|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 08/24/2005 : 09:06:18
|
quote:
Doctors should not be required to discuss fetal pain with women seeking abortions because fetuses likely can't feel pain until late in pregnancy, according to a review critics say hardly settles the contentious topic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/24/AR2005082400661.html
Not that this settles abortion debate, but it would remove one aspect of the anti-abortionists arguments assuming that the conclusions are accurate.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
Edited by - pleco on 08/24/2005 09:08:12
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
 Posted - 08/24/2005 : 22:10:19 [Permalink]
|
I doubt this will stop the antiabortion forces from claiming that fetuses feel pain - they are still claiming that abortion causes breast cancer, and unendurable sorrow in a majority of patients.
I think the main problem in the abortion "debate" is poor sex ed - they act like egg + sprem = baby is the norm. But really, 60-90% of all fertilized eggs are excreted, a large percentage without the woman even knowing what happened. If egg + sperm = no baby is so offensive to the architect of the universe, then why is it the most common outcome? [I've noticed that the antis don't have any talking points - not even a bad argument - on why their God designed it this way and so much fetal potential is wasted in the course of nature - even in places where abortion is not legal] |
trish |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 22:43:53 [Permalink]
|
| The fetus pain concept is only one point used by anti-abortionists. In my experience, most of the most sane arguments say that abortions are a way of avoiding "personal responsibility" (excluding rapes, of course) and that they decrease the value of human life. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 23:35:13 [Permalink]
|
The "personal responsibility" argument isn't at all sane. Not when girls become fertile at age 13, but aren't deemed "responsible" enough to drink or smoke or vote or go to war until much later.
Or, let's take the example of a 30-year-old woman who's on birth control pills and has her lovers wear condoms, but winds up pregnant, anyway. Forcing her to carry the baby as a way of saying, "well, you knew the risks when you decided to have sex," is like telling a mountain climber who used four independent ropes but fell and broke both his legs, "sorry, you can't go to the hospital, you knew the risks when you left the ground, you should accept the consequences."
The "personal responsibility" argument will only become the least little bit "sane" when it is applied consistently to all situations. In other words, so long as there is are anti-abortionists who attempt to shift deserved blame away from themselves, it just won't fly. In still other words, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2005 : 01:07:06 [Permalink]
|
Having watched many a circumcision done without anesthesia and listened to the doctors claim the babies' nervous systems weren't developed enough for them to feel pain, I can say without a doubt they scream in pain at that age with that procedure. Infants born at 20 weeks or so certainly have a brain and a nervous system. The belief came from the conclusion that nature must have some sort of mechanism to make the babies' passage through the birth canal painless. After all, they get their little heads squeezed all out of shape.
It was a nice thought but then why wouldn't the mom have a nice mechanism to dull the pain as well. I can assure you from personal experience, the only dulling comes from the drugs.
But so what? If they feel pain and that's your worry, give 'em drugs. Most abortions are done before that brain and nervous system are developed so it's a moot point anyway. The nonsense of the screaming fetus film is just a ploy from the anti-abortion got nothing better to do group. As if that is going to make everyone suddenly see the world from their viewpoint. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2005 : 16:03:20 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.,
In general, I agree with you, but only because of the knowledge I've obtained about human growth and development, and my philosophical ideas about human rights. Your example of the mountain climber doens't parallel the abortion issue because anti-abortionists give more weight to the right of the fetus to live than they do the right of the women to decide not to go through with a physical pregnancy. And in fact, many non-theists buy into that line of reasoning when you get into second, and especially third trimesters. (For instance, I support banning of third trimester abortions except when the mother's life is threatened.) It is a sane line of reasoning. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 13:12:38 [Permalink]
|
Or, let's take the example of a 30-year-old woman who's on birth control pills and has her lovers wear s, but winds up pregnant, anyway. Forcing her to carry the baby as a way of saying, "well, you knew the risks when you decided to ," is like telling a mountain climber who used four independent ropes but fell and broke both his legs, "sorry, you can't go to the hospital, you knew the risks when you left the ground, you should accept the consequences."
Ok, Dave...hi there. It's been a while. First, you compair the mountain climber with 4 independent ropes protecting him from a fall to a woman having with four partners....hardly logical comparison. The climbers 4 ropes are there to decrease the risk and increase his safety four fold, the four lovers only increase the risk of pregnancy and failure rather than decrease the risk. Not to mention risk of animosity, jealousy, hatred, violence among this group.
Then you equate the woman getting pregnant with the climber falling and breaking both legs. Let's look at this strange comparison: The ropes obviously failed to do their job, for one reason or another (weak ropes, bad tying, whatever). The climber surely could have been very inexperienced or just made an error in judgment or was knocked off the cliff for no reason of his own. Whatever the reason, no one suggests that he not get medical help.
THe woman who gets pregnant, on the other hand is not injured, but has conceived a child, which is a natural result of . It cannot be argued that falling and breaking one's legs is a natural result of mountain climbing. The natural goal is reaching the top and then back down safely. In having , the goal may be pleasure and not conception, for sure. Now if you equated contracting venerial disease as a result of , then you have a point when comparing to a fall by a climber. But trying to make us think that antiabortionists are for hurting or destroying the woman's life is absurb. There is much evidence that abortion is harmful to many women if not all. Child bearing is also dangerous and potentially harmful, but it is a natural act. Taking the life of the fetus in the womb is not a natural act. When carrying the pregnancy to term proves to be extremely dangerous for the woman, few are opposed to abortion to save the mother's life.
The idea that if contraception (or methods to avoid conception) fails that one should have the right to terminate the life of a fetus is the backbone of abortion rights, to be sure, but rather than comparing antiabortion attitudes to a climber whose safety ropes fail, legs are broken in a fall and then his life snuffed out because the antiabortionist thinks he should die, you might want to put the baby or fetus in the position of the climber whose legs are broken in a fall and life snuffed out...that would be a far more logical comparison only you'll also have to change the one advocating that action as the proabortionist, not the pro lifer. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 13:20:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...
First, you compair the mountain climber with 4 independent ropes protecting him from a fall to a woman having with four partners....hardly logical comparison. The climbers 4 ropes are there to decrease the risk and increase his safety four fold, the four lovers only increase the risk of pregnancy and failure rather than decrease the risk. Not to mention risk of animosity, jealousy, hatred, violence among this group.
Dave didn't say anything at all about the woman having sex with four men. His comparison was regarding her using multiple methods of avoiding pregnancy, or in other words, decreasing her risk of that. It is a perfectly valid comparison. Maybe you read the posting too quickly to fully understand what was being said.
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 13:30:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Doormar:
But trying to make us think that antiabortionists are for hurting or destroying the woman's life is absurb.
I'm sorry, but in my little ignorant mind, forcing a woman to have a child she does not want (by prohibiting her choice to terminate the pregnancy by abortion) is both harmful and destructive to said woman's life, not to mention the future, unwanted child's life. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 16:27:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
First, you compair the mountain climber with 4 independent ropes protecting him from a fall to a woman having with four partners....hardly logical comparison. The climbers 4 ropes are there to decrease the risk and increase his safety four fold, the four lovers only increase the risk of pregnancy and failure rather than decrease the risk.
No, I didn't put a number of lovers in there. I compared a mountain-climber with four ropes to a woman who regularly uses two form of contraception - a comparison of risk management.quote:
Not to mention risk of animosity, jealousy, hatred, violence among this group.
Which are all irrelevant to the risk comparison.
quote:
Then you equate the woman getting pregnant with the climber falling and breaking both legs. Let's look at this strange comparison: The ropes obviously failed to do their job, for one reason or another (weak ropes, bad tying, whatever). The climber surely could have been very inexperienced or just made an error in judgment or was knocked off the cliff for no reason of his own. Whatever the reason, no one suggests that he not get medical help.
THe woman who gets pregnant, on the other hand is not injured, but has conceived a child, which is a natural result of . It cannot be argued that falling and breaking one's legs is a natural result of mountain climbing. The natural goal is reaching the top and then back down safely. In having , the goal may be pleasure and not conception, for sure.
Then what's the problem? Mountain climbing is generally a risky proposition which does little to promote any social goal. Sex for pleasure is the same way.quote:
Now if you equated contracting venerial disease as a result of , then you have a point when comparing to a fall by a climber.
Well, since you missed the entire risk-management comparison, I'm not surprised you'd come up with something like that.quote:
But trying to make us think that antiabortionists are for hurting or destroying the woman's life is absurb.
What utter crap. I never once tried to make anyone think that. The comparison was that nobody would ever think of not helping the mountain climber with whatever assistance was required. But when it comes to a woman getting pregnant, it's "sorry, you should have thought of that before you had sex." In other words, antiabortionists are hypocrites when it comes to the "personal responsibility" question.quote:
There is much evidence that abortion is harmful to many women if not all.
Is abortion more or less harmful to a woman than having an unwanted child?quote:
Child bearing is also dangerous and potentially harmful, but it is a natural act.
So what? Eating fermented fruits is natural, too, yet people aren't free to do so whenever they feel like it.quote:
Taking the life of the fetus in the womb is not a natural act.
Tell that to God, who certainly has the power to prevent all miscarriages, but does not.quote:
When carrying the pregnancy to term proves to be extremely dangerous for the woman, few are opposed to abortion to save the mother's life.
Yes, and?quote:
The idea that if contraception (or methods to avoid conception) fails that one should have the right to terminate the life of a fetus is the backbone of abortion rights, to be sure, but rather than comparing antiabortion attitudes to a climber whose safety ropes fail, legs are broken in a fall and then his life snuffed out because the antiabortionist thinks he should die...
Where the Hell did you get that bit of codswallop? If you can point out where you think I said that antiabortionists think the mountain climber "should die," it'd be much appreciated.quote:
...you might want to put the baby or fetus in the position of the climber whose legs are broken in a fall and life snuffed out...that would be a far more logical comparison only you'll also have to change the one advocating that action as the proabortionist, not the pro lifer.
The analogy was for one purpose only: the comparison of how people who take reasonable precautions against risk - people who are responsible adults - but get into trouble anyway, will be treated differently. You missed the comparison's point completely. marfknow also missed it, it seems.
Again, my point was that the "personal responsibility" argument is crap because it's applied inconsistently by those who would propose it. Nothing more. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 21:30:55 [Permalink]
|
Admit it, it was a lousy analogy, Dave. LOL! and yes, you did mention "lovers" using contraceptives, implying several, not multiple forms of birth control, like the pill and s both. No, you didn't say let the mountain climber die, but implying he shouldn't get medical help is the same thing up in the mountains.
"Again, my point was that the "personal responsibility" argument is crap because it's applied inconsistently by those who would propose it. Nothing more."
Anyway, to reject the personal responsibility argument on the basis of one person being hypocritical in using it does not speak to the the argument's merit. Who is responsible, then, Dave, if not the mother and the lovers? Is society responsible? THe government? The woman's father or mother? Her church, her school, her friends? Of all this list of possibles we never put the baby (fetus) in the mix, now do we? And yet the baby pays with its life. The baby dies in helping the mother or society avoid further responsibility. Whether it is the mother or society to blame, I do not think the baby should be made to pay the brunt of responsibility. Do you? Should the woman be helped with the cost of bearing the child to term. Yes. Should society help in finding a home for the child? Yes. Should we feel bad if the baby dies instead? Yes. Should we feel bad about the mother having an abortion? Yes. Should we be happy when a woman has an abortion and uses her Court given right? NO! |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 09/04/2005 21:37:17 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 21:35:47 [Permalink]
|
i]Originally posted by Siberia[/i]
I'm sorry, but in my little ignorant mind, forcing a woman to have a child she does not want (by prohibiting her choice to terminate the pregnancy by abortion) is both harmful and destructive to said woman's life, not to mention the future, unwanted child's life.
Perhaps it is, Siberia, but she can get over it. The baby, however, is just dead. The "unwanted child" is surely wanted by someone else, believe me. People have to go overseas to get babies because so many are being killed. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 21:49:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...
Admit it, it was a lousy analogy, Dave.
It looks like everyone understood it except you, Doomar. When you're so far out of the loop, so incapable of understanding written communication the way it is intended by the writer and understood by nearly everyone else, it's your responsibility to improve your comprehension. It's not the responsibility of others to bring their communication down to a lower level or rework their analogies simply because you aren't willing or able to get it. I mentioned in another thread, and it bears repeating here, there are courses you can take to help you with what is obviously a serious defect in your reading comprehension.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 22:01:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Admit it, it was a lousy analogy, Dave. LOL!
That you find it funny in no way weakens the point I was making.quote:
and yes, you did mention "lovers" using contraceptives, implying several, not multiple forms of birth control, like the pill and s both.
Let me quote the relevant sentence for you, since you cannot seem to find it:...let's take the example of a 30-year-old woman who's on birth control pills and has her lovers wear condoms... So, the important part (bolded) is the multiple forms of birth control. That she has "lovers" is not indicative that she has more than one boyfriend at a time.
(And what I find "LOL" is the fact that you won't even type the word "condoms.")quote:
No, you didn't say let the mountain climber die, but implying he shouldn't get medical help is the same thing up in the mountains.
All I said was that he shouldn't go to the hospital. Did I say he wasn't rescued? No. The fact that this is all you can find to argue is pretty pathetic.quote:
Anyway, to reject the personal responsibility argument on the basis of one person being hypocritical in using it does not speak to the the argument's merit.
One person? You're monumentally naive if you think only one person makes that argument.quote:
Who is responsible, then, Dave, if not the mother and the lovers?
See? You don't get it. The mother and father are responsible adults, who took care to not have a child, but one was conceived anyway (just like the mountain climber took care to not fall, but fell anyway). Arguing that the mother "knew what she was getting into" and carry the child to term is tantamount to arguing that the mountain climber should set his own bones, since he accepted a risk and should have been prepared to accept the consequences.
You would help the mountain climber without hesitation, I'm sure. But why, when all that exists of a "baby" is a clump of cells incapable of feeling or thinking would you deny this woman the ability to fix a mistake?
And good grief, we're not talking about people being happy for abortions. That's typical anti-abortionist political spin, Doomar, and you should be ashamed of yourself for bearing false witness against your neighbor.
Oh, and I noticed that once again, you have failed to answer my questions. I'm especially interested in what you think about all those miscarriages that God causes every day (yes, it wasn't phrased as a question, but it was implied). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
