LSLGuy - Would you also advocate a bumber sticker that says “Don’t want to kill Jews? Then don’t.” To kill a viable child for the sake of convenience is repugnant.
StG
Moving this to Great Debates.
Minor hijack - fetuses born prematurely at 24 weeks gestational age emphatically do NOT have a good chance of survival. 24 weeks gestational age makes the absolute lower limit of fetal viability outside the womb; approximately 90% of fetuses born at 24-25 weeks gestation die, and the survivors often have serious chronic medical problems and significant learning disabilities.
24 weeks is not merely an arbitrary date; it marks the earliest point at which a fetus might possibly be viable outside of the womb.
As for the rest of you post - you feel it’s wrong to abort ANY fetus, even one that has NO chance of survival after birth? You’d force a woman carring an anencephalic fetus or a fetus with renal agenesis or pulmonary agenesis to carry it to term? Why? Other than prolonging the woman’s suffering, what does that accomplish?
24 weeks is not merely an arbitrary date; it marks the earliest point at which a fetus might possibly be viable outside of the womb.
Um, artemis, there was a baby not too long ago that was born at 20 weeks and lived. She was on the cover of the last issue of Life magazine.
I’ll sixth Badtz’s response.
I think I agree with this. I’m not a doctor, and news articles are notoriously bad at reporting medical details, so I can’t say whether I’d make the same choice as the woman mentioned in the article, if I were in the same situation. But the decision absolutely should have been made by the woman, not by the calendar.
Any links, or info about any problems she’s had since then?
I think that those who are against this abortion and others should offer to adopt the babies and pay for medical bills, to show that they are serious. I mean someone has to think of the babies and, well, it’s you, obviously.
I’d also go with the idea that not wanting to have the child is a good enough reason for an abortion.
However…
This seems to me to be entirely missing the point. As I understand it, anti-abortionists aren’t against abortion for the good of the mother in question, they’re against it for the good of the baby. This sentence seems to me to be about as logical as saying ‘Disapprove of murder? Don’t murder anyone.’
Actually, StGermain beat me to it. Never mind.
~ Isaac
Artemis, I suspect you’re getting your stats on preemie survival from 10 or 20 years ago. The outcomes for preemies have greatly improved in recent years. Here are some cites for the good chance of survival that 24 weekers now have:
The University of North Carolina reports that 60% of 24 week olds born there survive, with the comment “These results are typical of survival rates for infants born in a university hospital with sophisticated level 3 neonatal intensive care unit”.
This article on McGill University Health Centre in Canada gives a 50% survival rate for 24 week olds and mentions that 22 week olds have been saved.This article from the March of Dimes says, “Only 5 to 10 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of pregnancy survive, while about 50 percent of babies born at 24 weeks and 80 percent born at 26 weeks survive.”
Technology is constantly changing, and fetal viability is not set in stone.
Incidentally, anencephaly was exactly what I was thinking of when I said “a condition that is hopeless and will inevitably ruin the child’s chances for a normal life.” I suspect most parents of anencephalic fetuses would give anything to be able to trade anencephaly for a treatable condition like cleft palate instead.
Stoneburg, that is a very faulty way to dismiss our arguments. Someone can be against domestic violence without having personally opened up a battered women’s shelter.
Someone can oppose child abuse without having personally adopted an abused child.
But those things, lavenderviolent, do not force such an intimate intrusion upon someone’s life. You’re intruding on this woman’s life, into her body, and forcing her to do something which will affect her for at least the next eighteen years. The kid will have to undergo several operations; it’s not you that will pay for them. With that level of interference—and then abandonment----it stops being merely theoretical.
lavenderviolet, I’m not dismissing your argument, I am asking you to put your money where your mouth is.
Actually no - try about 5 years ago. It’s good to see ther’s been some progress!
Thanks for the more recent stats regarding 24 weekers - 50% is certainly better than what those infants faced five years ago, when surfactant was starting to be widely used in the NICU setting, but I still wouldn’t call that “good chances for survival”. I’m also wondering what is counted as “survival” when they figure those statistics (just leaving the NICU? living for a year or two? making it to school age?), and how impaired the survivors are; it would be important data to have if you were a parent of an extreme preemie trying to decide on the best medical course of action.
Note, though, that the survival rate for the infants less than 24 weeks gestational age hasn’t improved significantly over that time interval - and that’s not an accident. Below about 24 weeks, fetal lungs generally don’t have enough formed alveoli for adequate gas exchange to occur (and that’s not something that ventilators and surfactant can help with), and they are typically too small and fragile to tolerate extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy (ECMO) well. Additionally, their digestive systems are still poorly developed and have problems handling food. It will take large advances in technology to push the limits of fetal survival outside the womb much further than they are now (although those advances may certainly happen). But you’re quite right that the limits of fetal viability may be different in the future.
I’m sure they would. Despite all the positive press “medical miracles” get, there are unfortunately many conditions (like anencephaly or Tay-Sach’s disease) we simply can’t fix, and others where the “fix” is partial at best and requires massive use of medical resources and multiple painful medical procedures (and often condeming the child to spend the greater part of his/her life in a hospital or institutional setting). I think that reality is something that many of the most extreme pro-life proponents don’t really want to face.
I personally wouldn’t abort a fetus for a simple cleft lip or cleft palate - but I might consider doing so for a more severe midline fusion defect. As Elenfair’s link shows, those aren’t minor defects which are easily repaired.
Are you saying that you should be able to terminate(so that the fetus doesn’t survive.) your pregnancy untill the birth has started?
Or have I misunderstood?
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Nobody should ever be forced to give birth if they don’t want to.
It’s a bit of a red herring though, unless you’re going to suggest that there ever has been or ever will be any sort of demand for day-before-due-date abortions.
Uhm, the baby, fetus, whatever you want to call it, is inside a woman’s body, but isn’t a part of it. It’s its own life, and its own body.
Yes, it’s your body. But once the fetus is out of your body, it’s really none of your business, is it? The doctor can take it out alive rather than kill it.
I’m not sure I get what you’re saying, but I have a feeling that you misunderstood my post.
In a case where a late term abortion is not done for physical health reasons, there is no reason the baby can’t be delivered alive. Termination of pregnancy does not always necessitate killing the fetus.
I never said that I was in favor of killing the fetus.