Exactly. And why do you think virtually no doctor would perform such a procedure (without a compelling medical reason)? You’re saying you would, if you were a doctor?
Well, there’d have to be a lot of money in it for it to be worth the hassle. Most likely, if I had a 8.5-month patient who suddenly “decided” to terminate her pregnancy, I’d suspect she’d just lost patience with the physical discomfort of late-term pregnancy and since I don’t want her hassling me down the road if she came to regret this decision, I’d steer her toward a counselor and do what I could to make her comfortable, while reminding her that she had a mere two weeks to go.
If I thought she was suicidal, I’d give her the option of inducing or a C-section. None of this, incidentally, means I care about the fetus or baby or whatever you want to call it, I simply recognize that someone in the final stages of a lengthy arduous process often tries to give up near the end and regrets it afterward, be it a pregnancy or basic training or a marathon. Being a doctor in this hypothetical, I’m the easiest one to sue later on.
Anyway, got any numbers on how many purely elective 8.5-month abortions there have been? I find it very easy to be cold-blooded about something I don’t believe actually happens. You may as well ask if I’m prepared to nuke Martians. Sure, I am, if they ever appear and look hostile.
I doesn’t matter how many there are. If you don’t respect the woman’s choice (even at 8 1/2 months), then you’re only pro-choice when you agree with the choice. That is the only point I was making.
I also find it hard to believe that you wouldn’t care if an 8 1/2 month term fetus was killed. And since you’re directing the woman to counseling, it appears you do care.
I do agree that the zygote and embryo is technically life. All living things are comprised of a single cell or multiple cells. The greater question is when does a human life as a *being *begin, the fetus as human being or a person is debatable. The medical community and American society define death as the loss of human brain function or more precisely the loss of brain waves produced with an EEG. A life is not viable without a functioning brain that controls the most basic biological life functions
The human brain is intrinsic to our being.
With a clear societal definition of death can this criterion be applied to define the beginning of human life as a person? When a woman terminates a pregnancy in the first trimester is she destroying tissue that has potential for human life or is it a human being as defined by society and the medical community?
I think Ectogenesis like cloning creates a new set of moral issues and the way human life as a person is defined. Ectogenesis may prove to undermine the entire life at conception argument because of probable genetic selection and cloning, and it could change the way abortion is viewed. It may be a liberating force or a controlling force.
Again, if we look at in vetro fertilization, is it immoral to destroy unwanted embryos? Should the women be forced to carry those embryos to term?
There is a profound difference between a newborn or a fetus in late gestation and a zygote/embryo. The human baby, although dependent, has a highly functioning brain. The human brain continues to develop through adult life, but the infant brain is still complex and amazing, able to control biological function, respond to the environment, and expresses not only primitive drives but emotional needs.
Then I’m pro-choice, because I have no desire whatsoever to ban elective 8.5-month abortions, or even 8.9-month, or even 9.2-month, given a pregnancy that lasts longer than average. You’re presenting me with an extreme case and seeing if it forces me to modify my views. It doesn’t, in part because the extreme case you describe is so rare (assuming it exists at all), then I feel no obligation to take it seriously.
Believe what you like, but this represents a misreading of my statement. I’ll be even more blunt:
I don’t care about the fetus, at all. In the hypothetical, I’d care about the woman and if I thought her (implausible) abrupt decision to abort was likely to lead to deep regret down the line, I would have to seriously consider the possibility that if I terminated her pregnancy, she might try to later sue me for not recognizing her decision was motivated by temporary prepartum depression. Since I don’t need the headache, I would likely not perform the abortion. If she can find a doctor who will… well, more power to her.
If I could do so in an environment where I was completely shielded from repercussions not related to the procedure itself (i.e. she won’t sue me or send death threats or publicly call me a murderer, etc.) my stance would be different. Even then, it might actually be safer (for her) to induce labour rather than abort. Not actually being a doctor or a malpractice lawyer, the best I can do is speculate, of course.
Seriously, it doesn’t matter how many there are? What if there are none? Feel free to point out one, if you can. It won’t change my stance, though.
Copied from an anti-choice site, correct? I found many with this text with a simple search.
Notice the name of the committee - separation of powers. Which power do they want to separate? The power of the Court to prevent the banning of abortion.
Now, how does one evaluate scientific consensus? JThunder seems to think it is done by looking at the testimony of those invited by a partisan Congressional committee. I’m sure the right committee could convince him in the same way that there is no AGW problem, of intelligent design, and that the earth is flat.
The issue is of course when do rights kick in. How ironic that the same type of people who will yell that science cannot reliably talk about the existence of God brings in people (carefully selected, no doubt) to give scientific testimony on a non-scientific question. How dishonest. How typical!
It came from a pro-life site, but the testimonies were gathered by the US Senate, which is NOT a pro-life organization.
And even the quotes did come from a pro-life site, that would not invalidate them. If you believe that they do – if you believe that this bias invalidates their position – then we must immediately reject any statements made by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and any pro-choices in this thread. Unless, of course, being biased in favor of the pro-choice side is okay, but being biased against it is not.
Cite, please? Or are you pulling claims out of mid-air?
Do you have any evidence at all that this was a partisan committee? Or is this yet another case of saying, “Oh, no! Their conclusions don’t match ours. They must surely be partisan, and so we must reject their conclusions!”
THe question can either be interpreted in an obvious sense or in a less obvious sense. If the question is whether conception results in the creation of a genetically distinct human cell, then of course it’s true: you don’t need to be an expert to know that. If the question is whether that genetically distinct human cell is deserving of human rights–if it is human life in the way that we nonmedical people understand the term–then it’s a much fuzzier question.
I only googled one of those doctors, at random, by the way; too lazy to google the others. Dr. Bowes turns out to be an antiabortion activist.
Hoodathunkit?
Daniel
OK. I still want to hear from jsgoddess, though, to whom my question was originally posted.
There probably are some, but I don’t know of any place where it’s legal, so it’s not likely to be public knowledge. I am confused, however, at your being perplexed that we would examine a hypothetical in a debate like this. Surely there have been women well into the 3rd trimester who decided they simply didn’t want the baby just as there are women who abort in the 1st trimester purely for convenience purposes. If it were legal, and if there were doctors who would perform the procedure, I expect we’d see some (though not many).
This is not an indictment of a woman making such a decision. Just that most people who call themselves “pro-choice” would not allow such a choice. You appear to be an exception.
Oh, heck, let’s check the others:
Dr. Michelin MATTHEWS-ROTH is a CNN guest speaker against stem cell research:
I think it’s fair to say that if she thinks that’s wrong, she is also anti-abortion.
I can find no web presence for Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni except for that one quote.
Jerome LeJeune was a French pro-life activist:
Professor Hymie Gordon was an anti-abortion activist:
There’s nothing wrong, IMO, with being an anti-abortion activist. But it’s a wee bit misleading to suggest that this is a collection of quotes from disinterested scientists: every one that I could track down had a definite political view on the issue before the political body. If that sample is representative, then it’d be much fairer to say that the Senate body elicited testimony from pro-life scientists on when life begins.
Daniel
No, a subcommittee of the US Senate.
Here are the current subcommittees. This one is not listed - it seems to have disappeared. When I googled for the subcommittee name, I only came up with the stuff you posted, and one editorial in a science journal called “Comments to the United States senate judiciary subcommittee on separation of powers A bill to provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception” - but I can’t read the editorial. Strange, that. It looks to me like this subcommittee existed for only one purpose.
I didn’t find any posts with rebuttals - pre-Web, to be sure, but perhaps this testimony was so bogus it didn’t matter.
And thanks to LHOD for looking up the testifiers - which I should have thought of.
You didn’t respond to the important point - that saying anything about the biology of conception says nothing about when life begins in the ethical sense. Showing scary pictures of fetuses doesn’t either.
Not to mention, if life did begin at conception, not only would we have to outlaw abortion, we’d have to outlaw a lot of birth control techniques. Is that what you want?
Now I’m curious about your views on “pro-life” people that would allow a rape/incest exception. Are they comparable to the “most [pro-choice] people” you describe who would accept a late-term exception? I mean, if you’re going to imply something disparaging (if that’s what you’re doing) about the latter, why not the former?