Mercedes' from their Rosedale homes to abortion clinics, spend the day alternating from one O.R. to the second, vacuming burdgeoning life from women's wombs and tossing out the remains like it was a piece of grisle on their steak."

---

Seriously. It belies his claim to be pro-choice.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Seriously. It belies his claim to be pro-choice.

---

quote:

---

Doug wrote -

"I did read an article about artificial wombs not long ago and it suggested they weren't actually so far off, perhaps twenty years. And I actually managed to find it again!"

---

Thank you very much for the reference, Doug.

To be honest, however, the article really provides nothing of substance to back up it's basic claim. It's a very long ways from keeping a goat fetus alive for a max of ten days to keeping a human fetus alive and developing properly for nine months - the two are several orders of magnitude apart at the very least.

I had to laugh at the author's use towards the end of human cloning and producing organs from stem cells as examples of things we didn't think would be here five years ago but are. In fact neither is here today and may indeed not be for quite some time. Mammalian cloning is turning out to be far more problematic than they thought - note the problems with "Dolly", similar genetic defects exist in every mammalian clone created to date. Not a single practical application, let alone working organ, has come out of stem cell research to date. In fact there have been some rather notable horrors with the early human experiments gone awry. Both cloning and stem cells will no doubt yield real-world applications someday, but we're not there yet and may not be for quite some time.

We may have the level of knowledge required to construct artificial wombs in twenty years, who knows? But it's going to be a very bumpy road. If people are having fits over stem cells, imagine the ethical debates over the experiments and failures that will be required to create an artificial womb - you don't just throw something like that together, toss a fertilized human egg in, and have it work perfectly the first time. It's certainly a much more complicated problem than "pumping in blood, oxygen and nutrients and disposing of waste products", as the article describes the goat womb - which is how people typically think of the problem. Among many other things, a mother's body provides a whole host of interdependent endocrinological feedback loops that will have to be reproduced with exactitude and in some cases we don't even known how to produce endogenous-identical substitutes let alone regulate them. To date we only barely understand how most of those feedback loops work - it's mostly black box and there are a lot of arguments about some of the interdependencies.

There are just so many unknowns. And so much room for disaster.

DES (Diethylstilbestrol), an artificial estrogen, was first synthesized in the UK by Sir Charles Dodds in 1938. It was used widely in pregnant women through the early seventies (in Europe until '83, some countries even later) as a way to try and stop spontaneous miscarriages - in fact it turns out it wasn't even good for that, which is more than a tad sadly ironic. At the time nobody knew that, of course, and they really didn't think there was much to worry about from its use. After all, it was just an estrogen, what's to worry about? Lots, it turns out. A study in the United States, little noticed at first, showed an increase in a particularly rare cancer (clear cell adenocarcinoma, or CCAC) in the daughters of women who had been given DES during pregnancy. Subsequent studies have shown that its use had widespread, if generally not easily detectable, effects on both sons and daughters (including what is euphemistically referred to as "psycho-social", which I frankly find personally insulting). Worse yet, subsequent animal model studies indicate a third-generational effect, something no one would have dreamed of in a million years because it means there was genetic damage - what's sometimes being referred to as "estrogenic imprinting".

In any event, DES has been heavily studied since the seventies. A lot has been learned, some of it rather surprising - like the aforementioned third-generational effect or the fact that those exposed children have a higher progesterone receptor density in breast tissue. But, 64 years after it was first synthesized, we still have no real idea why it does what it does to a developing fetus, we just know that it does.

Until we can answer questions like that we're still a long ways away from an artificial womb, at least as far as I can see.

quote:

---

I couldn't do it. Could you?

---

If I was a doctor, I would feel obligated to do it. Either you believe in extending comprehensive health care to women, or you don't. Anything else is hypocrisy.

What would give me nightmares would be knowing I had the power to assist a woman in exercising her own rights over her body, and had withheld it.

quote:

---

If I was a doctor, I would feel obligated to do it. Either you believe in extending comprehensive health care to women, or you don't. Anything else is hypocrisy.

What would give me nightmares would be knowing I had the power to assist a woman in exercising her own rights over her body, and had withheld it.

---

Here, let me set you straight.

Doctors are obligated to do no harm and to care for the physical health of their patients. "Assisting women to exercising their rights over their own bodies" is NOT a professional dillemma, it is a moral one. And even Doctors are permitted to have morals.

If there is reason to believe that a pregnancy
will harm the health of a woman, a Doctor has a right to do someting. If it is a normal pregnancy, brought about by consentual sex by a mentally stable woman, well, NOONE has the right to tell that Doctor that he/she is a hypocrite if he/she refuses to abort the fetus at the mother's whim.

I repeat, even Doctors are permitted to have morals. And abortion is as much a moral issue as a medical one.

Some people have concerns about the validity of a fetus as a human life. Some people have no problem with dehumanizing a fetus and sanctioning its termination at the will of the mother.

Both sides should treat the other with empathy and respect. Those who do not, are fanatics, unworthy of consideration. (And don't doubt it, there are as many pro-choice fanatics as there are pro-life.)

Tell me, do you approve of partial birth abortions? How about abortions in the last week of gestation? I bet you do. For you, abortion is a black and white issue. AnyTHING in a woman's body must be subject to the whims of the woman.

Right?

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]

First of all, you asked: "could you do it?" and I told you I could, and why. I don't need setting straight by you, thanks.

Clearly we're at the inevitable, ongoing impasse I mentioned above. Abortion is not a moral issue--it's a medical procedure. It's been turned into a moral issue by it's opponents. Doctors have an obligation to care for their patients. Check out the CARAL website if you want to see stats on how many abortions take place in this
country every year. Clearly there is an enormous demand for this service on the part of women. It has nothing to do with "whims." The medical community has a responsibility to meet that demand, end of story.

To refer to the decision to have an abortion as a woman's 'whim' is ignorant in the extreme. If you've never had to make that choice, then I'm afraid you just can't speak to this with any kind of authority. The word 'whim' rarely enters into the equation.

And oh boy, "just as many" pro-choice fanatics, huh? I guess it depends on how you define your fanatics. Do I even need to enter into the realm of letter-bombs, shootings, stabbings and anthrax? This stuff hasn't been associated with the
pro-choice lobby--except as recipients.

And finally, the old chesnut--partial-birth abortions. First of all, if women had easily-accessible, comprehensive reproductive health care, there would scarcely be any need of them. Statistically there is already scarcely any need of them, except in cases where the health of the mother is in jeopardy. Otherwise, why would someone who didn't want to be pregnant carry a pregnancy so far to term? The only answer I
can think of would be: because she didn't have access to abortion facilities early in her pregnancy. So guess what? There's a very easy way to eliminate the necessity--scarce as it is--of late-term and partial birth abortions.

Of course there will always be a need for late-term abortions when prospective mothers--women who **want** to be mothers--suffer health complications. And I thought you were in favour of abortion in those circumstances, you magnanimous fellow you.

It's good to know the pro-choice lobby has such staunch, committed supporters.

I regret using the term "whim". It is obviously a very difficult decision for a woman to decide to have an abortion. I think that is a good thing. The choice to have children is not a casual thing. Nor should the decision to terminate a pregnancy be a casual decision.

By the way, for the record, I also think that those who perpetrate violence on abortion doctors are scum, no better than those who abort 9 month old fetuses/babies. Both are narrow-minded ideologues.

I honestly believe that abortion is a procedure that is unlike any other. It is, for the most part, not a matter of life or death for the woman involved. It is, on many occasions, a means for a woman to absolve herself of a mistake. A reproductive mistake.

To insist that Doctors have a legal or professional right to participate in that absolution is wrong - just as wrong as insisting that a doctor has no moral right to perform the abortion.

Look, I am looking for a reasonable dialogue on this issue. I have difficult accepting that abortion should be sold as a "right" in all cases. Neither can I accept the idea that a woman should not have some level of control over what happens within her own body.

I am exceptionally conflicted on this matter. One thing I do know, however, is that abortion is as much a moral issue as it is a medical issue.

To expect a doctor, whose religious morals are against abortion, to perform them because he/she is a licensed doctor is to ignore their religious freedom. And I am talking about Muslims and other religions here as well as Christians.

Anyway, here at babble, I have come to expect a very cloistered, single minded approach from most of the posters. Agree with the house or be vilified.

Unfortunately, I cannot find a link to show his invention (I'll keep searching).

In addition, the incubators used by neonatal intensive care units could be utilized a basis for further development.

As Myria has pointed out, it is a complex problem. It can be solved only by bringing together the expertise of specialists from within their individual field.

Apart from the complexities involved, it takes money -- lots of it.

I suggest to those who are keen on doing something to prevent abortions to start by forming an organization through which monies could be raised to fund the needed technology.

Such an organization is something that I could support. Legislation, never.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: relogged ]

So it would seem that this is where we're stuck: You believe the decision to have an abortion has a moral component. I don't dispute that, necessarily--I just think it's no one's business but the pregnant woman's. That said, she needs the freedom to be able to make that decision, and that's where the notion of abortion as a 'right' comes in. But it's not so much abortion itself that's a right as the option to abort. It has to
be there. It can't just be there in name only (as it is in much of the country) or arbitrarily available in one place and not the next. Does our society accept that women are full human beings capable of making an informed choice or not? If it does, then comprehensive reproductive health care must be a reality--and somebody's got the obligation to provide it--again, not in the haphazard, byzantine and frequently dangerous manner it's provided now, but comprehensively. So if not the medical profession, then who? Right now nobody's taking responsibility except for a handful of overworked but committed health care professionals. Considering the scope of the demand for this service, that's just not acceptable.

What really needs to happen is for the government to take a stand on this. But my breath remains unheld.

quote:

---

I honestly believe that abortion is a procedure that is unlike any other. It is, for the most part, not a matter of life or death for the woman involved. It is, on many occasions, a means for a woman to absolve herself of a mistake.

---

quote:

---

I think your language here is telling. You "absolve" a person who has committed a sin--isn't that what you really mean when you say "mistake?" If I understand you correctly, you think abortion is wrong because it enables women to get away with careless sexual behavior--ie. "sinning." This is a very old school of thought, and in my opinion, what the anti-choice lobby is actually all about.

---

I didn't say that abortion is wrong because it enables women to get away with careless sexual behavior. I did not use the term "wrong". I do have a problem with the idea of women using abortion to compensate for irresponsible sexual behaviour. You see, sometimes it seems like abortion is women’s way of acquiring sexual equality - a safeguard against inadvertent pregnancy. I don't necessarily see this as wrong, but I do question whether it is wise to use abortion as a tool in this respect.

Women have always been held to a higher standard of care with respect to sex. After all, they are the ones who get pregnant. Abortion just seems to be a way to allow women to compete with men in the sexual playground without being held to account by those pesky reproductive repercussions.

The ability to bring forth life is not something that should be taken lightly. And yet, abortion allows this noble, wonderful capability to be taken as lightly as the woman desires.

We all exist as individuals and as a part of a greater collective. The repercussions of allowing women to circumvent their natural reproductive capabilities, after becoming pregnant, will have repercussions. I certainly am not wise enough to know exactly what those repercussions will be and I am certainly not self-righteous enough to demand that women not have this right, but I do sometimes wonder if it's all for the best, in the general scheme of things, I mean.

Anyway, forgive my inarticulateness. I've had a few glasses of wine tonight and, well, it tends to dull my senses.

I do respect your perspective and thank you for this discourse.

quote:

---

Abortion just seems to be a way to allow women to compete with men in the sexual playground without being held to account by those pesky reproductive repercussions.

---

But why on earth should women be "held to account" for having sex? Exactly what's the problem here--is sex bad, dirty, evil in your mind? Or just women having sex? If not, then--again--why should pregnacy be weilded as a consequence to keep women from having it?

You seem to be suggesting that there's some 'natural' imperative at work here--that if
it was 'natural' for women to go around having sex all the time, they wouldn't become pregnant as a result. Therefore, the ability of women to avoid this naturally-imposed "punishment" (for that's what you're implying pregnancy is), is somehow vaguely immoral to your way of thinking.

But there are, and always have been, lots of ways to have sex without getting pregnant--natural and unnatural alike, and women have utilized them since the dawn of time. Abortion is just another option, and it needs to be there when all of the
other ones fail.

quote:

---

The ability to bring forth life is not something that should be taken lightly. And yet, abortion allows this noble, wonderful capability to be taken as lightly as the woman desires.

---

It isn't women who belittle this ability and take it for granted--it's people who would force it upon them whether it's wanted or not. The very idea is an insult to women's minds and their bodies alike. You said above that you understand what a difficult decision it is to terminate a pregnancy, but your rhetoric makes it clear that at the end of the day you simply don't trust women to make responsible decisions about their
own reproductive capacities. This is an enormously condescending and--sorry to
say it--paternalistic attitude.

I appreciate that you don't align yourself with anti-choice factions, but you must realize it's equivicol notions like these that can be the most damaging on a fundemental, societal level. The reason women have to travel through a laboratory-maze of bureaucracy and red-tape to secure basic family planning information, and can't just go to any given doctor's office and recieve RU-486 on demand is not because of anti-choice crazies waving picket signs. It's because of these fuzzy and ambivilent moralistic notions about women and sex that are, sadly,
still floating around even in the 21st century.

quote:

---

Clearly we're at the inevitable, ongoing impasse I mentioned above. Abortion is not a moral issue--it's a medical procedure. It's been turned into a moral issue by its opponents.

---

I will repeat, that I am speaking for myself here, and not "backing" any other argument on this board.

It's troubling how we can sanitize language to the point where it means nothing. To call an abortion a "medical procedure" or simply "choice" is the same as calling genocide "selective population reduction". It's not lying, but it's sure is whitewashing a very serious thing.

Do I think that all women that go in and get their foetuses aborted are bloodthirsty selfish monsters? NO, of course not. If I truly believed that then I would give-up on humanity all together and go join the dolphins.

I think that they are totally misinformed for the most part.

I believe, or perhaps I desperately WANT to believe, that most people are empathic, sensitive creatures that react in horror when they see images of pain and suffering. Not many people have seen an abortion on an ultra-sound, or looked at before and after pictures of the "foetus", regardless of their gestation. Their humanity is undeniable, their death obvious and I truly think that abortion numbers would plummet if people would only stop and LOOK at what's happening. There are no pictures in the pro-choice pamphlets and books I've read.

Much like nobody REALLY could believe or comprehend that people were REALLY being recycled in camps in Austria. Sounds insane doesn't it? Of course it does, nobody could actually DO that could they? We had to see it with our very own eyes and watch the days of film footage to really grasp the magnitude of that action.

Many women -if not most- are told that it is a "blob of tissue" or a "mass of cells" -again, the sanitizing of language. I myself am a blob of tissue, and indeed a mass of cells, as is every organism on the planet, but I'd hope that someone would object if I were cut to pieces and sucked out of existence. Sorry for being so blunt, but suction is the most common form of abortion.

At the time of an abortion, all major organs are formed and functioning, the skeletal and the nervous systems are developed, brain waves are present and individuality (sex, hair colour etc) is minted in genetic composition. We know all of this now thanks to advancing technology and scientific study. There is no longer any real mystery as to the appearance, composition and humanity of the human foetus. Back in the 1920s with pints of castor oil, gin and hot bath water there really was the innocence of ignorance. We don't have that now if we bother to look. And for this, I don't really blame the women who are planning to abort their foetus. The abortion industry -and yes it certainly is that- doesn't want their profit margin compromised, so why would they counsel their clientele as to WHAT exactly they are doing, and advise them against it unless their health were in serious jeopardy? That's pretty antithetical to a legal capitalist pursuit.

Some, if not most, people are conceived by accident. This is a fact. We as an intelligent and empathic community can most definitely come up with a better solution for this unplanned person than killing it.

Wwestern women, a group that has overcome so many obstacles, a group that has experienced so much oppression and marginalization throughout history, finds itself with total legislated power and control over a small burgeoning life inside them. And what do they do? Why, they turn around and do what's best for them. They put their own needs first. THey roll up their sleeves and do a little oppressing of their own - just like those violent brutish males have been doing all these years.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]

I am wondering will we see a day when women are not allowed to exercise vigorously, work, eat anything other than the then current ideal of a pregnant women's diet?

I have on many occasions wished that people who caused an in utero death through violence upon a woman could be charged with the death of the baby.

Of course I am also pro choice so I understand how these laws could be used to limit that right.

quote:

---

Oh, yeah. Abortion began with spoiled and decadent Western women. We invented abortion. No women ever sought abortion before

---

That comment has nothing to do with what I said. Either you are a liar, a blind fanatic or you have an honest comprehension problem. Which is it?

And by the way, your comment is stupid from a philosophical perspective too. Are you saying that just because the Nazis didn't invent genocide that it was alright for them to pracice it. What the hell does "inventing" anything have to do with this?

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]

What do you think about the glue-sniffing case and such though? Do we draw the line at damage without touching on nutrition? Nuritious diets should be consumed during pregnancy, but I doubt we'd see legislation forcing women to do so... I don't really know why they would have to be forced so-to-speak. Perhaps I'm not quite understanding where you're going with this. Are you looking way down the road in this line of thought to where the woman has no control at all from the moment of conception until birth? I agree that's pretty scary,.... but I can't really see it happening... you know, that phrase probably shouldn't come out of my mouth at this point. You're right it COULD happen, as anyting could, so this aspect of the issue of pregnancy and birth would have to be constantly monitored and assessed to ensure a balance for both parties.

In England in the 50's there was a great program for expectant mothers. They were given coupons and they received a free bottle of milk at every visit from the milkman, along with comprehensive healthcare, instruction and support, regardless of income level.... it's decreased somewhat now unfortunately.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

quote:

---

What do you think about the glue-sniffing case and such though?

---

OH my oh my! This is were the rubber really meets the road isn't? Do you legislate behaviour in order to try to control the actions of the few? And does it make any difference?

My gut reaction is to take her put her somewhere safe until the baby is delivered and then try to make it so she can't reproduce unless or until she cleans up.

Then my brain takes over and I think wow that's not too facist is it?

I think there will always be a small number of women who will continue to do destructive things whether they are pregnant or not. As it is such a small number then yes certainly they should be offered help, but if we force her to do anything then we open the floodgates for any group of citizens to claim that pregnant women shouldnt do this or that and "we need laws damn it"

I know you are interested in midwifery as I am. Probably in your readings you have come across the information that midwives as well as helping women to deliver their children, were knowledgable about contraception and herbal 'morning after' remedies. That would be my ulitimate goal.

There are herbal remedies that prevent ovulation and thicken the lining of the cervix, so even if one draws the line at conception rather than implantation, they "work" for everyone. I forget what tree it is.. I think it was an ash, but I'd have to go back and check.

Have you read Spiritual Midwifery? - I haven't yet. "Homebirth"? -GREAT book, or "The American way of birth"? Jessica Midford looks at the history of midwives, and the industry that has swallowed the process of birth. For example, cesaerean rates as high as 30% in private American hospitals!!! And 80% of births taking place Monday to Friday. Facsinating read... almost as "shattering" as the "American way of Death", that I'm almost done.

quote:

---

The abortion industry -and yes it certainly is that- doesn't want their profit margin compromised, so why would they counsel their clientele as to WHAT exactly they are doing, and advise them against it unless their health were in serious jeopardy? That's pretty antithetical to a legal capitalist pursuit.

---

Again, I just want to object--strenuously--to this characterization of abortion providers as drooling capitalists jumping on the 'abortion' gravy train. There are far more lucrative avenues for medical practitioners to go down--avenues that won't get them killed for doing it. I don't care if you're Bill Gates or Rupert Murdoch--no matter how much someone loves money, no pure capitalist is going to put his or her life on the line to get it if there are easier, safer ways available. Abortion practicioners put their lives on the line every day they go to work--because they believe in abortion rights. Whether you do or not, it's appalling to suggest their primary motivation is to line their pockets. Garson Romalis is still performing abortions after being shot and stabbed on seperate occassions. Morgantaler has hemmoraged oceans of dollars sitting in jail cells and fighting legal battles to keep his clinics open. Don't you think these people would've become plastic surgeons long ago if they were doing it for any other reason than a commitment to reproductive rights?

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"And 80% of births taking place Monday to Friday."

---

Hmmm... Well there's 168 hours in a week. Monday through Friday constitutes 120 of those hours, or about 71.43%. If births were normally randomly distributed - they're not, medical and non-medical external factors play a role in timing - and if 80% of births are during the "work week", that's really only slightly anomalous. Not nearly as strange as it seems at first glance. Toss in the demands, choices, and desires of pregnant mothers and I'm frankly kind of surprised that it's only 80%.

I guess I should have restated -I've posted in previous threads on this issue - I that I am totally against the killing of human beings, that includes shooting people at their breakfast tables and bombing clinics. I think those terrorists -and that's what they are - give a terrible name to the prolife movement, and I hope that people who are examining the issue realize they are in the extreme minority when it comes to people who are against abortion. Doesn't really fit the pro-LIFE part does it?

As far as the capitalist aspect goes. I'm at a loss to understand why anyone who had given an oath to protect the lives of his or her patients, studied the human body and who SEES what the result of an abortion is, would be ABLE to abort feotuses for a living... and to me, the large profits made by abortionists was the most obvious thing I could point to. I do think it's a factor, especially in the United States, but I'm sure -as you point out- that it's not the only motivation.

Good point. They (the researchers for American Way of Birth) must have factored in the difference in the number of days and made them correspond. For example. 8 out of 10 times a baby will be born on any given weekday rather than a weekend. Know what I mean? She was referring to the standard use of induction, pitocin, the practice of breaking waters, and the high numbers of caesarians in private American hospitals. Getting the staff off on Friday night for their weekend without the pesky bother of delivering babies on a Sunday morning. I'll go look into that though. Her work is usually pretty airtight, but it's worth double-checking.

quote:

---

Dawna Matrix wrote -

"I would like to give George Bush a uterus, and impregnate him with Osama seed so he could wish for an abortion."

---

Oh yeah, that would show him - the bastard. That'd solve the problem, that'd solve everything.

Not.

Your vindictive fantasies serve your cause poorly. Perhaps wishing ill-will on someone to score political points is a real knee slapper amongst your buds, but it doesn't play so well in metaphoric Peoria. Such things are tactically counterproductive - to put it mildly. It is in large measure why a very large percentage of that great unwashed out there have little use for either side in this debate. Most often you both come across as sounding like dangerous fanatics.

You know what I wish for in the whole overall abortion debate? No, it doesn't involve fantasies of something bad happening to the leader of my country, and in fact it's even more unlikely than George Bush suddenly getting a uterus so he can carry Osama seed (Osama seed - order now, quantities are limited...).

What I wish for is a little honesty on both sides. It'd be nice... But I ain't holdin' my breath.

The "pro-choice" side loves to talk about abortion as "just another medical procedure". Yeah, right, no moral component at all, right? Please, have a little honesty. This isn't cutting out a tumor we're talking about here, not removing a piece of diseased flesh so that the person may live. This is killing something. Whether you want to call it a fetus, a baby, a potential human life, it doesn't matter, it all adds up to the same thing. Covering that up, trying to put a nice semantic face on it, that gets you exactly nowhere. Orwell aside, for all the codewords you can dream up everyone still knows what the reality is. So don't try, face it, be honest about it. Yes, this is a nasty but necessary business. Yes, this is killing something. But in the end I don't have a problem with that because it beats the hell out of the alternative by a very long ways.

Having moral qualms about the issue of abortion isn't anachronistic - it's understandable, given the realities of what you're talking about. Saying otherwise is flat asinine. I have moral qualms about killing a rabbit, for god's sake, you're telling me that it's anachronistic to feel moral qualms about killing something that will be a human being in a few months? You think women going for abortions don't feel some of those same moral qualms? You think that can be just waved away like last week's garbage? That it should be? Sorry, ain't happen', those fuzzy moralistic notions are going to be with us for a very long time because this isn't like choosing between a Toyota and a Chrysler, this is choosing between the lesser of two evils and that's never a happy choice. Face that head on and be honest about it. You can't just wave it away like so much detritus and expect that to work, it won't. But societies and individuals are faced with the choice of lesser evils all the time, that's life. People understand that, even if they don't like it. And they don't have to like abortion to support the right to one. Trying to make me like it, or claim my feelings are somehow "wrong", is going to get you exactly nowhere.

The "pro-life" side loves to talk about how abortion is "killing a baby!". Well no shit, Sherlock, but do you honestly think the argument ends there? There are two lives involved, two competing interests, just because what's growing within her may eventually be a human being does not mean that its rights are paramount over hers. That's what society and the bulk of this thing called "law" is about - deciding, when rights are in conflict, whose rights are paramount. And guess what? Society has decided that the rights of the life that is here trumps the rights of something that isn't yet. If you want to discuss the subject you're going to have to deal with that and you're going to have to have a damn good reason why the rights of something unborn trump those of someone standing right in front of me, not just rest your case on the unborn's demise - 'cause it ain't that simple and we all know it.

And for god's sake (to use an ironic turn-of-phrase), don't pull out your bible. Besides probably knowing it as well or better than you do, I don't care what it has to say. I do not live in a theocracy, nor do I care to. This is Caesar's law we're talking about here, not god's - whichever god you happen to believe in and however you happen to interpret their word and wishes. Render unto Caesar or go start a theocracy somewhere else and leave me the hell alone. You don't want to be involved in abortion, that's fine, don't be. But don't try and tell me that what you think your god says should be the law of the land. Find a reasonable and logical argument that doesn't happen to require that I agree with your religion or we have nothing to talk about.

Survey after survey has shown that the bulk of the great unwashed out there - myself among them - looks at the competing rights and, when weighed in the balance, come out on the side of the pregnant woman to have or terminate the pregnancy as she decides. They don't like it, they don't like what's required in that oh-so-nice term "terminate", they have fuzzy moral qualms about it, but in the end they feel it beats the hell out of trying to force a pregnant woman, by dent of law, to bring to term a pregnancy she does not want. It is the lesser of two evils.

Neither side likes this much, so they engage in semantic games designed to try and present only one side of the argument. It isn't just about a woman's right to choose, there's another life involved here. It isn't just about "killing a baby", there's a woman's life involved here. Semantics aren't fooling anyone, they only work when preaching to the choir. Delusions of unrestricted rights will get you nowhere. Nor will babbling about what you think your god has to say. All any of that does is contribute to the already high degree of intellectual dishonesty on both ends of this debate. None of it is going to move the greater center, that great unwashed, not by one whit. All it does is ratchet up the polarization on both of the extreme ends and cause the great unwashed to stop listening to either side because they both come across like lunatics. Both sides do their cause a great disservice.

Myria

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Myria ]

But, I measure by a certain criteria, a criteria Trinitty does not. And, who is to say who is right? I an compelled to respect Trinitty's perspective though, she searches for consistancy, for an understanding based on reason.

Unfortunately, the Bush's of the world are not operating on reason, but on a faulty dogma, and for those reasons his efforts have to be looked at very closely, and second guesssed when it comes to issues such as this.

The sanctity of human life, or of liberty has never, ever been a priority of those who use religion as a guide. Their priority is to control, to foist upon others their own dangerous beliefs, and to attack individual liberty, and democracy where ever they can.

I appreciate your passion for this issue.

However, (you knew that was coming didn't you ) I must debate a few of the points you made.

I won't quote directly, b/c I'm lazy, but you say that the person standing in front of you, the pregnant woman, trumps whatever "might be" when it comes down to decision time.

I argue that the human life that is routinely extinguished is sadly a victim of location. Of course one cannot SEE it simply by looking at the woman. But that doesn't mean that it's any less there. As I mentioned earlier, we are no longer ignorant as to WHAT exactly the human being looks like and is composed of at each and every stage of its life. From conception until death, it is well documented. Heart, brain waves, major organs, eyes, circulatory, nervous system, ten toes, ten fingers, etc, etc, if you'd like to know more, go to:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S1B82006

(They, much to my dismay, have religious ties, but you must dig for them.)

To me, and to scientific definition, this is a human being. It will never be born a bovine.

I do realise that there are two people; two lives involved which is why I rant, rave and scream for more help for women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant, even pregnant period. Being single or and/poor being pregnant is terrifying. But it's only life or death for one party involved. Of course in cases where the mother's life is in danger, an abortion must take place. But these cases are rare.

It's a toss-up between being pregnant for nine months and having to cope with the resulting child - no light undertaking I know - or terminating, killing, extinguishing, whatever you want to call it, a unique human being. Presently at tens of thousands per year in Canada. And I just really think, or perhaps want to think, that
we as a society can do way better than that.

**edited to fix the link, thanks Earthmom!!!**

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

quote:

---

Society has decided that the rights of the life that is here trumps the rights of something that isn't yet. If you want to discuss the subject you're going to have to deal with that and you're going to have to have a damn good reason why the rights of something unborn trump those of someone standing right in front of me, not just rest your case on the unborn's demise - 'cause it ain't that simple and we all know it

---

What are these rights that you speak of? "The rights of the unborn" what rights? The right to BE BORN? And what of the rights of "someone standing right in front of me". What rights are they claiming? The right to stop, through a willfull, preventable act, the unborn from being born.

Lets see, which right should trump? The right to life or the right to quash a developing life?

What if someone has been very careful yet their birthcontrol failed? Look up the charts you will see that EVERY form of birth control has a failure rate.

Things may be black and white in your world, but the rest of us live in colour.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: earthmother ]

However, please let me say that you are wrong about me. I see all the shades and hues between the black and the white. You speak about abortion resulting from rape or incest. You bring up these exceptional extremes to justify abortion for all and then accuse me of seeing the issue as back and white? Perhaps it is you who are unable to distinguish between need and want - various shades of grey.

There are many different shades of emotion out there sitting in abortion clinics. To class them all as noble and justified is as wrong as classing them all as murderers.

I do neither. Can you say the same?

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]

The young girl who never thought pregnancy could happen to her.

The women who forgot to take her pill just once.

The girl who daddy likes just a little too much.

The woman who suddenly finds she cant' remember the last four or more hours because she ingested a substance unbenownst to her.

The girl who's parents don't want the neighbours to know about her dirty shame.

The woman who has already lost two babies because of an abusive husband and would rather not go through that again.

and yes the girl who is there for the third time and doesnt seem to care.

The woman who doesnt want to give birth to a less than perfect child.

I recognize them all because I've seen them all.

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"I appreciate your passion for this issue."

---

I appreciate yours as well, Trinitty, I truly do. To be quite honest, I don't think our positions are quite as far apart as it might seem, even if the conclusions we draw differ.

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"However, (you knew that was coming didn't you)"

---

Let's just say I suspect it might be .

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"I argue that the human life that is routinely extinguished is sadly a victim of location."

---

Problem is, in principle I agree and I certainly respect your position - whether it is derived from a religious or some other ethical or moral belief systems is wholly irrelevant to me. I know it's a dicey question and I'm far from unaware of how fetal developmental biology works. That is in large measure why I have as little patience for the often cavalier way in which the "pro-choice" side routinely handles this question as I have for the rigidity with which the "pro-life" side routinely does. Anyone who thinks this is or should be a simple question is either delusional or blinded by dogmatism and there is, unfortunately, plenty of both on both sides.

What it boils down to is a question of when does a zygote become a human being? Is it at the zygote stage? Later, perhaps when its heart starts beating? When neural density hits point 'X'? When it's capable of independent movement? The moment it takes it's first independent breath?

At what point can society rightfully step in and say "This is a person with rights that supercede yours"?

I don't know, with any degree of utter certitude, I honestly don't. I don't think a zygote is a human being, deserving of the same rights we would give any other, but I don't think that a fetus only becomes a human being once it fully passes through the vaginal canal. It's somewhere in between those two points, but I don't know for sure where.

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"To me, and to scientific definition, this is a human being. It will never be born a bovine."

---

To be sure, at the zygote stage a genetic blueprint that is a unique combination of the mother and father's alleles is present and can only lead to a human being and nothing else. It is not a bovine, lagomorph, feline, nor any other creature, and it never shall be. Nor is it a like a kidney nor piece of diseased flesh. But, does that make it a human being? It will be a human being, but at what point is it a human being, worthy of all of the rights and consideration thereof?

This isn't a question science can answer by itself. What is it that makes a human being a human being? Is it our chromosomes? Our neural net? A particular aspect of our physiology? Some gestaltic combination thereof?

For better or ill, science doesn't offer any simple answers here. What makes something a human being is a matter of opinion. Science can list those things that all human beings have in common - such a list would fill libraries of books - and indeed a developing fetus has most of these things very early in its developmental cycle. But which of these things matter, which are definitive? That science cannot answer, at least not yet.

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"I do realise that there are two people; two lives involved which is why I rant, rave and scream for more help for women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant, even pregnant period. Being single or and/poor being pregnant is terrifying. But it's only life or death for one party involved. Of course in cases where the mother's life is in danger, an abortion must take place. But these cases are rare."

---

Extraordinarily so, and I know of few even amongst the most rabid of the "pro-life" side who would argue that such procedures should not exist as a matter of last resort.

That issue aside, and it's a common tactic on both sides to look only at the extremes as though those alone define the issue, even if society could ensure that no woman who found herself pregnant would want for resources or support, there would still be women who would wish to terminate their pregnancy. I've seen too many cases where resources or support were not at issue to believe otherwise. This is not to say that society should not do everything reasonably within its power to help pregnant mothers - though what constitutes "reasonable" is wholly another debate - only that doing so would not end the debate.

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"It's a toss-up between being pregnant for nine months and having to cope with the resulting child - no light undertaking I know - or terminating, killing, extinguishing, whatever you want to call it, a unique human being."

---

It's really more complicated than that, though.

I come at this from a libertarian - albeit not necessarily a Randian Objectivist - point-of-view (and, yes, I'm aware that's not a particularly popular philosophical base in these parts). I see this as fundamentally a question of rights in conflict and it is from my analysis of the nature and precedence of those rights that I unhappily draw the conclusions I do.

A pregnant woman - as with any other human being - has a right to control what goes on with her body. That is fundamental, in the end only your body is unequivocally yours. Pregnancy carries certain risks and consequences, no matter how one arrives at that state. A pregnant woman has a right to decide how she will deal with that, though no right to demand that anyone else participate in her decision.

A human being has the right to life, to wrongfully deprive a human being of life is held to be the most heinous crime possible, and rightly so. No one ever recovers from being murdered, pretty much by definition. But there are conditions under which society says that killing is justifiable. Self-defense is one, on a grander scale war is another. The country I live in goes as far as to say (wrongly, in my opinion, but that's another matter) that it can collectively and rightfully deprive someone of life for sufficient reason - usually in response to their having done likewise to another. Other countries have decided (also wrongly, in my opinion, but again a separate issue) that if a person suffers from certain conditions - they're born deformed, in too much pain, whatever the qualifiers - they may rightfully be helped to shed their mortal coil without necessarily deciding that they wish to. Murder is wrong, but not all killing is murder.

A zygote is not a human being by any reasonable definition that I'm aware of. Somewhere between being a zygote and being a baby it becomes one, but there is no unanimity of opinion on where that point might lay. Between those two points that fetus is wholly dependent on the mother. For most of those nine months if you were to remove it from her uterus it would quickly die - even with the best care medical technology can give.

So rights are in conflict - the mother's right to control over her body versus the fetus' right to live. As things stand today, both rights cannot be held to be equal, it isn't possible. Either the mother has the right to control her body, and thus not to be a life-support system for her fetus, with all of the effects that has on her, if she so chooses, or the fetus has a right to live that takes precedence over the mother's rights. It cannot be had both ways, at least not now, one of these has to take precedence over the other.

For me the question hinges on the matter of when that zygote becomes a fully realized human being with all rights due that state. I don't know, with any degree of certainty, I'm sadly lacking in Solomonic wisdom on the matter. But I do know that the pregnant mother is a fully realized human being with rights that must be recognized. So until that zygote reaches a point where it can survive on its own - a point that gets earlier and earlier as technology and knowledge improve - and not impinge on her rights, her rights have to take precedence.

This is not a very happy conclusion to me, not the way I wish things were, and one I shan't ever be particularly thrilled about. But it is the only conclusion I can reasonably arrive at given what I know, what I have seen, and what I believe.

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"Presently at tens of thousands per year in Canada. And I just really think, or perhaps want to think, that we as a society can do way better than that."

---

There we agree fully.

quote:

---

Tommy_Paine wrote -

"It all hinges on how one defines humanity."

---

That is, of course, exactly what this question hinges upon. Sometime between when all of those alleles combine to form a unique blueprint and when the results of that blueprint takes its first independent breath, a human being is created. Prior to that point the state has no compelling interest to involve itself, after that point the state does have a compelling interest to act in loco parentis if necessary.

quote:

---

Tommy_Paine wrote -

"Unfortunately, the Bush's of the world are not operating on reason, but on a faulty dogma, and for those reasons his efforts have to be looked at very closely, and second guesssed when it comes to issues such as this."

---

They are working on reason as much as you are, this is a matter wholly of opinion. You can no more prove your position correct based wholly on reason and logic than they can, any way you go it comes down to a matter of beliefs. Just because beliefs are based on religion no more makes them incorrect than it makes them correct.

quote:

---

Tommy_Paine wrote -

"The sanctity of human life, or of liberty has never, ever been a priority of those who use religion as a guide. Their priority is to control, to foist upon others their own dangerous beliefs, and to attack individual liberty, and democracy where ever they can."

---

My country was started by men who were theists to a one, they were very much concerned with matters of individual liberty and representative democracy and they very much used religion as a guide - read the US Declaration of Independence sometime.

Your logic is convenient to your position, but flawed in the extreme. To be sure, religion has been used as a source of great evil, it has also been used as a source of great good. Most of the advances in Western Civilization have come from people who were deep believers in one religion or another. Much of the evil has come from people who had no use for religion. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, they did not use religion as a guide, yet their priority was clearly control. Each of them individually were responsible killing on a scale previously undreamt of.

quote:

---

Tommy_Paine wrote -

"It is for this reason the mainstream anti-abortionists have to be rejected out of hand,"

---

Yeah, don't deal with their arguments in a logical and consistent manner, just ignore them - reject them out of hand. That'll make them go away, that'll solve the problem.

Neither side is going to win this argument in the court of public opinion by trying to demonize their opponent, but both sides seem intent on trying.

quote:

---

Tommy_Paine wrote -

"and that Bush's pronouncement is a gift horse women would be well advised to look very carefully in the mouth."

---

That's the sad thing about this, in the end. The practical results of all of this on the question of abortion in my country are exactly nil. All it does is give the states the ability to easily extend eligibility for certain programs to pregnant women that would have been difficult for them to do before. This is not a law passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President. This is not a decision by SCOTUS or some other court that will enter into the body of case law - binding upon other courts or not. This is simply a flip of the administrative wrist by the Secretary of HHS, Thommy Thompson. An administrative convenience to accomplish a goal that should be considered laudable. In the grand scheme of how things work in my country, it is otherwise meaningless. It is not binding on anything, save how this one particular program is administered. And at that, when the next Secretary of HHS comes along they can undo it if they wish with an equally unimportant in the grand scheme of things flip of the administrative wrist and it will cease to exist like the wind.

Thommy Thompson could have declared a developing fetus to be plant material and it would have had exactly the same effect on the law of the land and this debate - exactly none.

Nothing we babble about here really "matters" in the long run anyway, does it?

I thought this picture was really neat from a medical perspective, this was the first time something this risky was done. I'm sure some of you saw it, it's a ?couple? of years old. The feotus is being operated on from within the womb to repair a problem with his spine. Apparently his arm slipped out of the slit that the surgeon was using, and he grasped the doctor's finger. He's at 21 weeks gestation. He was eventually born with the operation being a success.

**edited to add, it didn't work. I'm sure you've all seen it before anyway. I just found it again today.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"Well, Myria said that we cannot make up our minds about feotal rights until we decide their humanity.. in so many words."

---

A reasonably accurate summation, thank you .

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"So I thought we could talk about it."

---

Seems reasonable to me, especially given that both your position and mind hinge wholly on that question.

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"I know that nobody's minds are changed here, (or it seems that way) but, I think it's helpful to talk about our views anyway."

---

It's not about changing someone's mind exactly, is it? Hearts and minds do get changed - I used to be rabidly "pro life" not all that many eons ago (ah, my wasted youth, I miss ye...) - but that's usually a slow process. It's unlikely anything said here is going to cause a road-to-Damascus experience for anyone.

It's about sharing viewpoints, ideas, beliefs. That has value in and of itself, even if no one changes their point-of-view by one micron. If nothing else, it forces each of us - if we are open to actually thinking about things and not just replying with rhetorical flamethrowers - to examine our own opinions, ideas, and beliefs through the lens of others and hopefully see some of the flaws, the holes, in our own opinions. Maybe it won't change my opinion, maybe instead I'll just figure out a way to fortify the flaws in my own argument. Either way, I am improved.

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"Nothing we babble about here really "matters" in the long run anyway, does it?"

---

Doesn't it? I think it should. If one is statist - this is it and that's that - then there isn't any reason to bother talking about any of this stuff and I'd have to wonder why a statist would bother. But if you are open to discussions, willing to engage in the marketplace of ideas, dynamist in your outlook, then you've lots to gain in discussions such as occur on Babble and nothing really to lose. That gain does matter because each of us takes whatever is gained in these discussions with us into that big wide world outside the digital doors of Babble.

quote:

---

aRoused wrote -

"Does anyone know the medical/scientific division between 'embryo' and 'fetus'?"

---

Basically, the difference between them is eight weeks. An "embryo" in general means "An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form". A fetus in general means "The unborn young of a viviparous [id est - giving birth to living offspring that develop within the mother's body] vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal". In humans an embryo is said to have become a fetus at eight weeks.

Other common terms - Zygote means "The cell formed by the union of two gametes" - basically a fertilized egg. A blastocyst means "The modified blastula that is characteristic of placental mammals" - basically the early division stages of a zygote.

quote:

---

aRoused wrote -

"And is this perhaps a reasonable dividing line between permissible and intolerable abortions? At least for what we might call contraceptive reasons?"

---

I'm unclear what you're asking. Pretty much by definition abortion and contraception are mutually exclusive terms in that for an abortion to occur contraception has to have failed. Contraception involves attempting to prevent fertilization and/or preclude implantation. Abortion involves removing the blastocyst/embryo/fetus after implantation. It gets admittedly hazy when you're talking about something like the "morning after" pill, but in general it's pretty clear cut.

I'll post the reasons behind my definition later today if you'd like to talk about this further, it's a very important issue to me... though I'm sure people may be growing weary of my postings... however you weren't here when the last thread on Abortion toook place, so I won't feel like I'm repeating myself too much.

I'll catch-up with you and this thread later!

Apologies, I was fumbling for a word to use that would be clear and seem to have failed.

I was looking for a blanket term for abortions performed for reasons other than medical ones bent on saving the life of the mother, that is, abortions performed at the woman's behest because contraceptions failed/wasn't used/wasn't available, etc.

Does that help any?

And so...is eight weeks or so a reasonable compromise between leaving some time to discover the pregancy and decide what to do, while not completely horrifying those opposed to the practice of abortion?

(recognizing that, as per an excellent post on the previous page, there are two sets of rights here, and the pro and con sides tend to give one or the other control, completely excluding the other)

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: aRoused ]

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"I'll post the reasons behind my definition later today if you'd like to talk about this further,"

---

Certainly, I'd be interested in hearing your point-of-view.

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"it's a very important issue to me..."

---

Clearly so.

For whatever it's worth, for me it's an issue I've very mixed feelings about for some very simple and fairly common reasons as well as some very complicated and not-so-common reasons. As is probably obvious from my earlier rant, there's a lot that bothers me about many of the "pro-choice" positions, and there's a lot that bothers me about many of the "pro-life" positions. I'm not even overly thrilled with the position I hold, but it's the best one I can come up with that fits my own beliefs. It's a zero-sum game any way you cut it, and I hate no-win situations.

quote:

---

aRoused wrote -

"I was looking for a blanket term for abortions performed for reasons other than medical ones bent on saving the life of the mother, that is, abortions performed at the woman's behest because contraceptions failed/wasn't used/wasn't available, etc."

---

Ah, now I understand . My apologies, I'm slow on the uptake sometimes.

To be honest I can't think of such a term. I have heard "medical abortions" used to describe what might be considered medically necessary (or, at least, wise) and "elective abortions" used to describe those that are... Well, elective. Those terms don't seem to be in common use, however. The "pro-choice" side really doesn't like anyone pointing out that the vast bulk of abortions are elective. The "pro-life" side really doesn't like admitting very loudly that sometimes abortions are medically necessary. Both sides have a disincentive to draw such distinctions.

Then again, aside from occasionally being harangued by true believers on one side or the other, I've avoided these sorts of discussions like the plague for the last ten years so I may not be "up" on the latest terms, euphemisms, and colloquialisms being used.

quote:

---

aRoused wrote -

"And so...is eight weeks or so a reasonable compromise between leaving some time to discover the pregancy and decide what to do, while not completely horrifying those opposed to the practice of abortion?"

---

Would that it were that simple .

On the "pro-life" side the line is very often drawn at the implantation stage, sometimes even at the zygote stage. Witness the ongoing and often rather heated debates in my country over the use of bastocysts for fetal stem-cell research - to be honest even I'm a little uncomfortable with that one, if not for any reason that has to do with abortion politics.

On the "pro-choice" side no line can typically be drawn. Witness that in my country even attempts to outlaw "partial birth" abortions - which, frankly, I have a hard time seeing how they can be rightly characterized as anything but infanticide - were met with sufficient resistance that they failed. There have even been claims that what Ms. Yates did should essentially be considered legal abortion and in fact I've read claims that in several Anglosphere countries - if memory serves, Canada was on the claimed list - it would have been treated as such if it occurred within the first post-birth year.

Neither side, or at least the most vocal proponents of either side, tends to leave a whole lot of room for maneuvering.

Any line you draw short of the two extremes is going to be arbitrary to one degree or another. The eight week limit you propose would put some burden on women, to be sure, but it's certainly not wholly unreasonable as far as I can see. A problem, however, might be determining exactly when an embryo has crossed that line into fetus-hood since locating the exact date of conception is dicey at best. You'd have to come up with some kind of standard like the Tanner Scale but which would be unambiguous and could be determined via ultrasound or 3D-ultrasound. A second problem might be that it could conceivably increase the number elective abortions being done - probably not a desirable outcome.

That whole law of unintended consequences thingy quickly rears its ugly head...

One of the first things I did when I got a computer was to print out the U.S. Declaration of Independance, and also the Constitution. And Thomas Jefferson's second inaugural address.

My moniker is Tommy_Paine, remember.

I take issue with the fact all founding fathers were theists. It seems the word "God" was used in these documents rather generically. It could be any "God", even the "God" of Einstien the atheist.

quote:

---

Most of the advances in Western Civilization have come from people who were deep believers in one religion or another.

---

Well, Isaac Newton also dabbled in Alchemy, but his other work doesn't lend much credibility to Alchemy does it?

If we review history, we find that the only time the church became amenable to advances was after it gave up it's protracted struggle against the power of Guttenburg's printing press. Before that, religion did it's best to supress scientific inquiry in almost every regard.

quote:

---

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, they did not use religion as a guide,

---

No, they used dogma, which is the same basis as religion uses. And while we bring up the ghost of Hitler as many are wont to do these days to prove this point or that, let us not forget that the holocaust was the culmination of centuries of Christian anti-semitism. Hitler didn't invent anti-semetism, it was there for him to take advantage of. True, the church never went to the mass extreme that Hitler did. On the other hand, the Catholics and later, the Protestants never had rail roads and Zyclon B at their disposal, either. One wonders......

quote:

---

Yeah, don't deal with their arguments in a logical and consistent manner, just ignore them - reject them out of hand.

---

I am treating those arguments with logic and consistency, that's why they can, and should be, rejected out of hand.

quote:

---

They are working on reason as much as you are, this is a matter wholly of opinion.

---

This is where I must insist you are quite incorrect. Religion is the antithesis of reason. It's a tautology, a self affirming document. As such, it cannot be accorded status as "reason".

Even accepting the peculiar "reasoning" we find in religion, the writers in the Bible itself seem to suffer the same troubles as we do when deciding if a fetus is human or not. Today's Christians have just chosen a certain perspective, and ignored others contained in the great tautology. Just like they pick and choose from Leviticus. Homosexuality is bad, but wearing blended clothes, or eating lobster is okay. The law won't allow us to burn witches anymore, like Leviticus says we must, so we'll just ignore that bit--- for now.

quote:

---

Tommy_Paine wrote -

"I am treating those arguments with logic and consistency, that's why they can, and should be, rejected out of hand."

---

Frankly I see little logic in your treatment, but plenty of dogmatic consistency. Clearly it's pointless to even discuss the matter further. I'm not a particularly religious woman anyway, I have my beliefs but they are informal at best, and I don't care to be put in the position of having to defend religion. As far as I can see religion has been the source of great good and progress in the world, it has also been the source of great evil - like pretty much every other human institution there's ever been. You clearly disagree, and that's fine, we'll have to agree to disagree.

However, you reject the opinion of those who hold religious beliefs at your peril. The vast bulk of humanity holds to one or another religious system to one degree or another. Their ethical and moral codes are informed, among other things, by their religious beliefs. They are not going to go away simply because you reject them and their arguments with a sweep of the hand. They are going to be a party to the ongoing debate over abortion and many other issues whether you like it or not.

George W. Bush, the current President of my country, is by all accounts a religious man. He could hardly not be, I have very serious doubts about the possibility of an avowed atheist getting elected to the presidency of the US anytime in the near-term future. He will be the president for close to the next three years and very likely four more beyond that. Dismiss him if you wish, reject his opinions (or those of Thommy Thompson, the one who actually made this decision) if it makes you feel better, doing either changes nothing.

One thing honestly puzzles me, though. He's not the leader of your country - or, at least, I presume he's not from your profile. So why do you care? Why do so many people here seem so interested in American politics? You don't get a voice in deciding who leads my country any more than I get a voice in who leads yours. You don't have to live with whatever laws we come up with any more than I have to live with yours. The net effect of this particular decision on a legal and political level in my country is so close to zero you'd need a scanning electron microscope just to find it - even NOW can't seem to get all that outraged about it. The net effect of this decision on your country is nil, zip, zilch, and zero.

A side-issue, to be sure, but it does puzzle me more than a little. Sure, I try and at least be aware of what's going on overall in other Anglosphere (and some non-Anglosphere) countries, but this is something so minor and had it occurred in Oz, NZ, the UK, Canada, wherever, I'd find it very hard to get worked up about it.

File it under "Things that make me go Hmmmm? in the night"...

quote:

---

They are not going to go away simply because you reject them and their arguments with a sweep of the hand. They are going to be a party to the ongoing debate over abortion and many other issues whether you like it or not.

---

Aye, and that's the pity of it all.

Never one to be too receptive of religion, I had softened up a bit in recent years. However, a recent event here in my town has me less willing to put up with this stuff anymore.

A young man died here. His parents, with support of thier congregation and minister had decided he was possessed by demons, and kept him tied to furniture for a weekend. The minister and many of the parishoners, who came to pray, saw what was going on, saw the 19 year old's condition deteriorate to the point where he died slowly of dehydration, tied up in his own bedroom, in front of his parents. I never knew the young man. But it brings me to the edge of tears when I think of it even now.

The parents are changed with first degree murder, the minister, as is usual here in such cases, remains uncharged. Religion as a "get out of jail free card," I guess.

Behind this, the backdrop of Arabs and Jews bringing the world to the brink with their stupid, petty squabbles over Holy rocks and dust, and wacked out religious fanatics flying jets into sky scrappers, and wacked out religious fanatics blaming gays and others for God lifting his viel of protection over America.

I'm 42, and tired, oh so tired of living in the 13th century.

As to your second point Myria, about why the interest in American politics is a great example of why Americans are not often appreciated outside of thier own nation.

Gore Vidal calls this kind of thing "The United States of Amenesia".

Whatever happens in your country has a way of spilling over into our country, quite often because America uses strong arm tactics to bring other nations into line with what it believes is the right way. A good example is drug laws. Canada is not allowed, plain and simple, to formulate laws we might think are better suited to our experience.

But America is nice to Canada. It hasn't installed a puppet here, and trained his torturers to keep the population in order like it did in Iran, or Haiti.

Don't get me wrong, though. Since getting on line, I've come to respect and admire, and grown very attached to Americans-- even conservative Christian ones. I don't hold you, or any individual citizen responsible for the often clandestine machinations of American foriegn policy and other terrorist activities.

But, it makes me sigh when the American public at large seems to shrug their shoulders like "Bart Simpson" and says "I didn't do it." When the blow back hits the fan.

quote:

---

One thing honestly puzzles me, though. He's not the leader of your country - or, at least, I presume he's not from your profile. So why do you care? Why do so many people here seem so interested in American politics? You don't get a voice in deciding who leads my country any more than I get a voice in who leads yours. You don't have to live with whatever laws we come up with any more than I have to live with yours.

---

Audra, NB: I know we've gone off topic, and I promise I'll take it to another thread. But I just wanted to explain why a bit, to Myria and to Tommy P.

Tommy P., I've been staring at that quote for two days, debating with myself whether to just let it lie. It made me think of two other babblers, SHHH first of all, charming SHHH, who has come here to talk reasonably to people he knows are probably going to be angry with him much of the time, and who joins in with such a lovely, generous spirit anyway -- much as Myria has done, on her own turf.

And then I thought of you. If Tommy P. doesn't say anything, I won't either, I thought, in my Canadian way. We'll just let it go.

But so you didn't, eh? The virtue of waiting, I find, and of thinking on you, Tommy, has been to turn my immediate reaction away from sarcasm towards reflection and history and poetics. Before we're here to debate, I believe, we are here to bear witness, to describe as truly, as basically as we can, the phenomena we have witnessed -- and this is one of them, Tommy P., one that matters historically.

But no, I couldn't let any of it go.

Some threads need to be kept on topic. Abortion threads, I think should be left free ranging.

quote:

---

Tommy_Paine wrote -

"Aye, and that's the pity of it all."

---

Pity or no, it is the case.

Myself, I do not like the current state of things as regards the question of abortion in my own country. It's too unstable, relies too much on bad law to accomplish what is arguably a good end, and both sides are incredibly vocal but have little credibility in my eyes and those of much of the rest of the great unwashed. I don't ever expect there will ever exactly be a "solution", universal agreement on the matter, but I'd like to believe that something better than the current state of affairs is possible. Attempting to dismissing those who hold religious beliefs out of hand will not accomplish that, quite the opposite.

quote:

---

Tommy_Paine wrote -

"We watch American politics, as does the world, to prepare our throats for the next thing to be shoved down it."

---

Interesting point-of-view.

You'll have to forgive me if I continue to disagree with both your one-sided view of religion and of my country. We'll have to agree to disagree and I'll leave it at that.

As you wish, ma'am.

quote:

---

On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

---

quote:

---

Victor Von MediaBoy wrote -

"What constitutionally-protected right to privacy?"

---

Can you say "Penumbra"?

Knew ya' could...

quote:

---

Attempting to dismissing those who hold religious beliefs out of hand will not accomplish that

---

It should other people's religious beliefs have no rights to impinge upon mine, or anyone elses.