You’re right, I am generalizing the 7month date because I don’t have access to my physiology text book at the moment. There is a very specific date at which the fetus’ lungs are considered developed enough to support life outside of the mother. Before this date the fetus has zero chance. It is my opinion that at some point there shouldn’t be a choice between the mother or the fetus, it should simply be both.
Simple, take the abortion pill, at the moment the name escapes me. My point is that if you took this pill without knowing you were pregnant, would it be an abortion?
If you’re heart is not beating and you have an absence of brain function, you are dead. If you are dead, than you are not alive.
Now, according to The Baby Centre at 7 weeks the embryo begins to show a heart beat. So back to the OP, can pro-life advocates allow fully elective abortions up until this point? What if make it 6 just incase?
I’m looking for some sort of compromise on each side. For the pro-choice advocates, after 7 months (lung development) could we say that the fetus deserve as much medical attention as the mother?
Bzz… sorry. Not the cite I asked for. Read carefully this time. A standard medical cite that stipulates that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not alive until a beating heart or brain function is present.
Otherwise you’re telling me (giggle) that a dead organism (giggle) is growing, undergoing cell division, increasing in size and complexity.(giggle)
Is that really what you’re claiming? (And you own a physiology textbook? :rolleyes )
Lots of things are growing inside of you and undergoing cellular division; they are not alive. If your definition of “alive” is that there is growth and cellular division when exactly do we die?
Now back to my question, are you willing to allow elective abortions up to 7 weeks?
This is true of ALL pregnancies though. I can’t think of anything more painful than giving birth. But is there not a point where a little suffering should be expected for the life of the child? If you have the option of saving both the mother and the fetus should you take it?
One thing you may have overlooked in citing WebMD is that the author of the death definition indicated that there “is at present no standardized diagnosis of clinical death, no precise definition of human death.” The author went on to say that “*t is recognized that the above criteria are limited in that the notion of irreversibility is not readily agreed upon and may take on new meaning as medical technology advances. The criteria are especially helpful as complements to the traditional criteria of absence of heart beat and lack of spontaneous respiration as indications of death.”
Based on the definition cited, it does not appear that one could ever state with any certainty that a child is ‘alive’ until it draws breath. Fetuses do not “breath” until the amniotic fluid is removed from their lungs. This is why many traditions hold that a fetus is not a child until it draws breath. I remember an interesting test used by pathologists to help determine whether a person, usually a mother, was guilty of murdering her child. If the childs lungs would float in water (i.e. a breath had been taken) then it was likely that the child was actually alive at least at some point. Apparently lungs full of amniotic fluid won’t float. However, this test could be so much bunkum. After all, I’m an attorney and only play doctor at home.
You provided a definition of “alive” that required a beating heart and functioning brain. You said that the zygote and embryo are dead until that magical moment.
Are bacteria alive?
Is the cricket outside my window alive?
Is the ant crawling across my floor alive?
Is the worm in my garden alive?
(I’m not asking about “personhood” or “human” or other attriubutes, just your definition of being “alive”)
I have asked twice for a medical cite that says a zygote and embryo are not “alive” until that moment. You still haven’t provided that. If you make the claim, surely you can back it up?
What I don’t get is where all these pregnant women are coming from choosing to wait six or seven months before they abort. I would hazard a WAG that late term abortions are very rarely done for anything but very serious reasons, it being a very difficult decision to make for both patient and doctor.
And I have asked YOU twice to answer my question! And I asked first! Unless you are willing to allow purely elective abortions before a specific age, you will get no cite from me!
So what are you saying-that women will just have a late term abortion on a whim?
No, sorry, it doesn’t happen that way. I would hardly think that late term abortions are done for birth control reasons. Most of the time, they’re EMERGENCIES.
This is about the most inane thing I’ve ever heard.
Pregnant women can and do get sick with all sorts of diseases during pregnancy. They can also be sick before getting pregnant, and some of these diseases are manageable if the woman is not pregnant. However, if the woman becomes pregnant, all bets are off, and choices need to be made. Diabetic women, for example, may have organ failure because organs already damaged by diabetes can’t handle the strain of working for two. Women with cancer may have to choose between pregnancy and treatment; they can’t have it both ways, and not every cancer is kind enough to wait until she gives birth.
Simple, why not wait a day. One day isn’t that bad, give birth, this whole mess will be behind you. Or, if you can’t wait, instead of an abortion, let’s just induce labour. Why is abortion really an option.
And again, I hate this “medical emergency” idea. What medical emergency would prevent the fetus from coming out alive? Why is death the only option? If its going to come out, why not give it a chance?
I could go for that compromise- I’d say in the first three months, abortion should be legal. After that point, too late. I’d take it a step further, if you’re aborting as a means of birth control, then with your abortion one of your tubes gets tied. Do it a second time, then the other gets tied.
