She’s still right about replacing one lie with another. And you know what? History disagrees with you here. Is this how the historical debate went? That we went from a flat Earth to a contact lens-shaped Earth to an egg-shaped Earth to a round one? Absolutely not. The people who knew what they were talking about said the Earth was round, others insisted it was flat. The debate was settled by FACTS, not scientists making a compromise they knew was wrong. Same with the evolution debate and many others.
A better example would be evolution. Too many people want to compromise and say “intelligent design”, “it’s only a THEORY”, etc.
And then we wonder why our kids don’t know anything when they come out of school!
emacknight, just tell me you have no ambitions to move into the field of obstetrics and I’ll be a happy woman.
Seriously, you think ALL pro-choice people think that elective abortion is acceptable FOR ANY REASON, AT ANY TIME?
Newsflash. It ain’t so.
You think ALL pro-life people are against abortion where the mother’s life or health is at risk?
Wise up.
I can think of a number of medical conditions in which labour would be life threatening, while a c-section would not be.
I can also think of several situations in which a c-section would be life-threatening and a D&C would be less so.
After all, one procedure involves making an incision in the abdomen, retracting several organs, and slicing into the uterus, while the other involves inserting a cannula into the uterus via the cervix and removing the contents.
As a doctor you are mandated to advise your patient to take the course of action that is in their best interest. Whether they then decide to follow your advice is up to them.
Even if I believe that a woman and the child she is carrying will both die if she does not have an abortion, I CANNOT force her to have one. Just like I CANNOT force her NOT to have one.
In case you don’t know, the woman is your patient, the foetus is not.
And that is that, as far as medically necessary 3rd trimester abortions are concerned.
Brush up your knowledge of embryology, medical ethics and obstetrics, including common and accepted practices.
You’ll see that very few women have abortions on viable foetuses if a c-section is a reasonable alternative.
mmm-kay?
[slight hijack] Irishgirl, when a dilation and extraction (evacuation?), the much-maligned “partial birth abortion” is performed, is the patient under conscious sedation, or general anestesia? I would think sedation, but neither DrJ nor I know for sure. I just got to wondering after that…ahem…“joke” about knocking women out and letting them think they’d had abortions. [/hijack]
I’m not sure either to be honest, I’m guessing they’d want to go for general anaesthesia rather then an epidural and some valium.
It is standard practice to perform D&Cs using general anaesthesia, so I assume the same standard would apply.
It would probably be considered in your patient’s best interest that they NOT be awake during the procedure. Less traumatic. And if something were to go wrong, requiring more invasive surgery say, it would probably be safer to have anaesthesia already induced.
Phenotype is: “the interaction of the individual’s genes and the developmental environment in the uterus.”
So now we’re moving on from the “DNA makes us special” argument to “phenotypes make us special” argument.
From my point of view, living in a country where pregnant women’s right to choose abortion is pretty secure, I see nothing to gain by sacrificing some of that right in compromises with pro-lifers. To put it bluntly: They’ve lost that fight here (I hope!), and have nothing to offer which I’m interested in.
I do support efforts to decrease the number of abortions, such as information about and good access to birth control. It’s interesting to note that the number of abortions has been decreasing in Norway after the law about self determined abortion was introduced in 1978, from 14-15 abortions per thousand women in fertile age, to around 13 the last ten years (statistics in English). I didn’t find any statistics from before -78, but several articles (such as this one (only in Norwegian, sorry)) state that the number of abortions has been stable or decreasing since 1974. That article (an interview with a professor in Gynecology and Obstetrics, who’s been doing research in this field) also mentioned that some women who are in doubt about abortion feel pressured to make a choice before the 12 week limit, and some of them regret later. No numbers, so I’ve no idea how big this group is, but that means it’s possible that a more restrictive abortion law would lead to more abortions, not less. It makes sense to assume that you’d be more likely to choose abortion in the first shock after the news of an unwanted pregnancy, than after you’ve had more time to get used to the idea.
I don’t have any cites for this, but I’m convinced that the condoms-and-bananas exercise 
we had in school when I was fourteen did a lot more to reduce the number of abortions than any amount of lobbying from pro-life politicians or harassment of doctors from pro-life extremists.
Never said that. DNA, in the vast majority of individuals makes a unique blueprint for life (it’s why it’s used in crime solving yadda yadda). In the relatively rare exception of identical twins, there is still an element of uniqueness expressed through phenotypes (twins are not clones).
Actually on re-think, I don’t even think I need to focus much on the differences between dna sequences and phenotypes. The only reason that the reference to a gene code is usually made in this debate, is to highlight that the z/e/f is a unique individual, not a body part of the mother. Whether there are twins, triplets or a single embryo, they (or it) are distinct from the mother at conception.
This is going to totally hyjack my own thread, but beagledave what is going to happen to that side of the argument when cloning becomes a more common practice? It could be that the z/e/f has identical genotype and phenotype as the mother. In fact that fetus in this case would quite literally be an extension of the mothers skin.
It’s not a common practice at all now. In fact, it’s not even a practice, as a human has never been cloned, and it’s starting to look as if doing so may be far harder than many had anticipated.
Mighty weird way of looking at it. Having the same DNA or anything else is not what makes you a person (vs. a piece of skin).
There’s another potential factor: the demographics of Norway. If there was a “baby boom” there after WW2 (as in North America and other places) then in 1978, there may have been a huge number of women in the 15-39 age group, the ones most likely to seek an elective abortion (or get pregnant generally). If the size of this group has declined since 1978 (after the baby boom subsided), this may explain the falling number of abortions more than any legislation or other social change.
These links shows graphs for Norway’s “population pyramids” in 1986 (as far back as this particular website allows) and 2003. In the first chart, the female population 15-39 makes up a very large proportion of the population. By 2003, this group has aged to 30-54 (i.e. beyond their most fertile, least responsible years) and the proportion of younger women has declined. Looking at the graphs side-by-side makes the population shift more obvious.
Abortions may go into decline in western countries, but this could be due to the fact that the overall populations are simply aging and the rate of pregnancy (intended or otherwise) drops.
Sure, demographics might be a factor. Here are abortion rates for different age groups. I see there’s an increase for the 20-24 group, while the rates for others are stable or decreasing. The significant reduction in abortions for teenagers suggest that we are doing something right 
In case someone’s interested, here’s the part of the curriculum which covers birth control education in public school. 10th grade = 16 years old.
Notice to all Ranters:
I am being devils advocate here. Please, intelligent discussion requested.
Choose a month. After that month, all abortions are to be performed by induction of labor. After “birth”, the fetus/child is then placed in an incubator and put up for adoption. Whether the fetus/child survives or not is then in God’s hands.
Notice to ronbo:
I am being devils advocate. After March, round up all syringes and insulin from diabetics. Place said diabetics in incubator. Whether the diabetic survives or not is then in God’s hands. Lots of laughs to follow. :smack:
Sounds like a recipe for lots of needless suffering.
Devil’s advocate, indeed.
A diabetic does not require your body to survive. Are you willing to donate your pancreas cells or bone marrow or extra organs to anybody that needs them to survive? If not, do not expect a woman to donate her body to a fetus.
Needless suffering for who?
Please explain. Are you one of those dogmatists that believes the universe was created 5000 years ago?
*“You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not use reason to reach.” *- author unknown to me
If so I will not waste my time with you.
However, if your mind is not locked shut, Consider this:
" A Human Condition
I have a condition. I am a living human, but I will die without a human host.
If I choose you to be my host, I will limit your liberty and your pursuit of happiness. I might even take your life. Over time, I will take more and more and more nourishment from your body. When that first hint of nausea alerts you to my presence, it is too late. I am in control now. Your whole body will change as it tries to meet my demands.
As I grow, you will find it more and more difficult to get around. You will have trouble eating, sleeping, and even breathing. When I am finally finished with your body, painful spasms will signal that I am leaving. You will have lasting physical signs that you were my chosen host.
Rejecting me means that I will die. If I do choose you, do you have the right to refuse me? To allow me to die? To kill me if I refuse to loosen my grip?
Or does my condition give me the right to take of your body, of you? Possibly your life? If I choose someone other than you, will you force that person to submit to me?
My condition is that I am a fetus. I will die without a human host."
Judge not that ye not be judged.
You believe that’s how it works, eh? The unborn choose their “hosts”? Am I getting this right? They’re kinda like stalkers, who shouldn’t bitch when the “host” quite reasonably shows them the door?
Well, of the fetus, which you’re advocating turning into a preemie. If there was some fiuture technology that vastly improved incubators to the point where could flawlessly replicate the uterus, your idea may have some merit. Until then, your proposed solution is ridiculous.
Duh.
Pardon me while I snicker in the background at your clumsy attempts at argument.
This is a metaphor. My experience is that some people do not understand the concept of metaphor or allegory. These are usually those same dogmatists I spoke of earlier.
Choose the word of your choice to describe the mechanism that a woman has an unwanted pregnancy.
And yes, her right to her own body supersedes the rights of anybody, you or even an unborn fetus to use her body without her permission.
Again, are you really willing to give up your rights to your own body?
If you are, then go to the local hospital and have your tissue typed and offered to whoever needs it. If not, then you have no place to tell a pregnant woman what to do with her body.